Deep Sixing the Obama Vessel
By Marcus Traianus Comments (33) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
The recent thoughtful opining by the press and others on Barack Obama is very nice, feel good reading. It makes me think of tall fragrant grass, fresh summer winds and other calming thoughts. Frankly, it is a pleasant fantasy which distracts from daily concerns such as potential terrorists attacks, talk of retreat and impeachment. Anyway, what better oxymoronic satire could you envision than one involving a trusted politician as the main character? It is a glorious vision of panacea and nirvana all in one. Unfortunately for the perpetrators, truthful pursuit does not end before the journey begins.
Mr. Obama is of course a Democrat, which is a fact most currently demote to the background while attempting to preen his image by throwing out platitudinous words such as bipartisan. Accordingly, he is a member of that party for the principle reason it better represents his political positions. Try as he might to define himself based on appealing to conservative Republican values, he is not a conservative acolyte. It is a simple dichotomy that gets lost in iterative translations of his positions. Ask yourself, what has Mr. Obama done to deserve this praise? In response the collective silence is deafening and not filled with many consistent facts. It is roused to a crescendo with appealing platitudes and applause for his “walk the line” positions. To the intellectual examiner, that usually signals an issue requires further examination. However, intellectuals are a slow lot; that happens when one tries to gather facts and articulations which conclusively answer questions. Translation; the future analysis is much more important than the present hype.
Accordingly, there is further scrutiny necessary to understand Mr. Obama’s carefully crafted positions and statements on various issues. In an attempt to force him as a candidate, many would like to believe Mr. Obama’s constant straddling of issues is an honest reflection of his values. Well, many of us would still like to believe in Santa Claus, but that does not make him a good political candidate. We collectively thirst for a new face to fill the principled stands discarded over the past few years like some needless accoutrement. Therefore we seek out what we believe will cure those ills; grasping at indications of a nascent savior like a starving animal moves towards scraps. The disappointment comes in finding the scraps were only a mirage and a product of challenging time in the wilderness. I will therefore spend my time examining the true, principled conservative candidates who have actually taken reasonable positions on today’s issues. Not some dressed up creation aimed at independents, fence sitters and Oprah fans who should be offended at the ignominious Three Card Monty currently being perpetrated. Please forgive me if I remain extremely skeptical about the MSM and their motives for promoting Mr. Obama. After the continual beating our President has taken from their liege, I am appropriately shell shocked by the sheer volume of specious characterizations and shameful parochial political promotion disguised as journalism. By the way, Mr. Obama fits into this overt practice of journalism “lite”.
It is not hard to imagine the outrage once scrutiny begins shedding light on Mr. Obama. That practice is speciously reserved for Republican’s. We have already heard about M. Romney’s Mormon albatross, Mr. Giuliani’s wives, etc. Yet Mr. Obama’s middle name, Hussein, was brought up and screams of sacrilege were heard across the collective MSM world. This is a developing sign of the modus operandi to come where John R. Edwards “Two America’s” springs to life. The first America is for Democrats and the MSM where rock throwing gets characterized as intellectual pursuit; the second America is for the rest of us who are fallaciously positioned as ugly, smearing clones of Karl Rove bent on corruption.
Since the Illinois Senate proceedings are a matter of public record, I decided to start with examining one issue which is abortion. In 2001 the Illinois Senate was debating a bill similar to one passed overwhelmingly by the U.S. House and Senate (Born Alive Infant Protection Act H.R. 2175) See the Presidents remarks upon signing Federal law in August 2002.
Here are all the related Illinois Senate bills associated with that effort which Mr. Obama voted “present” to (such courage!);
Bill SB1093 Amends Illinois abortion law
Bill SB1094 Induced Birth Infant Liability Act
Bill SB1095 Amends Statutes and Provides “Born Alive Infant”
It appears at one point Mr. Obama tries to express his concerns are based on Constitutional grounds. His argument is that extending Equal Protection to a fetus is unconstitutional and basically make the bill an anti abortion statute;
”Number one, whenever we define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or other elements in the Constitution, what were really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a – a child, a nine-month-old – child that was delivered to term. That determination then, if it was accepted by a court would forbid abortions to take place”
Barrack Obama, During debate on Illinois SB1093
Frankly, I thought that concern was mitigated by another branch. It is also not a reason to demur when one feels passionately about an issue so simplistic and basic to the proliferation of human life. Mr. Obama appears to not be in that group. He followed up with an argument related to a doctor’s responsibility to provide treatment for a “previable” child;
Viability is the line that has been drawn by the Supreme Court to determine whether or not an abortion can or cannot take place. And if we’re placing a burden on the doctor that says you have to keep alive even a previable child as long as possible and give them as much medical attention as – as is necessary to try to keep the child alive, the we’re probably crossing the line in terms of unconstitutionality”
Barrack Obama, During debate on Illinois SB1093
Mr. Obama also voted against a later version of BAIPA which attempted to define babies born alive as “persons”. Gee, what a caring, leader, humanist and man for all Americans he is.
