Demosophist has a post below on Obama’s childhood and background, suggesting that his upbringing is slightly more – exotic – than typically represented.
My initial response tends to be – so?
Look, let’s establish three things which I believe to be conclusively true about Obama:
1. He did have a somewhat exotic upbringing, compared to most of us.
2. He was absolutely brought up in the post ’68 cultural milieu which is much more open about folks like Bill Ayers and Reverend Wright than about, say, Pat Buchanan – who represents kind of a polar ideological opposite (without the moral baggage of the bombs, in the case of Ayers).
3. He’s a hardnosed and superb politician, with a golden tongue which allows him to dance around positions while being applauded by the voting public.
Are those things entirely bad?
I think I can make a good argument that each of them is in fact a net positive.
1. We live in an interconnected world in which we’re the biggest kid – but no longer so big, or so independent that we can tell the rest of the world to take a flying leap. The coming era will be one of cooperation with other countries – the critical question being which countries and on what terms. Having someone who has even a somewhat naive set of experiences that go past Ohio or Manhattan could be pretty useful in navigating those decisions and those negotiations.
2. We’re at the point in history when we are going to see politicians who grew up in the shadow of ’68. What they absorbed from it – there were good and bad things – and whether their values were shaped by it or in reaction to is certainly damn important. But I would no more criticize Obama for being raised in those values – and having some root comfort there – than I would criticize someone who was raised as “an Okie from Muskogee” and maintained attachment to some of the core values from there – even though I might also find some of those values ones I can’t support.
3. David Brooks, Andrew Sullivan, and John Cole have covered this one pretty well. here’s Brooks:
And Fast Eddie Obama didn’t just sell out the primary cause of his life. He did it with style. He did it with a video so risibly insincere that somewhere down in the shadow world, Lee Atwater is gaping and applauding. Obama blamed the (so far marginal) Republican 527s. He claimed that private donations are really public financing. He made a cut-throat political calculation seem like Mother Teresa’s final steps to sainthood.
…
I have to admit, I’m ambivalent watching all this. On the one hand, Obama did sell out the primary cause of his professional life, all for a tiny political advantage. If he’ll sell that out, what won’t he sell out? On the other hand, global affairs ain’ beanbag. If we’re going to have a president who is going to go toe to toe with the likes of Vladimir Putin, maybe it is better that he should have a ruthlessly opportunist Fast Eddie Obama lurking inside.
here’s Sullivan:
I never doubted his cunning or his charisma. It’s the combo that’s so lethal. Are the Republicans awake yet? The Clintons weren’t.
and Cole:
The best part of this election is about to start, though- we are going to be treated to months of folks on the right learning Obama really is not as liberal as they think he is and becoming upset that they can not simply attack him as a radical left-winger (although some morons will still continue with the Marxist nonsense because it is all they know), all the while having to watch left-wingers kvetch and moan as they learn he really is not as liberal as they thought he was and that he will move to the center to and compromise. Put together, it has the potential to be really damned amusing.
Look, Obama isn’t Chauncey Gardner. He’s not animating someone else’s empty suit.
But he is not so much about policies and programs – a Hillary-style politician – as he is about constituencies, the balance of power, and leverage. He has values – and yes, they are liberal, progressive values – but they aren’t embodoed in a shelf of three-ring binders he about to try and shove down our throats.
So bring it, bring on the exotic, the child of bead-wearers, the manipulative politician. There’s at least a sensible argument that something much like that is exactly what we need right now. Who he is is one reason I’m comfy supporting him. Whether he’s ready – that’s the question that makes me happy he facing McCain, not Huckabee or Romney.
_1. He did have a somewhat exotic upbringing, compared to most of us._
Does he use it? No. At one time, he did. But the sense is that he doesn’t trust the American people. He is not being straight with them and from there comes the authenticity gap.
In case there is any confusion, I think he should use it.
_2. He was absolutely brought up in the post ’68 cultural milieu which is much more open about folks like Bill Ayers and Reverend Wright than about, say, Pat Buchanan – who represents kind of a polar ideological opposite (without the moral baggage of the bombs, in the case of Ayers)._
I don’t understand this at all. This post-68 rationale seems to be the product of ‘68ers trying to tell younger people how bad, um, ‘68ers were? Yes, I admit I’m still not sure who Bill Ayers is and who he tried to kill. Ignorance is not acceptance.
