by Damozel | On this July 4, Barack Obama is drawing a lot of criticism from some who were previously anxious to support him.
A New York Times editorial calls out Obama for his numerous failures to support the hopes of liberals that they finally had a champion worthy of the glory of their cause. They aren't pleased with his most recent incarnation of the swing voter's Democrat. And it's not just the so-called 'far left' that is reeling with shock. In fact, even very moderate Democrats --- i.e., those who support a liberal agenda without necessarily wishing to see it implemented without some concession to the feelings of the opposition --- are shocked; shocked, I tell you!--- to learn too late what Obama is really about. Once again, I can only shrug and say, 'Weren't you listening?'
In fact, I don't think I'm ever going to get tired of saying, 'We told you so' to his champions on the far left. Another time, maybe they'll read the fine print.
While I think there is some justification in his supporters complaining of 'bait and switch' tactics, his frequent disingenuousness during the primaries --- when he had to persuade the party's progressive wing to give him the nod --- was easily visible to those of us who took the time to compare his campaign rhetoric with other sources of information such as: his books, his website, and the statements of his advisers. And sadly for him, his flip-flop on the major issue of FISA has --- as this blogger points out --- tended to cause those who didn't listen to him closely during the campaign accuse him of reversing himself even when he's being consistent.
All the same, some supporters feel they've been had.
Senator Barack Obama stirred his legions of supporters, and raised our hopes, promising to change the old order of things. He spoke with passion about breaking out of the partisan mold of bickering and catering to special pleaders, promised to end President Bush’s abuses of power and subverting of the Constitution and disowned the big-money power brokers who have corrupted Washington politics....
Now there seems to be a new Barack Obama on the hustings. (NYT)
I deny this. When Obama said that he would break 'out of the partisan mold of bickering and catering to special pleaders,' he was promising to do exactly what he is now doing. While I agree that the progressive wing of the party has solid grounds for feeling that they've been victimized by the old 'bait and switch,' I think they are more to be blamed than Obama for any dismay or disappointment they may be currently feeling.
Now he's going to be reaching out to the hypothetical 'swing' voters: those who don't decide how to vote based upon party lines and who can be assumed to be, and doubtless are, sympathetic with views from both sides of the spectrum.
Joe Gandelman has challenged Arianna Huffington's recent cri de coeur in which she argues Obama should just forget about those swing voters, and concentrate the promises Democrats who supported him thought he was making to them during the primaries.
Is it wise for anyone to ignore those people whose loyalties aren't given to either party? Joe asks. And elsewhere he writes:
Both Obama and McCain share one other thing in common: they do not want to lose and know that they cannot win if they ignore swing voters.
I don't know if this is true, partly because I am not sure what 'swing voter' means anymore or which issues on which progressives accuse Obama of backing and filling would appeal to 'swing voters.' Is there any way to know? Do swing voters think the new version of FISA (with its further inroads against the fourth amendment) and telecom amnesty (with its protection of the telecoms from the discovery procedures that attach only to civil lawsuits) are good for the nation? Do they want the death penalty extended to rapists? Etc. I go back and forth about this, depending on the daily polls.
Today he's taken a beating in the media as a result of his concession that he can't actually say for certain that he'll get the troops out of Iraq by his promised deadline; he may be forced along the way to refine his policies to meet changed circumstances. I find myself unperturbed by this, considered solely from the standpoint of its intrinsic reasonableness. Of course he can't. Hillary said as much during the primaries.
But Obama's willingness during the primaries to say he could set a date was a major selling point for his campaign. As Ron Chusid points out at Liberal Values, Obama's surrogate Susan Power made it clear that the withdrawal deadline wasn't set in stone, though since Power was subsequently fired, perhaps it's understandable that some people who weren't listening thought Obama was repudiating this statement as well as Powers' public characterization of Hillary as a 'monster.'
Of course, anyone who stops to think about it for five minutes has to know that this date can't be fixed or firm. How can it be? As Polimom writes at The Moderate Voice, any other position would be irresponsible. But Jonathan Weisman, reporting for WaPo, reflects the view of those who just weren't listening very closely by framing his current 'refinement' of his plan as one more move designed to 'ease him toward the political center.'
"My 16-month timeline, if you examine everything I've said, was always premised on making sure our troops were safe," Obama told reporters as his campaign plane landed in North Dakota, a state no Democratic presidential candidate has carried since 1964. "And my guiding approach continues to be that we've got to make sure that our troops are safe, and that Iraq is stable. And I'm going to continue to gather information to find out whether those conditions still hold."...
Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee, has long said the nation "must be as careful getting out of Iraq as it was reckless going in." During his hard-fought primary fight with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, he stuck to that 16-month timeline, building support for his candidacy among antiwar voters leery of the depth of Clinton's commitment to a pullout. (WaPo)
Like many Hillary supporters, I've said from the start that Obama's position on Iraq was never very different from Hillary's. As former staunch Hillary-supporter, Taylor Marsh, jumping in to defend Obama, writes: 'Throughout the primary season one of the things that infuriated me the most, something I highlighted often, was that the difference between Obama and Clinton on Iraq going forward, if either one became president, was non-existent. What's now playing out further proves it.'
This isn't a change in position, but a careful nuancing of an undertaking that a rational person would understand had to be qualified. But is it true that he 'always' made this clear? Marc Ambinder writes:
It's true that he has said what he says he said, and has said it for more than a year. But he hasn't always said it -- with "always" meaning on every occasion that he happened to mention troop withdrawals.
