Andrew Sullivan gets it exactly right:
[T]he critical question in this campaign is: do Americans want a neo-empire in the Middle East?
This is what this election is about more than anything else.
Category: Obama
Tom Hayden wrote in the Huffington Post last week about his journey from Bobby Kennedy to Barack Obama, beginning with his rage and disappointment in electoral politics and the American system after Bobby Kennedy was assassinated:
On June 4, 1968, I watched from a New York townhouse the murder of a second Kennedy in five years. Martin Luther King already was gone, Vietnam and our cities were burning. I was in the midst of chaotic planning for anti-war demonstrations at the Democratic Convention coming in August.
I drifted off with friends to St. Patrick’s Cathedral where Kennedy staffers let us through the doors late at night. After sitting a while in silence, I found myself as a member of a makeshift honor guard standing next to his simple coffin. I was wearing a green Cuban hat and weeping. The last political hope of the Sixties vision – a movement-driven progressive government – was finished, whether by chance or plot, it mattered little. The violence I had resisted under white racism in the South was seeping into my veins. Like many who took their rage even farther, I was hardening, and never dared again to recover my young idealism.
Hayden seemed to have lost faith in the democratic system after Kennedy’s assassination, though he remained involved in California state government. Nearly forty years later, he refused to see Obama as an authentic progressive leader, despite pleas from his son to take a look at the candidate. Hayden was skeptical. But, after the landmark wins in Iowa and South Carolina, Hayden endorsed “the movement Barack Obama leads”:
Barack Obama is giving voice and space to an awakening beyond his wildest expectations, a social force that may lead him far beyond his modest policy agend. Such movements in the past led the Kennedys and Franklin Roosevelt to achievements they never contemplated. [As Gandhi once said of India’s liberation movement, “There go my people. I must follow them, for I am their leader.”]
We are in a precious moment where caution must yield to courage. It is better to fail at the quest for greatness than to accept our planet’s future as only a reliving of the past.
Hayden remains skeptical and demanding – as he was towards Bobby Kennedy while working with him in 1968 – but Obama’s candidacy has allowed him to hope again:
Those who denounce Obama – and the possibilities of all electoral politics – should ponder the effectiveness of sitting judgmentally on the sidelines while an Unexpected Future arrives through the sheer will of a new generation. They should consider whether politics and history can be reduced to a fixed determinism that is endlessly repeated, as if there are no surprises. We can have our differences with Obama’s specific policies, as I certainly do, but those should be measured against the prospect that a movement might transform him even as his very rise continues to transform the rest of us.
Fred Kaplan of Slate asks and answers the question that McCain will keep posing to the American people for the next five months: “Is Barack Obama too naive to be president?” Kaplan’s answer:
No matter who is elected this November, the next president will have to take extraordinary steps to translate this global reach into power and influence—to restore American leadership. One of the main challenges in this effort will be to prove to others that this leadership is desirable.
The new reality is that to a degree we haven’t seen in our lifetimes, the United States is a normal country—a very powerful country, but normal nonetheless: not a superpower. A presidential visit, in this light, is not such a big deal. Or, to the extent that some countries might still regard it as a visitation from on high, it may be just the jolt to get things moving.
Either way, not only was Obama’s remark not naive; it reflected a more instinctive understanding of the post-Cold War world than either of his opponents seem to possess.
This does seem to be the growing consensus in the world of those who study foreign policy – as Richard Haass of the Council on Foreign Relations suggests we are in an age of nonpolarity and Fareed Zakaria writes that we are now entering a Post-American world. All of these figures believe that America still has the power – and the responsibility – to be the first among equals. But we are no longer the single hyperpower dominating the globe or one of two dueling powers competing for every corner of it. Instead, we are one of many – a nation with unique gifts and great responsibility.
Kind of like Spider-man.
Categories
Obama is our excuse
[digg-reddit-me]Last week, Charles Hawley, writing for Der Spiegel, declared that “The Social Democrats [of Germany] have no Obama.” This is the second article in Der Spiegel in the past month to reprise this theme.
Around the world, with David Cameron in the United Kingdom gaining strength and Gordon Brown losing it; with Silvio Berlusconi taking power again in Italy; with Nicolas Sarkozy, though struggling today, still the dominant figure in French politics; with Angela Merkel in Germany, Stephen Harper in Canada, Felipe Calderon in Mexico, Lee Myung-bak in South Korea, and Ma Ying-jeou in Taiwan – all center-right politicians – taking power in the past four years; and with Russia’s drift towards a 19th century autocracy and China’s successful resistance to liberalization, it seems that the world is drifting rightward. Since September 11 and especially since George W. Bush’s reelection in 2004, most of the leading world democracies and many of it’s leading autocracies have reversed progressive trends and generally adopted a center-right course.