_3. He’s a hardnosed and superb politician, with a golden tongue which allows him to dance around positions while being applauded by the voting public._
Not proven. Ask an Illinoisan. Obama, we hardly knew ya.
Now, if we had a Muslim President dedicated to helping Iraq form a stable (on the road to) democracy, that’s all that matters. I’d vote for such a person, even if he/she were a crazy Christian.
P.S. Still undecided though, partly because I think he is lying about things.
So, in other words, the guy’s a snake with a generally left-wing disposition.
Yuck.
Maybe I’ll spend the next few years in Shanghai, where at least the government generally leaves your wallet alone, and is run by get-things-done fascists. But probably not, and I’ll get the joy of having my marginal tax rate raised close to 60%, while being lectured about how I’m somehow “privileged” – even though I grew up in Section 8 housing and was raised by a single mom…
Jindal in ’12…
Foob, he’s a practical snake. That’s not necessarily a bad thing…
A.L.
Why did you insult C. Gardner? Even Gardner knows how many states there are in the union. As for mR. cOLES ASSERTION REGARDING HOW CONSERVATIVE oBAMA IS i’D JUST LIKE TO SHOW mR. cOLE SOME CHOICE BEACHFRONT PROPERTY i OWN IN Utah.
As for Buchanan being the opposite of Ayers, perhaps in your universe. In mine Buchanan opposie would be the Hildabeast. Obama’s has no opposite that exists on this moral plane.
I don’t know if anyone else ever listens to Dennis Praeger but one of his oft-repeated mottos is that “clarity is more important than agreement.†While I don’t care that much about public financing of political campaigns (although I’m against it), it actually is useful that Obama has so publicly demonstrated his lack of integrity this early in the race. It becomes one more data point for guy with no record to the contrary for people who will just now be getting to know who and what he is.
I noticed that AL has stopped using his line about his hopes for an elevated level of campaign between Obama and McCain now that his preferred candidate has decided to play dirty. That seems to be a trend amongst Obama supporters – after they give their reasons for supporting Obama, he does something publicly to contradict them and they’re forced to “revise†their reasons for supporting him.
Thorley – how has Obama started to play dirty?
A.L.
Any comments on McCain getting a loan based on his public financing expectations for the primary and then opting out of public financing for the primary himself?
The FISA compromise was, I think, a mistake on both the dynamics and the merits, but overall we have a candidate who doesn’t bring a knife to a gun fight. The secret must be keeping Bob Shrum far away.
No Bob Shrum is a point in Obama’s favor. Must be a post-’68er thing.
A.L.
Look, I’m perfectly okay with the exotic background, and all that stuff. But I’m having trouble with the “Wait until he unleashes his sinister cunning on our enemies” scenario.
It took the entire liberal Democratic establishment to bury Hillary Clinton for this guy, or she would still be in his face. MSNBC can’t save him from the Russians, too.
AL:
Well, that justifies your vote. However, it rests on the assumption that he’s actually not as “liberal” as we think. Simply put, I see no reason to believe that’s the case. But I have no idea whether he’ll ultimately take a Trumanesque turn. All I have to go on are his dodges and weaves. I lack faith. I’m very ashamed of m’self.
I think his values are liberal, but absent a Congress elected by MoveOn, and until he’s safely in Year 7 of his Presidency, those values are going to be held firmly in check.
A.L.
AL:
BTW, I don’t think he’s a “snake.” I’ve got no idea what’s behind the mask. None at all. Whether that’s a feature or a bug definitely depends on one’s perspective. Personality cults, or charisma, involve a suspension of rational skepticism. Moreover, they aren’t all bad. There was a personality cult surrounding George Washington that served the country pretty well, and he was also somewhat inscrutable. It’s a risk. I don’t think the risk is worth it, but you apparently do. I’m waiting for a sign…
A.L.
I heard the sane Democrats say exactly the same thing about Dukakis – Congress (i.e., Republicans) will never let him get away with being Eleanor Roosevelt. Or was it Eleanor McGovern?
