Obama-bashing has made gonzo political performance artists into celebrities;corporate hacks into Thomas Paine wannabes. So where does one look for some common sense these days? To Narco News. And to the New York Times Op-Ed page. (Don't tell any one I read either one.)
Al Giordano says that the people who are outraged at Obama over the FISA vote are not going to abandon him over it; they will just threaten to abandon him all over again on the next issue. That sounds just about right.
It turns out that being a community organizer is good training to run for President. People have been threatening to do all sorts of things to Obama if he does not do this or that, for the past twenty years. Obama learned to listen. And to ignore. Gail Collins points out that many on the Libertarian Left , which wants Obama to listen to them or else, has not been listening to Obama.
it is not just the hacks and gonzos that are after Obama these days. Jesse Jackson wants to cut his nuts off. Obama has always, long before he was running for President, been talking truth about the importance of fathers fulfilling their responsibilities. Jesse wasn't listening until Obama became a candidate.
Congresswoman Wassermann Schultz wants Obama to woo Clinton supporters, who are oh-so-hurt over her loss. Obama goes to a fund-raising meeting with Clinton the next day and almost forgets to ask people to contribute to erase the Clinton debt. Almost. He knows just how much to give in.
Baroness Lynn Forester de Rothschild, a Clinton supporter and British Tycoon, calls the man who grew up on food stamps an elitist. Do you have to courtesy when you listen to a Baroness on YouTube?
That is how it goes these days. Everyone wants Obama to listen to them. Very few are listening to Obama.
But nowhere is the anti-Obama rhetoric angrier than among the libertarian left. Those long flights from Brazil to New York give you lots of time to get all worked up over the fourth amendment. Never mind that if you are living in Brazil, there is no American law that prevents the President from listening into your phone calls anyway.
Obama has been amazingly consistent in his speeches. He has said all along that he is a compromiser. Some of us just did not listen. Read again what he said right here on DKos, back in 2005:
According to the storyline that drives many advocacy groups and Democratic activists - a storyline often reflected in comments on this blog - we are up against a sharply partisan, radically conservative, take-no-prisoners Republican party. They have beaten us twice by energizing their base with red meat rhetoric and single-minded devotion and discipline to their agenda. In order to beat them, it is necessary for Democrats to get some backbone, give as good as they get, brook no compromise, drive out Democrats who are interested in "appeasing" the right wing, and enforce a more clearly progressive agenda. The country, finally knowing what we stand for and seeing a sharp contrast, will rally to our side and thereby usher in a new progressive era.
See, Obama has been listening. Or reading. This is what we write and say here. It is what I have written often myself. Long after he wrote this passage.
I think this perspective misreads the American people. From traveling throughout Illinois and more recently around the country, I can tell you that Americans are suspicious of labels and suspicious of jargon. They don't think George Bush is mean-spirited or prejudiced, but have become aware that his administration is irresponsible and often incompetent. They don't think that corporations are inherently evil (a lot of them work in corporations), but they recognize that big business, unchecked, can fix the game to the detriment of working people and small entrepreneurs. They don't think America is an imperialist brute, but are angry that the case to invade Iraq was exaggerated, are worried that we have unnecessarily alienated existing and potential allies around the world, and are ashamed by events like those at Abu Ghraib which violate our ideals as a country.
He has been listening to the American people too. Folks, the man has a point. You will get no where in American politics if you start off with the premise that corporations are evil. Most of us, most of the bloggers even, work for corporations. Random House, arm of a corporate conglomerate, publishes the books of many bloggers who like to rant against evil corporations.
Being anti-corporate is a good way to vent or rant. It is a bad way to make a living, unless you are writing for a corporate publisher. Even worse a way to succeed at politics. Obama knows that. And he makes no bones about it. Why did some of us not listen to him when he talked to us directly here?
Suspicious of jargon. Before getting all lathered up over FISA, go outside ask the first two people you meet what the acronym FISA stands for. Now you will understand why Obama does not want to risk his political future over it. Before attacking Obama, make a pledge to educate two voters on what FISA is; and I don't mean on this blog.
Obama is hard to pin down as a Liberal; or a centrist. He has crafted his own niche, which is to be against dumbness. He is against all things dumb. Which happens to be a good thing after eight years of W.
Let me be clear: I am not arguing that the Democrats should trim their sails and be more "centrist." In fact, I think the whole "centrist" versus "liberal" labels that continue to characterize the debate within the Democratic Party misses the mark. Too often, the "centrist" label seems to mean compromise for compromise sake, whereas on issues like health care, energy, education and tackling poverty, I don't think Democrats have been bold enough. But I do think that being bold involves more than just putting more money into existing programs and will instead require us to admit that some existing programs and policies don't work very well. And further, it will require us to innovate and experiment with whatever ideas hold promise (including market- or faith-based ideas that originate from Republicans).
Did you read this before you decided to support Obama? I did. I disagreed with much of what the man had to say. But he made me think. He made me re-evaluate many of my own positions. Gave new perspectives on why we have been losing and how we can win again. How to get this country out of the ditch that W. and friends drove us into.
I still don't agree with everything he is saying. I think he was wrong to vote for the FISA compromise. But this is Obama. He is doing what he said he would always do. Not stand on some blind principle on one issue if it would prevent him from moving forward on some other front. That is how will beak the traffic jams the right wing has set up for us. He will go around them. He was telling us that in so many words. He took the opportunity of a vote with which we agreed (against Judge Roberts) to send us a warning that he thinks very differently from us.
Some of you scream. You threaten to abandon the Obama ship over it. In the end, if you are rational people, you will see that the best course is to stay with Obama. And threaten to abandon ship all over again when the next issue comes up.
But was it wrong to try and convince Obama to change his position? No. He needs to hear from us. He says so himself.
In that spirit, let me end by saying I don't pretend to have all the answers to the challenges we face, and I look forward to periodic conversations with all of you in the months and years to come. I trust that you will continue to let me and other Democrats know when you believe we are screwing up. And I, in turn, will always try and show you the respect and candor one owes his friends and allies.
Obama is going to make radical compromises again and again. He will occasionally annoy us all. But he will remain a friend and ally. And our best hope. That is why he will make a great President.