So there may be a change of emphasis, rather than a change of position, consonant with the facts on the ground -- which is, to Obama's credit, what he, in more reflective moments, said he would base his Iraq policy on.
Besides:
In his second news conference Thursday, Mr. Obama laid out his proposal in less-ambiguous terms.
“Let me be as clear as I can be,” he said. “I intend to end this war. My first day in office I will bring the Joint Chiefs of Staff in, and I will give them a new mission, and that is to end this war — responsibly, deliberately, but decisively. And I have seen no information that contradicts the notion that we can bring our troops out safely at a pace of one to two brigades a month, and again, that pace translates into having our combat troops out in 16 months’ time.” (New York Times)
As SusanUnPC says, any antiwar supporters who feel betrayed by his clarification of what he's always said have only themselves to blame.
It’s unfortunate that Barack Obama won instant supporters based on the “buzz” about a single speech against the war in 2002 — a speech so little noted by Chicago media that it had to be recreated in a studio for Obama’s campaign ads (see “The Staged Iraq War Speech & More “Creative” Embellishments“). A single speech never followed by further actions or even more words. Ambassador Joseph Wilson says that he looked everywhere for help before the Iraq War, and never once heard about Obama, let alone heard from him....
It’s very easy to see why people would be drawn to a candidate who professed to be against the war early on and assured them, in speech after speech, that he’d end it quickly.
After eight years of George Bush and Dick Cheney, people were so desperate they were seeking a “savior.”
But, that’s never how it works out in the real world, only in movies. And that’s especially how it never works out in politics. (No Quarter)
Progressives give him a pass on his 'refinement' of his war policy, but the media is all over it.
As for me, I am trying even so to accept him as my candidate, while never ceasing to wish it had been either of the other two, both of whom I consider more on my side of the issues than Obama. Perhaps it is damning him with faint praise to argue that he's better on all issues of interest to me as a moderate liberal than is the current incarnation of John McCain.
The New York Times vents disillusionment in tones of mild and reasoned dismay. After discussing his 'shifts' in policy, the editorial says:
On top of these perplexing shifts in position, we find ourselves disagreeing powerfully with Mr. Obama on two other issues: the death penalty and gun control.
Mr. Obama endorsed the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the District of Columbia’s gun-control law. We knew he ascribed to the anti-gun-control groups’ misreading of the Constitution as implying an individual right to bear arms. But it was distressing to see him declare that the court provided a guide to “reasonable regulations enacted by local communities to keep their streets safe.”
What could be more reasonable than a city restricting handguns, or requiring that firearms be stored in ways that do not present a mortal threat to children?
We were equally distressed by Mr. Obama’s criticism of the Supreme Court’s barring the death penalty for crimes that do not involve murder.
Yah, me too.
And what will progressives have to say about his expression of his opposition to late term abortions to prevent mental distress to the mother (TalkLeft)? As Jeralyn notes, this position isn't particularly popular with either pro-choice advocates or the anti-choice religious right. Melissa McEwan, who --like Jeralyn -- was never aboard the Obama train, is furious.
At Salon, Glenn Greenwald has listed in a July 1 piece some of the other ways in which Obama's last two weeks have clarified where he doesn't stand.
In the last two weeks alone, Obama has done the following:
*intervened in a Democratic Congressional primary to support one of the worst Bush-enabling Blue Dogs over a credible, progressive challenger;
*announced his support for Bush's FISA bill, reversing himself completely on this issue;
*sided with the Scalia/Thomas faction in two highly charged Supreme Court decisions;
*repudiated Wesley Clark and embraced the patently false media narrative that Clark had "dishonored McCain's service" (and for the best commentary I've seen, by far, on the Clark matter, see this appropriately indignant piece by Iraq veteran Brandon Friedman);
*condemned MoveOn.org for its newspaper advertisement criticizing Gen. Petraeus;
*defended his own patriotism by impugning the patriotism of others, specifically those in what he described as the "the so-called counter-culture of the Sixties" for "attacking the symbols, and in extreme cases, the very idea, of America itself" and -- echoing Jeanne Kirkpatrick's 1984 RNC speech -- "blaming America for all that was wrong with the world";
*unveiled plans "to expand President Bush's program steering federal social service dollars to religious groups and -- in a move sure to cause controversy . . . letting religious charities that receive federal funding consider religion in employment decisions," a move that could "invite a storm of protest from those who view such faith requirements as discrimination" -- something not even the Bush faith programs allowed.
That's quite a two weeks.
Yes, it was --- especially for those who didn't bother to rub the fairy dust from their eyes before inspecting the packaging or even to inspect the package at all. Greenwald was never one of those and he's right that Democrats should be prepared to put pressure on Obama --- while he is still in the Senate and certainly if he's elected --- to do the right, meaning the left, thing.
But there it is: he's our candidate. Like it or not, he's what the party has given us. So we'd best accept that he isn't the Progressive Hero some chose to believe.
READ MORE AT MEMEORANDUM
RECENT RELATED POSTINGS
How Uninformed is John McCain About the Economy?
Christian Conservatives Unite Behind McCain
Obama and MoveOn.org (and FISA and NAFTA): Does the "Center" Include Repudiation & Reversal?
A Review of the Freestyle Flip-Flopping of John McCain
When the Center Cannot Hold: Obama's Campaign
Comments