09
Jan
2008
Barack Obama is far from an empty suit
The reaction to my criticism of the response to Barack Obama’s Iowa victory speech—I said that the speech was rhetorically fluffy and the response was overheated—was fairly intense. The most pointed comments (not so much here as at the Smirking Chimp) were from people who see Obama as a hollow man.
Well, he’s not. He has coherent policies and he’s as capable of defending and advancing them as any of the candidates. What bothers me is the disconnect I see between what those policies offer, which isn’t substantially different from what any of the feasible Democratic nominees offer, and his rhetoric of change and hope. If those policies included genuinely universal health care coverage, or aimed toward a living wage, or otherwise promised some departure from the middle of the road on economic and foreign policy issues, I’d probably be jumping up and down too.
As it is, I can envision a grand new social and political coalition riding triumphantly into Washington and eventually leaving with nothing much to show for the victory beyond the victory. That would be tragic, mostly because I think it would mean that conditions for the poor, the working class and the middle class would have to get much worse than they are now for progressives to get another bite at the apple (making the cheery and possibly unwarranted assumption that they have one now but for the lack of nerve among the top contenders).
On balance, Obama’s presence in the race is a good thing. Whether or not he wins the nomination, he and John Edwards between them appear to have a shot at destroying or seriously damaging the death grip that the Democratic Leadership Council and their fellow travelers have had on the Democratic party for two decades. That wouldn’t have been possible without him, and it could have a lot of implications for Congress and the sort of House and Senate candidates Congressional Democrats choose to support and finance in the future. The question is whether Obama, if he wins, can avoid or would want to avoid being absorbed into that morass, to whatever extent he’s not already. His support of machine candidate Tammy Duckworth over the progressive Christine Cegelis for Henry Hyde’s seat in Illinois suggests that the answer is probably “no.”
My friend Jack says that an Obama win couldn’t help but have a salutary effect on our national psyche. That seems like a reasonable conclusion, although I think the mechanics of enlightenment would be seriously ugly, something along the lines of exposing and perhaps partially draining an enormous infected boil on the flesh of the body politic. If your criteria for candidate selection includes lancing national boils, then all other things being equal, Obama is certainly the way to go. That probably sounds snarky but it really isn’t; the response to his candidacy would include an explosion of racism and xenophobia, and it would be nice to see those things overcome if that were indeed the result.
Meanwhile, the fact that both Obama and Clinton are in Congress and have plenty of opportunities to demonstrate the sort of leadership they would provide as president seems to have escaped many of their supporters. Neither has much to show by way of results. Obama notes that he’s a very junior member of a very hidebound club, although one might reasonably expect an agent of transformative change to transcend institutional restrictions. Clinton was of course handcuffed by those same institutional restrictions on newbies, and perhaps even more by her need to prove that she wasn’t using the Senate solely as a springboard to the presidency.
But that’s all over now. They’re both in the race, have been for a while, and they’re still not leading the charge in the Senate for anything. Neither has had a moment such as Chris Dodd did in blocking the FISA legislation that would have immunized all and sundry from consequences of breaking the law for years at a stretch. Maybe that’s a reflection of the need to garner endorsements from their colleagues, or some forward-looking desire not to alienate anyone they’ll need should they win, but in that case they should be running on different slogans, maybe “Change, If They’ll Let Me.”
I don’t remember now where I read this, but someone recently said that the only reason Obama is being taken seriously is because he’s a man of color; a woman with the same limited experience would have been laughed out of the race long ago.
There’s an element of truth to that. Probably the only people who could run so well on such thin national service resumes are Obama and any halfway presentable and sufficiently well-funded white guy.
![[del.icio.us]](http://www.btcnews.com/btcnews/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/delicious.png)
![[Digg]](http://www.btcnews.com/btcnews/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/digg.png)
![[Google]](http://www.btcnews.com/btcnews/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/google.png)
![[LinkedIn]](http://www.btcnews.com/btcnews/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/linkedin.png)
![[StumbleUpon]](http://www.btcnews.com/btcnews/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/stumbleupon.png)
![[Windows Live]](http://www.btcnews.com/btcnews/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/windowslive.png)
![[Yahoo!]](http://www.btcnews.com/btcnews/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/yahoo.png)
![[Email]](http://www.btcnews.com/btcnews/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/email.png)
Weldon,
A few points and then I’ll give it a rest for awhile.
The DLC is alive and well as the results in New Hampshire establish (it wasn’t all about getting teary) together with the well organized Clinton campaigns in the big 2/5 states (including yours.)
I’ve always had difficulty understanding the claim of a significant or more significant resume for Senator Clinton. Her accomplishments were what again? And those of ex Senator Edwards?
Senator Obama is clearly a politician and a capable one. He soundly beat the party establishment’s candidate, Tom Hynes, in the primary for his U.S. Senate run. People say that run was easy because Ryan dropped out over a sex scandal and Alan Keyes was . . well, Alan Keyes. That’s true but the real contest was against Hynes and everyone in Illinois knows that. It should come as no surprise that good politicians are the ones that succeed in politics.
My guess is that this campaign is going to go the distance right up to the convention, including the Edwards candidacy, and we’re likely to see an actual convention, something that a majority of the voting public has never seen. Should that happen, it’s politics, politics, politics until something gets resolved and a nominee emerges.
The fact, should it prove to be one, that the competition will continue without any knockout makes it likely that positions and proposals will be sharpened, modified, and made more specific.