Now, this is just one issue. Illinois Senate records are open to all who are interested and the season for tough questions begins now.
The best candidate in America? Hardly, and I say let the real examination commence because I have just reached my limit on examining the other parties candidates.
How often are Dems really concerned about substance over image and speaking ability?
If you always find yourself arguing the exceptions rather than the rule you just might be rapidly sliding down your own slippery slope to irrelevance. -CommonCents
However, I'd at least point you to the Lamont-Lieberman race in Connecticut for some degree of evidence that Dems, too, yearn for clarity and conviction.
As far as Iraq was concerned, anyway, both Lieberman and Lamont had it. In fact, I'd argue that Lamont had more of it. Granted, Lamont turned out to be a pretty chestless candidate outside of that one issue. But he couldn't have been more clear about Iraq, what we ought to do, etc.
And he won that primary race.
I get a sense that you're alluding to Bill Clinton here. And there's no question that much of WJC's political fortunes rested on his ability to straddle fences. But Clinton had one incredibly important thing that Obama will not have in '08: experience. He'd been governor of Arkansas for 10 or so years at that point and was well-respected in that capacity.
Also, let's not forget that we're in a post-9/11 world here.
We understand that Obama is a media creation. In more serious times, say, World War II, people like Obama wouldn't have gotten past the Illinois House without another five years of seasoning. Truman was a product of the Prendergast Machine, for God's sake.
We know this. The harsh light of the Primaries will force Obama to take stands he has so far been avoiding. Be advised, however, that your exposes on abortion are actually positives in a Democratic Primary environment. The Press will eventually turn on him, simply because the Clintons have invested too much money and too much time in the press.
The reason why Republicans want to encourage him to run is rather simple: the news media move in a pack and are dead tired of Hillary and the Clintons. They smell Camelot and Jack and Bobby again and are all agog about it. If this forces Hillary into a vicious three way primary (encouraging Big Al, the New Nixon to jump back in) then we're in for great fun and popcorn all the way round), while Rudy and Romney sort things out among the adults. Hillary has already had to move forward her planning to adjust for the Obama boom.
At all costs, a cost free coronation for She Who Must Not Be Named must be avoided, so that our nominee (who I suspect will be Rudy) can mop the floor with her in the General.
What is left unsaid is what more and more Democratic Money people, especially in Hollywood are coming to realize: Hillary is Yesterday's News. No one, and I mean NO ONE is excited about her candidacy. But Barack is developing a "Bobby" kind of cachet about him.
Good for us. Bad for Hillary. Why? Because when we nominate a good candidate, someone who has the Common Touch, as Kipling called it, candidates like Obama and Clinton lose on their liberalism alone.
Ronald Reagan proved that.
"History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it"-Winston Churchill
I am not sure if that is an attempt at humor or misguided opining.
A couple of points;
- This is not very obvious to a plurality given the amount of attention
- Glad my “exposes”(sic) on abortion are a positive for Democrats (you missed the point)
- Rudy is subject for another day
Otherwise, I agree with some of your points on Hillary (although she has a bit more Hollywood support then opined) and the positive effect this provides for Republican’s. I only hope we use the time constructively.
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
His liberalism is "obvious" to Redstaters, which is what I'm saying. Just not to the country, which is part of what you were saying. People can be gulled.
But we want him in the race. Chris Bond makes the point that a lot of conservatives are scared of the guy. I don't agree. He's remained deliberately vague to keep that Kennedy thing going on. However, that won't end until the charm wears off. I think he can be taken to the cleaners against a Romney or a Rudy. I think Rice would treat him like a red headed stepchild in a VP debate.
