Oh, Grow Up (Yet Another Obama Supporter Thinks Maybe He's Been Had)

by Damozel |More punditry over Obama's perceived tack toward the center.  As I've said before, I never get tired of saying 'I told you so' to people whose support for Obama was all for non-policy-based reasons.  He was charismatic, he energized the young, he made a thrill run up Chris Matthews' leg, he's the first black candidate ever with a shot at the presidency....All those things were true; what isn't true is that he ever committed (barring one or two hot issues, such as FISA and NAFTA) to a truly progressive agenda except when following the lead of one of the other candidates as a matter of strategy.

I didn't think he and I were on the same wavelength, and I worked this out by actually reading stuff instead of just getting ecstatic at speeches.  I'm glad I didn't vote for him because I don't think he's the best choice.  But that doesn't mean I don't support him now, warts and all, based on the fact that his views, while not all that cognate with mine in some respects, are way, WAY more so than John McCain's.

If his supporters are disillusioned, it's because they were too busy dancing to the beat to listen carefully to the words.  If people were taken in, it was by their own adolescent wish to believe that Obama was some sort of Democratic Messiah who would lead them into the promised land instead of an adroit, cagy Chicago politician with a gift for political rhetoric.

I do not agree that he has back-tracked on most issues (FISA and NAFTA being the exceptions).  Either he hadn't yet taken a position or he had announced his position at his website, in his books, or through his choice of advisers.  I'd call many of his positions (except regarding FISA) 'nuanced.' He spoke out today to 'reject charges of flip-flopping.'

He also said he hoped he could more generally counter "this whole notion that I am shifting to the center or that I'm flip-flopping or this or that."

"You know, the people who say this apparently haven't been listening to me," Obama said.... 

But Obama said he wanted his supporters to know that although he might not agree with each of them on every issue, when he differs it is not because he is playing politics.

 

"One of the things that you find as you go through this campaign is that everybody become so cynical about politics that the assumption is that you must be doing everything for political reasons," he said. "Don't assume that because I don't agree with you on something that it must be because I'm doing that politically." (Reuters)

   

I'm sure he is playing politics, but that doesn't bother me in and of itself.  I didn't expect to rejoice in his candidacy or anything.  If my beliefs don't at all align with his, at least we're on the same side of the fence --- John McCain has moved way out into right field.  It's not much, but it's something.

But his former supporters are doing exactly the same thing as before --- hearing the words and not the tune.  But instead of dancing with joy, they're not squirming with distaste.

If these people wanted a progressive president, they should have looked beyond Obama's aura of capital-C Change and listened to Edwards' proposals for actual change.

Bob Herbert discusses the inspiration of Obama's golden message of a new dawn and the painful crash of the hopes of those who were swept away by their enthusiasm.

One issue or another might not have made much difference. Tacking toward the center in a general election is as common as kissing babies in a campaign, and lord knows the Democrats need to expand their coalition.

But Senator Obama is not just tacking gently toward the center. He’s lurching right when it suits him, and he’s zigging with the kind of reckless abandon that’s guaranteed to cause disillusion, if not whiplash. (NYT)

It's sad that Americans are so susceptible to packaging that they just won't read the list of ingredients. 

I'm not saying that supporters shouldn't let him know when they're disappointed --- that's sort of the point of the process --- but I AM saying that they need to get their heads around the fact that he always was, as John Cole put it, a 'centrist-pragmatist,' never a progressive.

The only progressive in that campaign was the pretty-boy white trial lawyer from eastern North Carolina with the hick accent and the stories about poverty and people without health care.  But though he was cute as a button, he spent too much money on hair cuts and wasn't new and shiny.  He was effectively out by the time I went to cast my vote in Florida. 

Bob Herbert is saying now what those of us who didn't jump on the Obama Train were saying months ago --- in fact at the time of the below-cited Iowa caucuses --- that supporters were going to end up saying:

Mr. Obama is betting that in the long run none of this will matter, that the most important thing is winning the White House, that his staunchest supporters (horrified at the very idea of a President McCain) will be there when he needs them.

He seems to believe that his shifts and twists and clever panders — as opposed to bold, principled leadership on important matters — will entice large numbers of independent and conservative voters to climb off the fence and run into his yard.

Maybe. But that’s a very dangerous game for a man who first turned voters on by presenting himself as someone who was different, who wouldn’t engage in the terminal emptiness of politics as usual.

Time flies and the Iowa caucuses seem a very long time ago.

I had fun for a couple of weeks mocking people who are saying things like this, but I'm bored now. 

I mean...come on.  If twisting Obama's arm won't make him lurch to the left, all those progressives are going to vote for McCain or sit on their hands and let him win?  Please. 

As a very staunch Hillary supporter, I've been tired of Hillary supporters who care less about the issues, or Hillary's political beliefs or needs, and only about their apparently endless sense of grievance, drearily and endlessly reiterated.  That doesn't mean I don't think she was treated disgracefully --- I most certainly do think so.  And that doesn't mean I won't join in any effort to kick the DNC's collective can.   And having just endured several email attacks by Obama supporters who think they're somehow garnering support for their idol by having a go at any perceived support for Hillary, Christ knows I sympathize.