We’ll never know if they were right, because the country decided not to hazard the experiment.
Obama is formidable, ruthless, smart, charming and probably unbeatable. I see a landslide brewing. If it happens, we will see a first 100 days comparable only to Reagan’s, when the country made a 180 degree turn.
Anyone calling him an empty suit is blind. This guy just came out of nowhere to decimate a political empire. I do not see a McCain led Republican Party getting any closer than 100 Electoral votes to him this year, coupled with a major loss in both Houses of Congress, a bona fide catastrophe.
This election is not about issues. It is about a generational and political sea change. The last time it happened was in 1980, before that 1960. Complaining about him being too liberal is like putting one’s faith in a Maginot Line. It may have been effective in the last war but, unfortunately not this one.
TO #14: Oh ye of little faith! I would point out
that sweeping “generational sea change” often seems so only in retrospect. In point of fact the JFK win was one of the closest in history (and would have been no “sea change” at all if not for graveyards in Chicago voting en mass) and the 80
election wasn’t even close to the landslides Nixon and Reagan produced. Given the zeitgeist of the times and the personal strengths of Obama that you so accurately spotlight, the Dems should win big, but as they say, “there’s many a slip twixt the cup and the lip,” so “should” may not necessarily translate into “will.” The geezers of my genera- tion and beyond may be old, but we vote with overwhelming regularity. In the Presidential election, at least, that fact may be enough–despite an uninspiring elephant at the lead.
Sorry, I was thinking of Carter four years previous. And anyway, Reagan’s win in 80 was less generational than it was disgust with the person and policies of the previous occupant–a younger man.
I believe we have now reached a new era in heights of hypocrisy. That AL can now laud a politician who changes his position as often as he changes his suit as being some kind of paragon of political action, seems to me to be a kind of arrogance that I thought ended with the fall of Communism. Newspeak is the new “Hope and Change”. O! has associated himself with a cast of characters that would have damned any other candidate had the MSM taken the time to look at them. The fact that he has thrown a fair number of them under the bus as they became a political liabilities, doesn’t seem to bother you? Who’s next? He has no integrity, loyalty and only inspires fear and loathing in more than half the population and you think he’s a winner? Jeeezz.
TOC #16:
I just want to make clear that I don’t think the US taxpayer should be liable for the massive psychotherapy costs should things not work out this way.
Jim #17:
Let’s tone down the hyperbole a little, huh? And hypocrisy is a longstanding institution in politics. There’d be no sovereign nations without it. Obama did what everyone expected him to do. Moreover, he’s also done something extremely unexpected and clever, by asking the 527s that were going to support him to dissolve. This allows him to control his own message, and also allows him to heap scorn on any 527s that “swiftboat” for McCain, demanding that McCain hold his in line as effectively as Obama has done. It’s a modest risk, for a big gain. And I, for one, am impressed.
But for all of that the Rasmussen Tracking Poll (far more accurate over the long haul than Newsweek) has it a dead heat election. I think there is a slow leak somewhere in the campaign, so the issue will be how fast they can pump. And if the leak gets any bigger, they may not be able to keep up.
I’ve been mulling over Marc’s thoughts for awhile, and I wonder if we could agree to pose the question in the following way:
“Senator Obama, you have stated in your own writings that you’ve attended Quoranic Studies in a Muslim school while living in a predominantly Muslim society in Indonesia during your formative years. In addition, you’ve also stated that if things went in “an ugly direction” (vis Muslims) you would stand with the Muslim community. Some people are concerned about the implications of these statements, as well as their precise meaning and intent. I wonder if you could clarify for voters who may be on the fence regarding your candidacy how the unique personal history and convictions to which these statement refer would be assets to an Obama Presidency?”
Is this brutally unfair to pose to a man seeking the most powerful position on the planet? If so, how would you amend the question to make it less harsh, or would you simply deem the entire issue out of bounds?