But what's revealed here is the thin bench in the Democratic Party that a guy with this thin a resume is considered Presidential timber. Says a lot about their party. Also tells me that Hillary is yesterday's news.
"History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it"-Winston Churchill
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
...Hollywood or otherwise.
I tend to think David Geffen said what was on a lot of peoples' minds when he said that ambition alone really isn't enough. They suspect that she'd have a tough time in the general election, for various reasons.
I tend to agree with the above poster that very few people are excited by the prospect of a Hillary candidacy. And I suspect this is because they feel that she'd be hard to beat in the primary and struggle in the general.
And that's one reason that there's excitement about Obama. He's got a couple things working for him. One is that he's likeable -- which is huge in presidential elections (and something Hillary struggles with). Two is that he doesn't have any of the baggage -- including the uncomfortable sense that we'd go Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton in the presidency.
Number three is he does not have any record that has actually been researched. Plus his run against Keyes was not even a contest.
I would agree he is the anti-Hillary used as a wedge on squishy Hollywood types. Their environment is not unlike the Democrat Party at large, very factionalized. The ultra liberals do not like her stand on the war and other issues. There are others, which you correctly identify, that for various reasons don't think she can win a general.
What does this mean for us? Opportunity and we should use it to rebuild consensus and support the best candidate.
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
Obama may be vulnerable to "opposition" research, from Hillary Rodham Clinton. Before she carpet-bagged to Arkansas, then to New York, she grew up in the Chicago suburbs. She might find something to bring him down.
The bad news: Conservatism is hard to sell. The good news is that it works.
I'm just not as sure as you are that it's an asset for Obama.
The conventional wisdom in presidential politics, particularly if you've spent most of your career as a legislator, is that your record will come back to haunt you because certain votes can be spun to sound much worse than they really were.
There's certainly truth to that -- but only insofar as you're typically running against at least one opponent whose career has been chiefly executive. If you're a governor, you're not casting all these procedural votes for or against certain things (some of which you may not even know are in there).
In other words, it's good to not have a mile-long legislative record (as Kerry and Dole had) so long as your experience isn't primarily legislative (ala, Clinton, Reagan, Carter, Bush41&43, etal).
Obama's problem is that he really doesn't have *anything* to point to...and certainly no experience as an executive in the public sector.
Why else would we have a running daily series of diaries on a prospective candidate who hasn't even announced that he is running as of yet.
Why are we so concerned about the state of the Democratic Party when there are so many issues to address within our own GOP?
Could we please at least wait until the guy announces his candidacy before we trot out the hit parade? Otherwise it just smells of fear and loathing.
Please spare me the unsupported, personally patronizing platitudes. Obama does not scare anyone, except Hillary.
This was a response to the hype, slobbering, examination, trial balloons and gratuitous promotion going on everywhere not just here (much of it aimed at independents, not us obviously). This hardly has anything to do with my concern over Democrats and a dismissive posture on our own issues. You therefore completely missed the point.
Help me out here. Where did we trot out the hit parade and what is not factual? I think what was pointed out is there is no consistent record (or recitation thereof) associated with Obama’s MSM “splash” (by the way do you think it’s all accidental?).
This is more a statement of the obvious. As stated it is also the last time I spend this much time on their potential candidate. But the fawning borne out of confusion (even on this board) was too much not to answer.
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
People say that because African Americans are a small percentage of the electorate that as a demographic group have long since ceased to be "up for grabs" an Obama candidacy would not really sway anything. There is a kernel of truth to this, no doubt. But Jonah Goldberg wrote a column a couple years ago that I think speaks to this situation pretty well. For the majority of us there is no charge quite so unsettling as being labeled a racist. When I began speaking out on campus as an undergrad, it was tossed at me and it stung. Indeed "racist" has become for all but those whom the shoe fits an epithet in its own right. Among pundits, news personalities and mainstream voters, I believe an element of self-censorship will take hold. We may refrain from saying or writing certain things about Obama the candidate because we worry that they will be perceived as racist or, worse yet, that they will make us feel like racists. Yes, he will be scrutinized, but I doubt he will merit the same scrutiny that Hillary, Kerry, Gore or any other white candidate (much less a Republican) will receive. I remember the TNR/Salon assault on George Allen a few months back. Heck even the Klein book about Hillary; would anyone dare to publish something something so critical of Obama?
