RF asked me yesterday why I don’t plan to donate to Barack Obama’s campaign this year. One of these days I am going to write a fuller explanation of why Obama is not “change I can believe in,” but today Chris Bowers has an outstanding piece at Open Left that articulates some of my concerns.
Bowers prefers Obama to Hillary Clinton, but he hits the nail on the head here:
Rather, what does bother me is the notion is that someone who regularly reinforces conservative stereotypes about liberals when talking to the media is somehow the great champion, defender, and savior of liberalism. Don’t tell me that someone who thinks the DLC’s champion is too partisan is the next Russ Feingold or Paul Wellstone. Obama’s failure to challenge conservative falsehoods, like the notion that Hillary Clinton is some sort of ultra-partisan whose boots are stained with the intestines of her Republican enemies, is a clear indication that he will not fundamentally challenge prevailing conventional, ideological wisdom in other areas. Will he be a hundred times better than Bush? Absolutely. Will be ninety times better than McCain? Oh yeah. Is better than Hillary Clinton? I don’t know, but I’m willing to take that chance at this point. What I just can’t swallow is hearing, on a reasonably frequent basis, Obama reinforce conservative talking points, falsehoods and stereotypes in one ear, and that Obama is a progressive savior in the other ear. The fact is that he is willing to pander to some conservative media if it will win their endorsements, and to reinforce some conservative stereotypes if it will win him independent voters. While that may be playing to win, it is not playing to transform the discursive and ideological landscape of American politics. In my experience, it is actually pretty much the same old politics.
Click the link and read his whole piece, really.
Big Tent Democrat, another reluctant Obama supporter who blogs at Talk Left, read Bowers’ piece and was struck by this Obama quote:
“I’m not a person who believes any one party has a monopoly on wisdom,” Obama said.
Big Tent Democrat added, “Indeed. Who needs a Democratic Congress? Not Obama apparently.”
2 Comments
We have a monopoly on wisdom??
“I’m not a person who believes any one party has a monopoly on wisdom,” Obama said. – This is exactly why I, and presumably many others, like Obama. (There was a very similar quote in the Register by Mark Warner when he was pondering a presidential run. Not surprisingly, I was a very early Warner supporter.) In my view, only an intellectually dishonest partisan could disagree with that statement. This also explains why Obama sometimes uses what Bowers calls “conservative talking points.” Obviously Bowers and his like think R’s never have a point about anything, that somehow our party has been able to find all the right answers on all issues. This thinking assumes the D party is infallible. Call me, Obama and Warner whatever you want, but to me that sounds delusional.
This also leads me to the issue of Obama’s voting record. By most standards, his record is very progressive. Thus, when as a legislator he has been faced with having to make yes/no calls on issues, he has proved to be a progressive. However, in his speeches and run for presidency, he is making clear he understands the difference between a legislator and chief executive. CEO’s worry about getting stuff done, not making principled statements. You must make compromises to achieve anything. Sure, many lefties will be disappointed in Obama if he were to become president. But they would likely end up even more disappointed with a principled champion who gets nothing done.
rf Fri 29 Feb 3:21 PM
Obama repeatedly reinforces right-wing stereotypes
about other Democrats to place himself on a higher plane than other Democrats. Nothing illustrates this better than his disgraceful “Harry and Louise” campaign against Clinton’s health care reform plan, which is superior to his own.
That goes far beyond acknowledging that some Republicans have a point about some issues sometimes.
By the way, Obama’s voting record shows a lot of “present” votes and missed votes. No, he has not always been there for progressives. In fact, I need to look up this scorecard, but one of the progressive groups found that Obama’s record on “chips are down” votes, the most significant, is a lot worse than his overall record.
I don’t need the next president to play to the Russert/Broder gallery and promote nasty stereotypes about other Democrats in the bargain. No thanks.
desmoinesdem Fri 29 Feb 4:21 PM