Obama's Principles of Change give way to politics as usual

[JetsFan2012]

[QUOTE]Principles give way to politics as Obama courts mid-America
Michael Crowley
The Observer, Sunday June 29, 2008

During the Democratic primary season, all those eons ago, Barack Obama deployed no more powerful line against Hillary Clinton than his insistence that 'we can't just tell people what they want to hear. We need to tell them what they need to hear'. More than just a catchy couplet, the phrase was a deadly arrow into the heart of Clintonism.

Few things crippled Hillary's campaign like the belief that she would say or do anything to get elected, from supporting the Iraq War to claiming she'd dodged sniper fire at Tuzla. In Obama, Democrats seemed to have found something refreshing: a brave truth-teller unmoored to pollsters such as Mark Penn, someone who had spoken out against Iraq the war and could at last restore integrity and honesty to Washington politics.

But since Obama dispatched Clinton, he has seemed rather more attuned to what the people want to hear or perhaps he has simply traded the wants of a liberal audience for those of a more moderate one. Either way, he is treading that reliably time-worn path every nominee follows to the political centre. And [B]the question for Democrats is whether to applaud Obama as a cunning politician who knows how to win or fret that he's given undecided voters reason to think his 'politics of hope' are just politics as usual[/B].

First, let us count the repositionings. This past week, Obama expressed surprising disagreement with a Supreme Court ruling that outlawed the death penalty for child rapists (he had previously questioned the rationale of capital punishment). He resisted criticising another high court ruling that affirmed gun owners' rights, even though he had previously seemed to support the gun-control measure at issue.

Obama also dropped his once-stern opposition to a Congressional measure, despised on the left, that would legally shield telecommunications companies that co-operated with extra-legal US government eavesdropping. To some, even the contents of Obama's iPod, recently revealed to Rolling Stone, smacked of political calculation, combining as it did Baby Boomer classics (Stones, Springsteen, Dylan) with highbrow jazz (Coltrane, Miles Davis) mindless top 40 pop (Sheryl Crow) and edgy-but-not-too-edgy hip hop (Jay-Z, Ludacris). Perhaps this playlist should be titled 'Majority Coalition'.

[B]In truth, Obama has been creeping towards the sanitised centre for a while. After disdaining American flag lapel pins last year, he now wears one regularly. When Jeremiah Wright, his controversial former pastor, provoked outrage in March, Obama insisted he could not 'disown' him, but proceeded to do so just a few weeks later with a public condemnation.[/B]

Obama now concedes that his sharp criticism of free trade agreements such as Nafta before industrial-area primary voters might have been 'overheated'. He's toughened his talk on Iran and in favour of Israel. [B]He's even shaded his rhetoric on Iraq, downplaying his primary season vow to withdraw all US combat troops within 16 months for more careful talk of a gradual and 'responsible' exit.[/B]

Each of these positions has been generally consistent with the prevailing views of the swing voters Obama will need to win in November: independents, liberal Republicans and moderate Democrats whose votes are still up for grabs. After all, Obama has already locked down most core Democrats, who wouldn't think of staying home or voting for the pro-war McCain. But according to an early June Gallup poll, McCain is beating Obama among independents who don't lean toward either party.

[B]McCain campaign operatives have welcomed these interesting new dimensions of Obama's profile. Their core argument, after all, is that Obama is a charlatan - not a harbinger of new politics but a typical pol who has never taken real risks[/B] (unlike McCain, who defied his party on campaign finance reform in the late 1990s and recent public opinion over the Iraq War). Obama, they say, is a just another unprincipled flip-flopper: 'John Kerry with a tan,' as prominent conservative activist Grover Norquist recently put it, in a formulation of questionable taste. (Never mind that McCain himself revamped core positions on issues ranging from immigration to tax cuts to secure the Republican nomination.)

That Obama is not the living incarnation of pure principle should be no shock; his vaunted political courage has always been overstated. [B]While prescient, his famous 2002 speech opposing the Iraq War, for instance, was hardly a political risk. Obama represented Chicago's highly liberal Hyde Park area as a state senator and was counting on a similarly anti-war coalition of African-Americans and white liberals in his upcoming US Senate candidacy.[/B] And while taking on the Clintons may have been audacious, it was also opportunistic. He did not feel 'the fierce urgency of now' until after the expected challenger to Hillary's crown, former Virginia governor Mark Warner, abandoned his candidacy at the last minute. Savvy Democrats understand that there was always a certain genius to Obama's positioning, that to some degree his talk of changing politics was itself a skilful pose which turned Clinton into a reactionary foil. They will appreciate his awareness for what it takes to get elected. Democrats have long believed that their side practises politics less skilfully, less ruthlessly, than the Republicans. Hence one of Clinton's main promises to Democrats was that she could beat the Republicans at their own cynical game.