We live in frustrating but interesting and maybe productive times.
your friend, Jack
January 9th, 2008 at 2:20 pmHey, Jack. Re the DLC, that’s why I said they had a shot at dislodging the beast, not that they had or necessarily will. No argument on the experience issue—hence my point about the non-drooling white guys—although I do give Clinton points for having an extensive policy background. Not that it does me any good.
Returning to the defense issue one last time: I don’t argue that a lot of people share my views on how militarily well-hung the US needs to be; I’m just saying that, honestly, you just can’t label proposals to expand the size and budget of the military as progressive.
Anyway. Thanks for your patience and endurance.
January 9th, 2008 at 2:46 pmI think you both have a keen eye on the game, but it matters little what comes out of the “politics, politics, politics” … because it is always the same; empty words.
Does Obama even understand the real power of the presidency? The single biggest thing the president can do is control the currency; something no one has touched since JFK. Clinton has already proven that she’s an establishment candidate who will not even dare to do anything that would upset the FED. Obama, meanwhile, hasn’t said a word about how he intends to implement change; and the only how in his power would be the currency. Ron Paul is on the record, fighting against the FED; one presumes he would issue United States dollars instead of selling more debt at monthly Treasury auctions. But has he come out and said so?
Politics is hogwash. The bottom line is money. The president has the over riding largest influence on the nation’s money. Both Bush presidencies plunged this nation into the debt it is in now; financing the budget with Treasury auctions is financial suicide; we keep borrowing our own money from the FED, at interest, instead of printing it for ourselves; and this is happening on our own mints!
Americans are absolutely and completely ignorant of how the money works. We elect presidents with zero intentions of saving the nation or serving the people. We’ve been sold out by Congress since the very first Congress convened under George Washington’s first term. The Constitution intended the US Treasury to be a treasury; not a house of debt. You guys masterbate over the color or gender of the candidate and blissfully ignore all content that is vital to the future of the nation. The number one thing that a president has power over is the money… why haven’t our presidents ever spoke on the money? Because they all serve their backers, not the people.
January 9th, 2008 at 6:53 pmI have a hard time getting traction with Obama as a “salutary effect on the national psyche.” Like you Weldon, I expect a little more than campaigning as a uniter from a presidential wannabe. Consider that half the country thinks(thought!) the vehicle for repairing divisions is the right measure of folksy charm. I’ve got to think that the MLK-inspired oratory is the same sort of schtick, just engineered to a different audience. It doesn’t inspire me so much as it makes me suspicious.
I suppose that he’s got some plans stashed in there somewhere, and he should certainly employ the kind of charisma that’s natural for him…but I it would sure be nice if it were using it to push something more substantive than unity-n-hope.
January 10th, 2008 at 4:07 amKeifus, if you go to Obama’s web site you’ll find plenty of policy details. My concern isn’t that he doesn’t have policies, it’s that the ones he has don’t offer much of a break with previous centrist Democrat traditions.
Regarding his potential effect on the national culture, my take is that an Obama candidacy will undoubtedly bring the very worst instincts of the opposition to the fore, and if he won, those instincts will have been thoroughly aired and discredited. It’s not so much what he would do as president as the simple fact of him having got there despite the ugliness. That’s not enough for me to muster any enthusiasm for him, but it’s something to think about.
January 10th, 2008 at 5:47 amDear lazy voters,
If you don’t know details about Barack’s plan for change, that’s your own fault.
The thing about knowledge is: you have to actively seek it. It’s not just going to fall in your lap.
Corporate media (abc, nbc, cnn, etc…) isn’t going to cover important details. They’re going to show the first 10 seconds of his speech and then cut to a story of a local squirell that can waterski.
Please visit Barack’s website for detailed information about his stance on the issues:
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/
January 10th, 2008 at 10:36 amOkay, I am the laziest voter in America so I figure you was talking to me. So I read the plan for the economy and it isn’t going to fix the problem; it doesn’t even list the problem. In fact, no one ever mentions the problem, not even Ron Paul. The problem is debasement of currency. To fix that we need to write our own money, stop borrowing our own money from this private sector bank that claims to be a Federal Reserve. That is just a start. Then we need to pass some actual banking reform in Congress; and what we need to change is fractional banking; fractional banking is criminal and it utilizes every sort of crime to function. Outlaw any loan that is not backed by 100% reserve; outlaw fractional banking and the paper money will be as good as gold. finally, we need to outlaw compound interest in bank loans; fuck the tax break for enormous interest payments; outlaw tyhe damn enormous interest payment; only allow simple interest and watch how fast Americans begin to own their own homes again.
We need a president with balls, one with courage to stand up to the bankers. That’s the real problem; that’s what causes the problem Obama lists…
THE PROBLEM
Wages are Stagnant as Prices Rise
While wages remain flat, the costs of basic necessities are increasing. The cost of in-state college tuition has grown 35 percent over the past five years. Health care costs have risen four times faster than wages over the past six years. And the personal savings rate is now the lowest it’s been since the Great Depression.
Tax Cuts for Wealthy Instead of Middle Class
The Bush tax cuts give those who earn over $1 million dollars a tax cut nearly 160 times greater than that received by middle-income Americans. At the same time, this administration has refused to tackle health care, education and housing in a manner that benefits the middle class.
It’s the currency, stupid. Fix the money and you will fix the problems.
January 12th, 2008 at 9:42 am