#16 from virgil xenophon at 10:29 am on Jun 21, 2008
Virgil my comments said that both a sea change and a generational shift are happening now. In ’60 it waws a genrational shift in ’80 it was a sea change. The more I see of Obama’s marketing, the more I see it’s roots in Reagan’s. Upbeat, Can Do, New Age dawning. Remember the Morning in America campaign and also that Obama went as far as invoking Reagan’s name as a president who inspired change during the Democratic primary.
during the primaries, I was with some friends watching results. Obama spoke and then McCain. I at 61 was the youngest person in the room. My friend said how is McCain going to win, he looks old to us. Frankly, I look at McCain and I feel like he is my grandfather.
His leading the ticket is going to wind up decimating the party. I cannot see how it can be allowed to happen. but somewhere part of Republican’s brains turned into those of democrats as demostrated by their self destructive ways.
#17 from Jim Katz at 5:58 pm on Jun 21, 2008
Jim, we are playing for all the marbles here. In the words of Leo Durocher, “Nice guys finish last.”
I thought that these sort of excuses only came from Democrats. “They Stole Florida” “They stole Ohio”. Did you really expect anything else out of Obama? This guy has already said that “If they bring a knife, we will bring a gun.”
The Republicans and especially those inside the McCain Campaign seem to have their head up a particular orifice and, quite frankly, after seeing the last month of McCain’s inept performance, it appears to be firmly implanted.
toc #21:
This is politics. Nothing much out of the ordinary. We’re winnowing multitudes of perspectives down to two, and the comparison to making sausage is flattering to meat.
That said, I’m really glad you recognize that money is equivalent to speech, and I’m sure you’ll uphold the same principle with regard to the “fair use” doctrine. Not that I ever had a doubt.
Obama is not going anywhere because he is, like Jackson and Sharpton, the “Black Candidate.” He can’t put the toothpaste back in the tube.
How many middle/working class whites live with Blacks, in Black Neighborhoods, work with Blacks, have Blacks as their friends, see Black Entertainment, send their kids to Black schools.
*crickets chirping*
America is possibly even more socially segregated, mostly by Black-White mutual design and agreement, than ever before. Obama wants measures that favor Blacks over whites, in crime, housing, affirmative action. It creates winners (Blacks) and losers (whites) and that will cause most whites to pull the lever for McCain.
Obama has never won and governed on the basis of making the white majority happy with his policies and personnel. He’s good at making speeches, appealing to yuppies and Spike Lee. Making Spike Lee happy will make the majority of voters unhappy. He’s Duval Patrick offering to raise gas prices even more, alongside spiking electricity prices.
He’s not going anywhere, see Kaus’s “Bradley Effect.” Forget the Muslim part, he’s Black. He can’t “un-Trinity” his 20 year association with hard, angry Black Radicals. He’s Sharpton on a diet. That’s it.
He’d be a disaster though. He’d certain put a “nuke me” sign on our cities, when it happened rush out and hug the first responders, explain how we deserved it. He’s weak, reflexively anti-American like Carter, filled with racist hatred towards whites, and has not a clue about the military or threats abroad. He honestly thinks he’s a Messiah and he can just hug Ahmadinejad or Osama into “peace.”
Jim #24:
OK, you’ve changed my mind. I’m voting for Obama.
Demosophist (#20), “unfair” to ask a politician to clarify himself, to take an unambiguous, unmistakeable stand? Of course that’s unfair! How can you even ask?
Please, leave O. along to triangulate as he pleases.
JFK would still have won even if Nixon had taken Illinois. Really.
Such faith in the dhimmierats to hold Obama in check. Somehow when Fordwas president I remeber the Dhimmierats selling out S. Vietnam, destroying our intelligence agencies and military. But once Carter was in place they really went to town giving away the Panama Canal and allowing the Russians to run wild.
Can you reassure again how the dhimmierats will hold Obama in check when they seem to by very easy going when it comes to restraining the policies of pre emptive surrender that they have exercised so often and so happily in the past. Did I forget to mention higher taxes?
AL, I left a snarky comment in the triangle thread, which was bad form for not having commented here in so long, so let me elaborate.
It’s not the values that Obama was raised in, it’s the ones he retains. And I can’t support those values – that simple.
As to him not being “that liberal” as John Cole conjectures – yeah, I think he is that liberal. And moving to the center on some issues isn’t going to persuade me.