If the Obama candidacy starts to gain traction, one valid criticism that wouldn't smack of "racism" would be, what of note has he done in the Senate?
A Republican opponent like McCain could point to his long experience in the Senate and his efforts to pass many bills (some of which get people here upset) and get things done. Even Hillary has a much more substantial record in the Senate. What has Obama done besides beat a weak opponent (Alan Keyes) who was hustled into a Senate race at the last minute when the primary winner was accused of a sex scandal?
Obama's candidacy for President seems to resemble that of Harold Ford, Jr. for Senate in Tennessee. He was slick for awhile, but then got tripped up on local issues, and Ford (to his credit) has served much longer in Congress than Obama has.
Obama right now seems to be a flash in the media pan, which will fade when people start asking him tough questions, and he doesn't have answers. He might win a state like Illinois with the Daley machine that overwhelms Republican support downstate, but in a national race, could Obama win any states that Kerry or Gore lost?
McCain could probably attract enough "moderate" votes in the Midwest to win Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota against Obama, and Giuliani could probably beat Obama in New York state. Where would Obama make up for those losses?
But, if he's giving Hillary problems, let him run...
The bad news: Conservatism is hard to sell. The good news is that it works.
turnout. An exciting candidate like Obama will get Democratic voters (particularly but not exclusively African Americans) to the polls. Infatuation with your own candidate is a much better catalyst for voting than mild approbation aimed at the other one. The message of '04 was that even if the Republican Party's base is not by itself a majority, it could win an election if energized. Obama might be able to do the same for Democrats if the Republicans have an uninspiring challenger.
It's that he's been plastered over the media ad absurdum the past few weeks -- up to and including his appearance on Monday Night Football.
How can you not comment on somebody who gets this kind of media hype? I'm interested to know how many people are drinking this Kool-Aid -- and, more importantly, why they're drinking it.
No one wants to hear this anymore. Notice only one brave soul recommended this story (must be tough demeanor built through military training). Enough said...
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
if Hillary decides to run and considers Obama a threat to her ownership of the Oval Office.
There was commentary, on NRO I think, about this. Bottom line was that the Clinton machine that took Paula Jones and the other women who made claims against Clinton were chewed up and spit out by the Clintons. If Obama is perceived to be a threat, he has nothing to worry about from the Republicans. Hillary & Friends will eat him alive.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
Why do so many people think that the Clinton's have this all-powerful smear machine that can destroy anything in its path?
Does it really take a vast political apparatus for a President to suppress some nobody accuser such as Paula Jones? They weren't tearing down Teddy Roosevelt here.
Why should any of us think that it is any more powerful than the DNC or RNC for that matter?
Right now Hillary has far bigger things to worry about regarding her run to the Oval Office. The first one is convincing the DNC that should is a good choice, and not a complete disaster. From what I know Howard Dean is hardly her biggest fan and even the DLC/ND wing of the Party, her ideological brethren, are apprehensive about a Hillary candidacy.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
imputing omnipotence to your opponent (as many on the Left did Rove) is just plain dumb. Hillary is not dumb by any means but she is hardly the politician her husband was. She'll make missteps and come across as cold and calculated on occasion. The best thing she has going for her vis a vis Obama is the fact that she is a pretty experienced politician and has been subjected to scrutiny on several occasions while he has never really had the spotlight on him. If he maintains his composure while on camera 24/7 he'll be tough to take down by either party, but I would anticipate at least moderate blunders by him and by Romney based on the law of averages alone.
Isn't Obama and it isn't the Republicans. It's the Democrats. They don't want her. Sure they would vote for her in the general but most either dislike her or think she will get creamed in the general.
I personally believe that Hillary will milk this for her own political advantage. She will blackmail the DNC and whoever the leading candidate is in 2008. She'll get either a juicy cabinet position or senior chair seat in the Senate. Personally I think she will be promised the Senate Majority Leader spot for the next Congress.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
She's far too ambitious to be placated by taking Harry Reid's job. If someone can peak too soon, I think Hillary has bottomed out too soon. The insinuations that she'd eat her own young or that she misunderstands the concept of "sisterhood" notwithstanding, the ostensible coronation of Obama may have the unintentional effect of letting her play the underdog again. Heading into '08 with her and Obama the frontrunners may doom the prospects of the white males in the field, however, as female and minority voters would throw a hissy fit if party elders shafted a viable candidate of color or of ovum in favor of pallor and...well..you get the picture.