For now, they will have to hope that Obama hasn't gone too far. An ever-confounding question of politics is to know at what point a shift to a more majority position is outweighed by the disillusionment and scorn of flip-flopping. Wherever that tipping point is, however, Obama hasn't yet reached it. He is still better off with his current stances than he would be, say, explaining why he doesn't believe that child rapists deserve to die.

It's an unfortunate reality of politics that voters don't want to hear what they need to hear. We want to hear what we want to hear. Obama's recognition of that is a testament that he is, for better or worse, a shrewd, if far from pure, politician. Somewhere Hillary Clinton must be chuckling ruefully.

· Michael Crowley is senior editor at New Republic magazine and The Observer's chief American commentator
[url]http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jun/29/barackobama.hillaryclinton/print[/url]
[/QUOTE]


You mean, his vague HOPE for CHANGE may just be empty rhetoric? Say it ain't so!

[intelligentjetsfan]

[QUOTE=pauliec;2607217]You mean, his vague HOPE for CHANGE may just be empty rhetoric? Say it ain't so![/QUOTE]

This is seriously one of the most biased articles I have read in a long time. In particular, the part about his speech against the war is dripping with partisan biases. Many respected journalists, like the late Tim Russert as an example, agreed that his speech about this tragic war is worthy of a lot of credit. This article is every bit as biased as posting something from Mother Jones.

[cr726]

What a shame Obama lost your vote.
You can relate to McCain right? McCain has done something you are dreaming to do. Marry money.

[QUOTE=pauliec;2607217]You mean, his vague HOPE for CHANGE may just be empty rhetoric? Say it ain't so![/QUOTE]

[JetsFan2012]

[QUOTE=cr726;2607247]What a shame Obama lost your vote.
You can relate to McCain right? McCain has done something you are dreaming to do. Marry money.[/QUOTE]

While that may be true, I really don't support McCain either.

[JetsFan2012]

[QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;2607225]This is seriously one of the most biased articles I have read in a long time. In particular, the part about his speech against the war is dripping with partisan biases. Many respected journalists, like the late Tim Russert as an example, agreed that his speech about this tragic war is worthy of a lot of credit. This article is every bit as biased as posting something from Mother Jones.[/QUOTE]

Since when are you averse to biased articles?

Regardless, how is it "dripping with partisan biases"? The writer is a senior editor at The New Republic, a traditionally liberal magazine.

[cr726]

Flip flopper.

[QUOTE]McCain Campaign Declines to Meet with Billy Graham

Sunday, June 8, 2008 10:10 PM

By: Doug Wead
[/QUOTE][url]http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/mccain_graham_meeting/2008/06/08/102779.html[/url]


[QUOTE]McCain meets with evangelist Billy Graham and son By LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press Writer
2 hours, 14 minutes ago[/QUOTE][url]http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080629/ap_on_el_pr/mccain[/url]

[cr726]

I still do not know who I am going to vote for, but these Obama smashing threads are getting old. These threads actually help Obama when I look at who is starting them.

[QUOTE=pauliec;2607249]While that may be true, I really don't support McCain either.[/QUOTE]

[JetsFan2012]

IMO, the biggest thing that sticks out in this article is how Obama is now avoiding any talk about a 16 month timetable for withdrawal. This used to be a huge talking point in all of his speeches, as he has used this to effectively persuade people to vote for him. Of course, all along he had to have known that a withdrawal with such a strict timeframe would be logistically impossible, and thus he chose to mislead his potential supporters. Almost identical to promises of "ending the war" from Democratic Congressional candidates in 2006.

[JetsFan2012]

[QUOTE=cr726;2607251]Flip flopper.

[url]http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/mccain_graham_meeting/2008/06/08/102779.html[/url]


[url]http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080629/ap_on_el_pr/mccain[/url][/QUOTE]

And what does this have to do with the thread topic? Oh that's right, nothing.

[JetsFan2012]

[QUOTE=cr726;2607254]I still do not know who I am going to vote for, but these Obama smashing threads are getting old. These threads actually help Obama when I look at who is starting them.[/QUOTE]

You're right, Obama is untouchable and we must not question him. We must stifle all criticism and censor Fox News in the name of democracy.

[cr726]

Who said anything about Obama being untouchable? I put the post about McCain to show how easy it is to post BS about either candidate.

Anyone can go on any site and find an Op-ed piece for or against any candidate, but to constantly doing it over and over again gets old.