Nobody is seriously disputing that Obama is a talented politician – i.e. a “practical snake”. Fine, and entirely a “dog bites man” story. Not necessarily a bad thing – agreed.
But that’s the deal breaker – because he’s such a good “practical snake”, I have no way of knowing that Obama really isn’t going to pursue a left liberal agenda once he’s elected. And no, I don’t believe Congress will be a sufficient restraint.
It’s too bad, because Obama has “adopted” a constituency before, and melded with it’s values, and represented them. Maybe he can do the same thing with _all of America_. Part of me wants to believe.
But none of me does.
…how has Obama started to play dirty?
Well, he’s already played the race card. If he loses, it will be because we are a racist nation, did’n’cha know?
It matters a lot to me that Obama is unusually unprincipled, even for a politician. I thought the signs of that were fairly clear even before he abandoned his election-funding principles the instant they became personally inconvenient.
It matters even more to me that he espouses the usual leftist policies of forcible income redistribution, trade barriers, pandering to unions, and a disastrously naive foreign policy.
I’d like to think that he was capable of thinking through foreign relations with anything like the clarity of his “if they bring a knife, we’ll bring a gun” crack, but I’m afraid he’ll reserve that kind of coldly practical tactics for his domestic enemies. On the foreign defense front, I look forward to nothing better than Carter-style haplessness, because his own ox probably won’t be the one getting gored, and — as I mentioned — he’s unprincipled. And I wouldn’t expect even a Republican Congress, let alone a “centrist” Democratic one, to ameliorate that harm.
#31 from Texan99:
bq. _”I’d like to think that he was capable of thinking through foreign relations with anything like the clarity of his “if they bring a knife, we’ll bring a gun” crack, but I’m afraid he’ll reserve that kind of coldly practical tactics for his domestic enemies.”_
I’m not the first to point out that Barack Obama is willing to negotiate with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, but not with John McCain over public election funding.
That Barack Obama will be tough on his domestic enemies and easy on the nation’s foreign enemies seems to be as well established as it could be before it’s put to the test in the White House.
Obama is a socialist who will do & say anything that helps him.
It has been almost 24 hours since I posed the question in #20 to Marc. He hasn’t posted since, and he’s had a critical issue to deal with regarding the death of one of Eric’s co-defenders of the Republic. Under the circumstances it’s not even remotely appropriate to “demand” a response, but I do think it would be nice. I think I can rather safely say that Marc would not object to the formulation of my question, which if I can reiterate, is this (with one modest typo correction):
Again, I think I can safely assume that Marc has no objection to such a query. But will anyone ask it? If not, why not? If so, what would the likely response be?
Hey, I think the guy could deal with this pretty handily. If he doesn’t, am I allowed to assume that he’s not the mensch he’s been touted to be? And if we’re justified in looking for a mensch as Commander in Chief, doesn’t that leave a rather obvious choice?
Demo – thanks for the thought; good timing since I just logged in.
No, I wouldn’t object to the question, and I’ll note that I’ve suggested – multiple times – that the way for Obama to inoculate himself against the kind of concerns that the question represents – about this many other issues in his background – is to provide some coherent narrative that acknowledges them and places them into some kind of comprehensible arc of belief.
I’d like to see that, and acknowledge that he’s going to get bruised by these issues until he takes some kind of steps like that.
A.L.
#34 from Demosophist:
bq. _”Hey, I think the guy could deal with this pretty handily.”_
Very handily, but without answering the question. Also, after deflecting the question safely, he would use it to paint the questioner and others as bigots, who if they didn’t vote for him would only be doing so out of race prejudice.
We know Barack Obama’s form so well by now that there’s no point in asking him.
#34 from Demosophist:
bq. _”And if we’re justified in looking for a mensch as Commander in Chief, doesn’t that leave a rather obvious choice?”
Unfortunately, no.
Armed Liberal has been a good guy in addressing concerns about Barack Obama’s ability to govern, if elected. That’s the issue.