But the worldwide left today has one figure it can look to – standing against this tide in one of the most rightward leaning democracies – and succeeding in ways that are redefining American politics: Barack Obama.
That is why when evaluating the state of Italian politics or German politics – liberals bemoan their lack of success, their lack of inspiration by saying: “We have no Obama.”
This seems to be an attitude that Obama himself would reject. In observing the crowds thronging to his speeches, the enthusiasm that has swept him to the nomination, the excitement in the air, the sense of hope and opportunity at long last, Obama observed to Michael Powell of The New York Times:
“I love when I’m shaking hands on a rope line and” – he mimes the motion, hand over hand – “I see the little old white ladies and big burly black guys and Latino girls and all their hands are entwining. They’re feeding on each other as much as on me….It’s like I’m just the excuse.” [My emphasis.]
Although Obama’s campaign has enabled his success, he understands that the success is not his own. It is of this particular moment in history – this American moment – and he understands that he is not the cause of this movement or this moment, but merely the excuse.
Obama himself is just an excuse to allow Americans to find themselves again, to find their way again, to reclaim their nation, to restore our values to our government. ((As an aside, I can’t think of a healthier way for a leader to think of him or herself – as merely the excuse other people use to do better.)) What Obama’s campaign offers and his presidency will offer is not solutions imposed from Washington, but an opportunity for us to engage with our government, to affect our politics, to make America once again a government of the people. Obama is proposing modest steps – as the tinkerer he is – to make the deliberations behind health care public; to create a website that encourages citizens to provide suggestions and feedback about government programs; to encourage transparency in law-making; to create “a web site, a search engine, and other web tools that enable citizens easily to track online federal grants, contracts, earmarks, and lobbyist contacts with government officials”; to require “his appointees who lead Executive Branch departments and rulemaking agencies to conduct the significant business of the agency in public” and online; and to make as much government data as universally available as possible.
He’s providing a good excuse, but we still need to do the work.
Matt Drudge is far and away the most influential force in journalism and political coverage today. He has dominated the political press coverage ever since he broke story after story in the summer of 1997 almost singlehandedly keeping Monica-gate alive. In 2000 and 2004, he was a major force in the conservative message machine as it attacked Al Gore and John Kerry. But in the past year, as Jonathan Martin and Ben Smith of the Politico observed:
[Matt Drudge has] emerged as an unreliable ally for the GOP, while trumpeting Obama’s victories and shrugging at his scandals.
“It’s clear to us that Barack Obama has won the Drudge Primary, and it’s one of the most important primaries in this process,” conceded a senior aide to Hillary Rodham Clinton, who also acknowledged that Drudge’s treatment of Obama could make the Illinois senator more electable in November.
The article offers several explanations for Drudge’s apparent preference for Obama. Arianna Huffington, of the Huffington Post, suggests that Drudge has a good sense of the “zeitgeist” and can see it shifting. Although I think that must be a factor, the more convincing explanation seems to be Drudge’s reputed libertarian streak. McCain is probably the most anti-libertarian candidate the Republican party has – from his positions on civil liberties in the War on Terrorism, to the use of government as a tool against big business, to limiting free speech for campaign finance reform. Obama, though in favor of more economic intervention than McCain, does seem to be more sympathetic to libertarianism as a whole – especially with regards to civil liberties.
Whatever the reason, Drudge, so far, has seemed to tilt towards Obama. And that could be a major factor in the lead-up to November.
[digg-reddit-me]The rumor of a tape with Michelle Obama using a slur against white people has finally been substantiated and Barack Obama has been caught in a lie! I am disillusioned.
On to the videotape:
Thanks to Andrew Sullivan and John Cole for finally getting the word out there.
This is almost as serious as Dunkin Donuts’ promulgation of terrorism. Almost.
No – I’m not talking about her campaign – although the tag could just as easily apply to her mismanaged attempted coronation. From Daniel Koffler of Jewcy:
On Tuesday night, Hillary Clinton gathered her supporters in a literal concrete bunker several stories beneath the surface of the earth, with walls thick enough to block out all cellular reception and no TV monitors or any other medium of communication with the outside world. There, amid cheers of “Denver! Denver!” she congratulated her friend Senator Obama for having run a sporting race, proclaimed herself the rightful victor, and appealed to Americans young and old to pawn their video games and withdraw from their pension accounts (respectively) in order to keep her historic campaign squarely on track to the White House. Yet by the following evening, her aides announced the suspension of her campaign and her endorsement of Barack Obama.
What transpired in those fewer-than-24 hours? Only the most audacious squeeze play of Bill and Hillary Clinton’s political careers, and – because of its spectacular failure – the last.
The rest here. I think the Clintons may have a few more power plays left in them. But their latest failure is yet another sign that we are entering a new post-Clinton era.