[QUOTE=pauliec;2607261]You're right, Obama is untouchable and we must not question him. We must stifle all criticism and censor Fox News in the name of democracy.[/QUOTE]

[JetsFan2012]

[QUOTE=cr726;2607283]Who said anything about Obama being untouchable? I put the post about McCain to show how easy it is to post BS about either candidate.

Anyone can go on any site and find an Op-ed piece for or against any candidate, but to constantly doing it over and over again gets old.[/QUOTE]

So you don't think any of those points were valid? I guess you already made up your mind, then.

[cr726]

Crowley's opinion is exactly that, his opinion. I have already stated I do not know who I am going to vote for at this time.

[QUOTE=pauliec;2607284]So you don't think any of those points were valid? I guess you already made up your mind, then.[/QUOTE]

[piney]

[QUOTE=pauliec;2607217]You mean, his vague HOPE for CHANGE may just be empty rhetoric? Say it ain't so![/QUOTE]

wow, Pauliec, I thought you were above the likes of Dean Pats Fan and CBTNY..

You post an OP-ED piece as proof positive that Obama is "business as usual"

this article is rubbish, they show no sources to back up any of the policy changes that Obama is alleged to have made.

Nothing showing me where Obama has spoken out against the death penalty.

He states that Obama "refused" to speak out against the court ruling concerning gun laws, yet cites nowhere where Obama specifically says that he was for the existing gun laws.

He decides to infer that Obama has flipped on the FISA bill, which I have already proven he has not, they are two different bill. One without judicial review, and one with it.


and he lies about Obama saying he would withdraw, "All" the troops, Obama, to my knowledge, has never said that.

Basically this guy makes up Obama's positions on the issues and provides no quotes or sources to back up his story.

This article is rubbish.


Can't you just stick to, "Obama's plans for Universal Healthcare and an early Iraq withdrawal are bad ideas...." like a good little republican?

I mean, why isn't an argument against Obama on the issues enough, that you have to fish out some really poorly written and poorly edited article, that even stretches the definition of article.

It is almost like citing a blog.


My favorite point you make with this article is that Obama doesn't kowtow to the far left, which has been a talking point of the right for so long.

I mean, with his backing of the new FISA bill is proof positive that Obama can and will compromise with the republicans in congress if he becomes president...

[Come Back to NY]

[QUOTE=piney;2607426]wow, Pauliec, I thought you were above the likes of Dean Pats Fan and CBTNY..

You post an OP-ED piece as proof positive that Obama is "business as usual"

this article is rubbish, they show no sources to back up any of the policy changes that Obama is alleged to have made.

Nothing showing me where Obama has spoken out against the death penalty.

He states that Obama "refused" to speak out against the court ruling concerning gun laws, yet cites nowhere where Obama specifically says that he was for the existing gun laws.

He decides to infer that Obama has flipped on the FISA bill, which I have already proven he has not, they are two different bill. One without judicial review, and one with it.


and he lies about Obama saying he would withdraw, "All" the troops, Obama, to my knowledge, has never said that.

Basically this guy makes up Obama's positions on the issues and provides no quotes or sources to back up his story.

This article is rubbish.


Can't you just stick to, "Obama's plans for Universal Healthcare and an early Iraq withdrawal are bad ideas...." like a good little republican?

I mean, why isn't an argument against Obama on the issues enough, that you have to fish out some really poorly written and poorly edited article, that even stretches the definition of article.

It is almost like citing a blog.


My favorite point you make with this article is that Obama doesn't kowtow to the far left, which has been a talking point of the right for so long.

I mean, with his backing of the new FISA bill is proof positive that Obama can and will compromise with the republicans in congress if he becomes president...[/QUOTE]


you truly are a lemming with no regard of facts, rather your own little world which surrounds them....

forget about you proved nothing on the FISA bill, which even BO's most ardent supporters are pissed off he flipped on, now you make the assinine comment that "[I]and he lies about Obama saying he would withdraw, "All" the troops, Obama, to my knowledge, has never said that.[/I]"

it's obvious how limited your knowledge is as BO promised the exact thing the article states:

[QUOTE]He's even shaded his rhetoric on Iraq, downplaying his primary season vow to withdraw all US combat troops within 16 months for more careful talk of a gradual and 'responsible' exit.
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]Sen. Obama, on his Web site, says that the drawdowns would begin "immediately" and continue at a pace of one to two brigades -- which each normally number between 3,500 and 4,500 troops -- per month. He hopes to have all combat troops out of Iraq within 16 months of taking office, or by the middle of 2010.[/QUOTE]

[url]http://www.peaceactioncny.org/Campaigns.html[/url]

[url]http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/03/08/2008-03-08_barack_obamas_aide_suggested_renege_on_i.html[/url]

[url]http://www.wral.com/news/local/politics/story/2599083/[/url]

stop embarrassing yourself and learn the facts rather then pulling opinions from your ass then criticizing the opinions of others- you sound like a fool...