Now I feel I have to raise the same issue regarding John McCain. And the only reason I haven’t made a post of it is I have nothing to add to this great post by doubleplusundead, “The Maverick stands alone, the Maverick stands alone” (link), except to point out the obvious implication. If this is your approach, and the consequence, and you’re too old to change, as John McCain seems to be, you’re not going to do a good job in an executive office. You can’t govern that way, it won’t work.
Ascending by attacking your partisan supporters only works when they feel safe enough to do what has to be done for your success anyway, and suffer your attacks with exasperation but impunity.
Now John McCain is the Republican Party’s presumptive nominee for President, he’s too strong for that to work. He must ease up on Republicans, because they can’t just assume that he won’t be able to hurt them too badly. But he hasn’t, and he won’t, and the consequences in the breakdown of a potential Republican attack machine are no longer to be avoided.
As an American President, he would be more powerful again, and support for him and for whatever policy he was proposing would be inhibited by fear that anyone who organized to help him would become a victim of one of his conservative on conservative attacks. He would have no allies except Democrats, and no way to move forward except by supporting Democrat proposals. And he’s probably too cantankerous to do that too, or I doubt he’d be smooth enough, often enough to get the job done.
There would be a few big things he would fight from from the first day he was in office till the last, mainly “comprehensive immigration reform”. Apart from that, he’d have to bend, run dead or fail or all of the above on everything, because he wouldn’t have the support needed to do his job as a leader.
Sometimes, making the troublemaker your leader works. In movies, it always seems to work. In real life, not so much. But in movies, there is more justification for continuous success with this trick, because the cliche works with a hot kid who tacitly agrees he has growing up to do. John McCain doesn’t agree he has growing up to do. He’s not adapting. He’s too old.
How in the hell did the GOP get in the position of having a 72 year old John McCain as their presumptive nominee? It boggles the mind.
A fair question (sorry I was sequestered all weekend and didn’t get a chance to respond until now). When I wrote “play dirty†I was thinking specifically of what appeared to be a promise to abide by public financing which Obama abandoned as soon as it became advantageous. While it’s possible that “plays dirty†may not be the best term for that sort of behavior, my larger point stands – for a guy who originally made “hope and change†his central theme, he’s revealing himself to be a rather unprincipled character.
David #36:
I too have some pretty serious misgivings about Mac’s executive capabilities. He was not a general officer in the service, and as far as I know has never served in an executive capacity. His political savvy is also rather wanting, as he demonstrated with the loss to GW in S. Carolina during the 2000 campaign (I think that was where it turned, if I remember correctly). That said, it’s a matter of choosing between competing risks. Barack has more upside potential, but also more downside potential. Do we need a surrender to charisma at this point in our history? I don’t know. Probably not, unless something rather untoward happens. And Barack’s executive experience is even less impressive than McCain’s. At least McCain was trained as an officer. Obama’s political acumen is much better though, or at least it comes more naturally.
Again, I need him to answer some tough questions while being put on the spot for me to get a feel for whether supporting him is really worth the risk. I don’t like the idea that he seems to think he deserves a pass on that stuff. It seems wimpy, elitist, etc..
Demosophist, don’t get me wrong: if it was my choice to make I’d pick John McCain in a heartbeat, because I’d rather live with three or four more of Justice John Roberts than three or four more of Justice Ruth Bader Ginzberg. Boumediene has reminded us again that President is not the highest office in the land, only the highest elected office, and you need to pick presidents on the basis of the sort of people they will elevate to the ultimate decision-making body. Also, John McCain was right on the surge when I was wrong, and he was willing to sacrifice his career over it. That’s evidence of judgment and great political courage. And there’s nobody I would trust more to fight pork and earmarks, without which there will be no reform of American politics, and without which the American economy will slowly bleed away its competitive edge.
But I think you have to look at the down side. It is significant, and it is not just one issue. It’s not MCain-Feingold alone. It’s not McCain-Kennedy alone. It’s not age alone, or temperament alone. It’s a whole approach to leadership and governing, combined with cantankerous old age.
Armed Liberal thinks the next president needs to generate a new myth for America. Barack Obama is his man.
Is it reasonable to argue against that that John McCain can do the same job better? I don’t think so. I think John McCain would have his work cut out keeping the White House functioning effectively from day to day.