Categories
The Message from Hillary
Clinton’s campaign had leaked to the press word that she was going to suspend her campaign and endorse Obama early yesterday afternoon after Clinton received strong push-back in her meetings around Washington to the idea of staying in the race a bit longer. The Obama campaign first learned of this development from the press.
Early this morning, Hillary’s campaign made an official announcement via an email to her supporters at 1:53 am entitled, “I want you to know.” The full text:
Dear Joseph,
I wanted you to be one of the first to know: on Saturday, I will hold an event in Washington D.C. to thank everyone who has supported my campaign. Over the course of the last 16 months, I have been privileged and touched to witness the incredible dedication and sacrifice of so many people working for our campaign. Every minute you put into helping us win, every dollar you gave to keep up the fight meant more to me than I can ever possibly tell you.
On Saturday, I will extend my congratulations to Senator Obama and my support for his candidacy. This has been a long and hard-fought campaign, but as I have always said, my differences with Senator Obama are small compared to the differences we have with Senator McCain and the Republicans.
I have said throughout the campaign that I would strongly support Senator Obama if he were the Democratic Party’s nominee, and I intend to deliver on that promise.
When I decided to run for president, I knew exactly why I was getting into this race: to work hard every day for the millions of Americans who need a voice in the White House.
I made you — and everyone who supported me — a promise: to stand up for our shared values and to never back down. I’m going to keep that promise today, tomorrow, and for the rest of my life.
I will be speaking on Saturday about how together we can rally the party behind Senator Obama. The stakes are too high and the task before us too important to do otherwise.
I know as I continue my lifelong work for a stronger America and a better world, I will turn to you for the support, the strength, and the commitment that you have shown me in the past 16 months. And I will always keep faith with the issues and causes that are important to you.
In the past few days, you have shown that support once again with hundreds of thousands of messages to the campaign, and again, I am touched by your thoughtfulness and kindness.
I can never possibly express my gratitude, so let me say simply, thank you.
Sincerely,
Hillary Rodham Clinton
There’s still asking their supporters to Contribute which is interesting – understandable too, as her campaign is in quite a bit of debt.
[digg-reddit-me]The #2 Digg link at the moment is a lie worthy of Karl Rove: “Obama to eliminate Iran.”
Given the gap between what the article itself and the Digg description of it, I wouldn’t be surprised if it was Karl Rove or some Republican agent trying to sow dissatisfaction with Obama now that he has the nomination in the bag.
But what is worse is that so many people are accepting the premise of the link as true without even following the link. Isn’t that just as bad as those idiots who read that Obama is a secret Muslim in an email and that:
We checked this out on ‘snopes.com‘. It is factual. Check for yourself.
Any intelligent person who follows the link finds that Snopes has declared the story “False.”
Now, from the other side of the political spectrum, someone – whether a cynic who saw no difference between Gore and Bush and sees no difference between Obama and McCain – or a Republican operative posts an extremely misleading headline for a link that – if you follow it, leads you to a very different conclusion. And the link becomes popular and lies are spread.
Some people even had time to post comments but not to follow the link!
As for the facts of what Obama said: He certainly is more pro-Israel than many would like. But he is also for talking with Iran. I have only seen excerpts of Obama’s speech – and I’m not sure the full text is posted anywhere yet – but given that Obama’s critique of McCain is that McCain is vowing to continue the Bush policy of refusing to engage in diplomacy with Iran, I’d have to imagine Obama’s remark was part of a message that went something like this – extrapolated from his previous statements:
I won’t stand here and pretend that there are many good options left in Iraq, but what’s not an option is leaving our troops in that country for the next hundred years – especially at a time when our military is overstretched, our nation is isolated, and nearly every other threat to America is being ignored.
One of those threats is the nuclear ambitions of Iran, the country that has gained the most influence and strength from the McCain-Bush foreign policy of waging war first and trying to pick up the pieces later. Iran is stronger now than it was eight years ago.
On September 11, 2001 there were vigils in Tehran as thousands of men and women crowded the streets in solidarity with the citizens of New York City and Washington, D.C. As our nation prepared to invade Afghanistan to go after the terrorists who attacked us, Iran offered us substantial assistance. As a result of these positive encounters, the Iranian leadership sent President Bush a letter offering to resolve all of the outstanding issues between our countries. The letter went unanswered.
After seven years of McCain-Bush aggression, Iran has moved away from the United States, but it’s people still maintain an affection for this country if not for our recent actions towards them. I have committed myself to engage in diplomatic relations with Iran without preconditions. I believe it is a sign of strength to sit down with our enemies rather than ignoring them. I do not pretend that this will be easy. But it is essential that we try.