[piney]

[QUOTE=Come Back to NY;2607457]you truly are a lemming with no regard of facts, rather your own little world which surrounds them....

forget about you proved nothing on the FISA bill, which even BO's most ardent supporters are pissed off he flipped on, now you make the assinine comment that "[I]and he lies about Obama saying he would withdraw, "All" the troops, Obama, to my knowledge, has never said that.[/I]"

it's obvious how limited your knowledge is as BO promised the exact thing the article states:





[url]http://www.peaceactioncny.org/Campaigns.html[/url]

[url]http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/03/08/2008-03-08_barack_obamas_aide_suggested_renege_on_i.html[/url]

stop embarrassing yourself and learn the facts rather then pulling opinions from your ass....[/QUOTE]



ok, I may have to give you that one, since I missed the all important word, Combat Troops, which of course is different than pulling out all of our armed forces, which is a different issue.

See, I am man enough to admit a mistake, which, you of course, are not...

I did beat you up on the FISA bill, you know it...

and, even though he was right about the withdrawal of combat troops, he shows no proof of how Obama is downplaying that claim.

The article is one man's opinion, with nothing at all to back up his claims on Obama.....

that is the point of my post, which you can't disporve, so again, you focus on one minor mistake I made in my post, rather than the larger issue at hand..

classic redirection.

[Come Back to NY]

[QUOTE=piney;2607462]ok, I may have to give you that one, since I missed the all important word, Combat Troops, which of course is different than pulling out all of our armed forces, which is a different issue.

See, I am man enough to admit a mistake, which, you of course, are not...

I did beat you up on the FISA bill, you know it...

and, even though he was right about the withdrawal of combat troops, he shows no proof of how Obama is downplaying that claim.

The article is one man's opinion, with nothing at all to back up his claims on Obama.....

that is the point of my post, which you can't disporve, so again, you focus on one minor mistake I made in my post, rather than the larger issue at hand..

classic redirection.[/QUOTE]

you get your ass kicked at every corner....you constantly make statements with absolutely no foundation and get called out for it- this being the latest example....

btw- why don't you clarify this statement exactly so I can hand you another ass beating...

[QUOTE]He states that Obama "refused" to speak out against the court ruling concerning gun laws, yet cites nowhere where Obama specifically says that he was for the existing gun laws.[/QUOTE]

[Come Back to NY]

[QUOTE=Come Back to NY;2607475]

btw- why don't you clarify this statement exactly so I can hand you another ass beating...[/QUOTE]

looks like you ran away...good thing as you were dead wrong again.....

the author says:

[QUOTE]He resisted criticising another high court ruling that affirmed gun owners' rights, [B]even though he had previously seemed to support the gun-control measure at issue[/B].[/QUOTE]

here's how BO answered the question in the April debate in Philly...

[QUOTE]Q: Is the D.C. law prohibiting ownership of handguns consistent with an individual's right to bear arms?

A: As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. [B]But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can't constrain the exercise of that right[/B], in the same way that we have a right to private property but local governments can establish zoning ordinances that determine how you can use it.
[/QUOTE]

[url]http://www.ontheissues.org/Archive/2008_Dems_Philly_Gun_Control.htm[/url]

[Come Back to NY]

[QUOTE=Come Back to NY;2607475]

btw- why don't you clarify this statement exactly so I can hand you another ass beating...[/QUOTE]

looks like you ran away...good thing as you were dead wrong again.....

you stated:

[QUOTE]He states that Obama "refused" to speak out against the court ruling concerning gun laws, yet cites nowhere where Obama specifically says that he was for the existing gun laws.[/QUOTE]

based on the author's statement:

[QUOTE]He resisted criticising another high court ruling that affirmed gun owners' rights, [B]even though he had previously seemed to support the gun-control measure at issue[/B].[/QUOTE]

here's how BO answered the question in the April debate in Philly...the author was right on the money.....

[QUOTE]Q: Is the D.C. law prohibiting ownership of handguns consistent with an individual's right to bear arms?

A: As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. [B]But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can't constrain the exercise of that right[/B], in the same way that we have a right to private property but local governments can establish zoning ordinances that determine how you can use it.
[/QUOTE]

[url]http://www.ontheissues.org/Archive/2008_Dems_Philly_Gun_Control.htm[/url]

[sackdance]

[QUOTE=cr726;2607247]What a shame Obama lost your vote.
You can relate to McCain right? McCain has done something you are dreaming to do. Marry money.[/QUOTE]
McCain is living the dream. A wise man once said: you can be excused for being born poor, but there is no excuse for marrying poor.