But Hillary bottomed out about 2 years ago and hasn't gone up much from there.
I think that the Republicans have, in a way, unintentionally damaged her candidacy by so often assuming that she would be the opponent. It seems almost as if Republicans are itchin' for her, and with good reason.
Obama is enjoying a brief moment of celebrity spotlight right but the only thing it is doing is getting his name out there. The true test for him will be about this time next year.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
if the Dems head into '08 with one female frontrunner and one black frontrunner and they end up running a white male, the results could be unsettling, particularly if the Republicans decide to run someone like Michael Steele (who makes some sense for geographic reasons as well) on the bottom half of the ticket.
a legitimate contender for the GOP Presidential ticket?
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
depending on the type of profile he maintains over the next couple years. He's an excellent politician and he solves, to an extent, the Republicans' ostensible neglect of everything north of Virginia and east of Ohio. Nobody outside the White House would sanction Mel Martinez and a paucity exists of qualified and ambitious Republican women, so to be purely practical here the only politicians that might win votes who aren't white males are Watts and Steele.
What about Ken Starr? Newt Gingrich? Billy Dale?
Granted, it's easier to take after somebody while sitting in the Oval Office. Gingrich had the IRS on his tail up until about a week after he announced his resignation -- at which time they cleared him of any wrongdoing.
Do you honestly think that the Clintons don't have a record of taking after those standing in their way? What exactly do you think James Carville did for the Clintons?
You should read Dick Morris' book some time. It's pretty interesting on this aspect of the Clintons....not that it's anything new in politics (see Nixon and his infamous "enemies list").
The Clinton's are hardly unique in taking out their political opponents.
All successful political opponents do it, to some degree or another.
What is the evidence of this nefarious power prior to Bill taking office in 93?
And truth be told if they really did have such a powerful network of political assassins, they sure didn't use them very well while Bill was in the White House. You would think they would have been able to get SOME of the attack dogs off the trail.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
Your response above was disbelief that the Clintons ever engaged in any kind of smear campaigns....except against such worthless nobodies like Paula Jones.
I don't think anybody's ever said that the Clintons have a monopoly on smearing. But they've proven to be pretty good at it in the past. And the belief here is that, if HRC does run for president, her formidable Democratic challengers had better be prepared to receive some mud slung their way.
I'd say that's a pretty safe bet.
I didn't deny that she would sling mud. Not even sure how you inferred that.
I denied that they were so notably GOOD at it that Obama, or any other Democratic contender, should be all that worried about it.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
Clinton is fairly adroit at the mudslinging game. LH's suggestion to read Morris' book is a good one (although he is not on my best seller list). The Clinton's have found a winning formula in attacking opponents credibility. It produces doubt in some peoples mind and often neutralizes issues.
They do not have to go on the attacke per se, just shed light on select issues. Admittedly, this is part of the holistic political game but the Clinton's are major league level players.
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
The slow response from Illinois server was probably Hillary's camp investigating the record.
By now they probably know what color shoes he wore in 8th grade.
I think your right, she has no need for him as VP as it would never sell or work politically.
All this nonsense is an opportunity for us to gain consensus behind our best candidate.
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
I couldn't have said it better myself. A careful consideration of the substance of Sen. Obama reveals that, in fact, he is a whole lot of nothing. He is trying to be some things to all people by way of an overdose of nuance and due recognition of varying worldviews. It's triangulation, dressed up as thoughtfulness, taken to such a level that everything eventually becomes nothing.
In some regards, this is incredibly smart politics -- because it addresses one of the chief problems many people have with the American political system today: sharp divisiveness. And if '08 ends up becoming about ending the divisiveness for its own sake, then Obama will be tough to beat.
The only problem with that is that we're still staring at some really stark choices -- ones where you simply can't take both roads...or follow the lead of the ISG and borrow a little bit from all roads.
As seductive as that may end up being to the American electorate, I fear we may be in for a rude awakening to the reality we keep trying to pretend isn't there.
Obama is a symptom of that malady.