We must eliminate the threat from Iran and protect the state of Israel. We must stop Iran from gaining nuclear weapons. The McCain-Bush policy of war and aggression is not the answer. But I must warn anyone who would test my resolve on this issue: I am not opposed to all wars; just to dumb wars, and I will not hesitate to respond forcefully if Israel’s or America’s existence is threatened.
But it’s easier just to post some sensationalist headline.
[digg-reddit-me] [The bulk of this is a re-post, because it seems that the issue is newly and especially relevant.
After last night’s non-concession – in which Clinton revved up her crowd of supporters as they began to chant, “Denver! Denver! Denver!” – and in which she conceded nothing to reality, it seems clear that Clinton wants something. That something – according to reports from various news sources – is the vice presidency. Others indicate that she just wants to be offered the vice presidency. Either way, rather than graciously bowing out (as I rather prematurely asked her to do in January when she had won two of the four contests), she is bitterly clinging to her candidacy: pretending to win in her defeat, avoiding Barack Obama’s phone calls, and putting off the meeting that it is reported he requested.
There are better candidates out there for Obama to pick. Hillary Clinton has undoubtedly run an historic and groundbreaking campaign – and has come into her own as a political figure in her own right. She is a force to contend with. But it is time for her to withdraw unconditionally and endorse Obama. And she must let him choose his own Vice President – based on who would make the best ticket. Clinton is not it.
So here, modified and expanded, are eight reasons why Hillary Clinton should not be chosen as Obama’s vice presidential running mate:
- Her eerily familiar refusal to concede to reality.
She still refuses to admit that she has lost after Obama has mathematically achieved the required number of delegates. - From Rachel Maddow on MSNBC’s Inside the War Room two weeks ago:
- It will undermine the rationale behind Obama’s candidacy and make Obama look weak. As Reihan Salam of The Atlantic wrote:
A backroom deal with Clinton would make a mockery of Obama’s language of hope and change. It would make Obama appear weak, and it would reward Clinton for running a campaign more vicious than anything Lee Atwater could have cooked up. More importantly, Obama would be choosing a fundamentally weak and unpopular running mate who has masked her marked executive inexperience through endless misrepresentation of her role in the Clinton White House – a role that begins and ends with a healthcare debacle that would have gotten anyone other than a First Lady fired.
Or, to put it as John Edwards did:
- She doesn’t put a single state or demographic group on the board for Obama.
She is a highly polarizing figure. The demographic splits in the primaries so far have been best explained by the Peabody award-winning Josh Marshall over at the Talking Points Memo: The only areas where Hillary has decisively beaten Obama are in the Appalachian region of the country. But Hillary is far from the best candidate to appeal to this group. Former Senator John Edwards, Governor Ed Rendell, Governor Ted Strickland, and especially Senator Jim Webb all would seem to have greater appeal to the Scotch-Irish Reagan Democrats of the Appalachia. Clinton’s base is entirely in the Democratic party where she is relatively popular, while Obama has substantial support among independents and even some Republicans. That is why Clinton has done better in closed primaries than ones open to independents or all parties (at least until Rush Limbaugh’s Operation Chaos gained traction). - Bill.
- She’s run a terrible campaign so far. Would she run a better campaign if she trying to win for Obama?
Her campaign is already $21,000,000.00 in debt. She squandered enormous institutional and name recognition advantages. Does anyone still remember that she was the prohibitive favorite before “a skinny kid with a funny name” expertly managed one of the hardest fought campaigns in history? - She shouldn’t be rewarded for trying to bully her way onto the ticket (after being told no “politely but straightforwardly and irrevocably“, threatening an “open civil war“) and for her bullying tactics during the rest of the campaign (threatening to withhold funds from the DNC; attacking Nancy Pelosi; lying about Obama’s record on abortion, NAFTA, and other issues; using voter suppression tactics in Nevada and Iowa; and undermining the legitimacy of the delegate selection process she agreed to when she thought it was to her benefit.) And all this was before she lost the race and still refused to concede, suspend her campaign, or endorse Obama.
- Her sense of entitlement.
[It would be] very awkward for a vice presidential candidate to be on a presidential candidate’s ticket after she has made repeated references to his potential death. Yes, that would be weird.
As a bonus:
Let’s get on to the main event already.
Drop out, Senator, and settle for becoming the next Secretary of Defense or a Supreme Court Justice.
The zeitgeist, the Force even, is with Obama in this American moment.
So, let’s get on to November before Obama loses his opportunity to get in the requisite attacks on McCain and his dangerously misguided policies before the entire country goes on vacation for the summer.
This is a fight we can win, and one we must win:
America, this is our moment. This is our time. Our time to turn the page on the policies of the past. Our time to bring new energy and new ideas to the challenges we face. Our time to offer a new direction for the country we love.