But it's becoming ridiculous.  Between O-bot true believers who won't allow anyone to hold  a nuanced position on Obama, Hillary supporters unhinged with grief and overflowing with bile, and Obama supporters who are suddenly having the blinders they themselves adorned knocked off their shocked and disbelieving eyes, Democrats have reduced the campaign to the level of a campaign for President of the Senior Class.

It's disgraceful.  I saw a Democrat ---a fellow Hillary supporter whom I have always respected --- seriously  argue that McCain probably wouldn't be as bad as 'the left' say. 

She said this just as if McCain himself weren't making every effort to assure us that he will (oh yes oh yes HE WILL) continue most or many of the heinous policies that's made the Bush Administration the disaster that it is.

So I am just saying to all my fellow Democrats:  GET A GRIP.  This election is about more than hurt feelings, disappointed expectations, dirty campaign tactics, the DNC's power trip, media bias, or sexism.  All those things are important and must be addressed in due course, but nothing on earth should be as important to Dems as getting the White House back from the Republicans --- along with the veto power, the power to appoint judges (on all federal courts, not just the Supremes), and Command of the Armed Services and American foreign policy, just to name a few.

Memeorandum is here.

RECENT  BN-POLITICS POSTINGS

Melissa McEwen & Maureen McCluskey: The Left's Campaign Against Hillary Clinton

Krugman:  How the GOP Made the Economy What it Is

McCain to Balance the Budget  And Spin Gold Out of Manure

Spitefulness Towards Obama:  Some Reflections 

Obama & Europe:  Will They Still Love Him Tomorrow?

Tracking the Course of the Bush-Cheney Juggernaut As It Lurches Toward Iran

How Uninformed is John McCain About the Economy?

Christian Conservatives Unite Behind McCain

Comments

[FF]

"endless sense of grievance, drearily and endlessly reiterated.". Thanks, this Hillary supporter will file this along with Obama's worry about women wanting a late-term abortion because they're feeling low.

You don't understand. I am at least as afraid of Obama being President as of McCain being President. And I can't remember a worse choice in my lifetime.

Obama has the ego, arrogance, and belief in his being destined to be President as Bush-Cheney combined. He has no experience. Nothing in his life gives me the remotest idea of what he wants to do or of what he would be willing to fight for. He has also shown himself to be just as uninformed about important matters as Bush. (Just listen to his unscripted, un-teleprompted interviews.) That he is a Democrat does not make me any less worried about how such a man will govern.

McCain is a known danger. The question for me is whether I want a wolf in sheep's clothing or a wolf in office?

Second, the new Democratic Congress might (yes, I realize that, given the craven history of the past two years, this is an outside hope) be able to mount and maintain an effective veto on McCain's worst ideas. But with a Dem. President in the White House, it will (esp. if the leadership remains in the hands of Pelosi and Reid) be forced to accept Obama's policies, no matter how Republican they are. (Please note: his econ. advisors are almost all from that wonderful Chicago School of Economics that has run this nation into the ground over the past 30 years.)

Perhaps most important, the media has put so much of itself into getting Obama the nomination, they are unlikely to provide any more effective oversight on Obama than they did on Bush. This might be the nail in the coffin of anything resembling an independent press in this country.

We cannot afford another 4 years of a President whom the Press believe to be beyond criticism.

[damozel]

I am aware of everything you say. I simply have a different view of the matter --- and much more fear of John McCain. I expect to see Obama coming cap in hand to the Dems he has angered. I love Hillary, by the way. She says he's the right candidate, and though --- if you were to look at our blog, you'd see that we had called Obama out for everything you say (including his limiting late term abortions to 'serious mental illness,' which is not the law.) Hillary has made it clear she doesn't intend to oppose Obama, even on issues where he's reversed (such as NAFTA or FISA).

McCain's views are FAR to the right of Obama's, particularly on women's issues. I have little faith in Pelosi, given that she is one of those --- with Rahm Emanuel --- after receiving over 20.000 from the telecoms --- abruptly changed her vote. I don't think she is capable of controlling or directing anything.

And I didn't mean you, of course. I'm sure you don't have an 'endless sense of grievance.'

My piece was mainly directed at progressive supporters of Obama, whom I blame for helping to shove him down my throat.

[Iguana]

Is this another "I gotta have it all my way, or no way at all" complainer? What is so hard to understand about the simple fact that not only liberal Democrats vote in the general election. The American public prefers candidates for President that are moderate. Even Bush ran as a moderate in 2000.

Of course Obama has moved to the center. Hillary would have done the same. Edwards, believe it or not, would have to. Or, they would loose the election and liberal Democrats would end up with nothing. 50% of sumtin' is better than 100% of nuttin'.