One of Barack Obama's strongest appeals is his desire to break down the walls of ugly party partisanship and replace them with a mechanism of governance based more on consensus based on a common wish to solve America's problems than with the brutal scorched-earth partisanship that has marked the recent Republican rule.
This is a laudable goal once he is in the White House and has the power and Congressional backing to deal with the Republican as equals.
But, I have noted a disturbing shift (dare I call it 'Change" in his campaign since he became the presumptive Democratic nominee.
One critical element in consensus government is the willingness of all sides to compromise and move away from extreme positions for the common good of everybody. However, Obama's unilateral compromise in the campaign is not only not being met with similar cooperation from the Republicans, it is being used, and used very effectively, to portray him as a flip-flopper, a weakling, not entirely honest, and without a central core belief system - willing to betray his core constituency and principles in search of votes.
We have seen this in Bill Clinton, whose early compromises with the Republicans shifted the Democratic party to the Right and marginalized its progressive wing. For this one-sided cooperation he was rewarded by the GOP with 8 years of smears, attempts to create phony scandals, and ultimately the indignity of an impeachment trial.
Al Gore and John Kerry, in their turn, tried to 'triangulate' by moving toward Republican positions in hopes of gaining the center, but, in the end, lost by, in large part, the votes of the very same working class "Reagan Democrats" they were trying to woo - most of whom voted for Bush anyway.
Now, I see a pattern repeating itself. Barack Obama has come out in favor of the Supreme Court ruling gutting gun control. Barack Obama has supported the idea of the death penalty for rape of a child (not understanding that, if the rapist is already subject to the death penalty, there is nothing to keep him from killing his victim and getting rid of the only witness). Obama's vote on the FISA bill simply can not be rationalized or excused - it is not leadership but follow-the-herd. Obama supports expanding taxpayer aid to faith-based charity. Obama has advocated limited off-shore drilling. Obama supports keeping a contingent of troops in Iraq, and, worse, would trade our quagmire in Iraq for a much bigger and more brutally violent quagmire with Pakistan and Afghanistan. Obama has backed away from his earlier promises of public financing and not accepting PAC or corporate funding. Obama's health care plan still keeps the private for-profit health insurance companies at its core - there will never be both universal and quality health care in this country while for-profit health insurance companies sit at the table. Obama has turned his back on many of the same progressives who were his earliest supporters in hopes of not alienating the middle.
Right now, Obama's compromises and shifts to the Right do nothing to win new votes in the middle, while merely providing easy fodder for McCain's slime-eel smear machine. What should by now have been a runaway election sees Obama shrinking daily in the polls (the last one I saw was McCain 44% and Obama 44%).
It is not just the Hillary fanatics who may end up sitting out this election (or, worse, vote for McCain). All through the progressive netroots I'm hearing people seriously considering voting for a third party; Green, Nader, even Libertarian or one of the Socialist parties. They seem to be taking John Quincy Adams' advice to heart this year:
"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost."
How do we, as Obama supporters, communicate to our candidate that so far the only Change he has shown us has been in his positions - and not for the better?
- Blue Sun
" If you want to build a ship, don't herd people together to collect wood and don't assign them tasks and work, but rather teach them to long for the endless immensity of the sea."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupéry
As I read the disgruntled with perceptions of Obama changing positions I want to say to them these few things. I do not agree necessarily with every position, nuclear energy and windfall profit taxes to name a few. And yes, I wish he had been more firm with respect to FISA. But, there are so many more things about the opposition party and candidate about which I disagree that I find my issues not a priority.
Our first priority as supporters is to make sure Obama gets in office. You can participate in building the platform and you should. The alternative as I see it; a continued outsourcing of our military with mercenary strategy and tactics leading to our eventual loss of all standing around the world and a Congress that continues to make rule of law behind closed doors with a few people only, reducing the rest of that body to resolutions about insignificant issues.
Obama promises to begin the process of restoring our system. He is facing abominable odds with budget deficit, a division in the people of our country, each sect vying for themselves only to the detriment of all else and of course the military issues. Today we have an administration run by a less than benevolent dictator in a sense. It is His way or the highway witnessed by the dozens of dissenters that have been fired. Witnessed by the corruption of the constitution to suit his needs. But it is not Bush, he doesn't make policy or run this country, it is the large network of groups and corporations that set the direction and they own many in this White House and Congress.. A republican victory clearly indicates a continuation.
If you've listened to what Obama says and not attached your own meaning to it you can get a better glimpse into what the future might become. He doesn't say, it's his way or else, he says let's take everything into account and make a good decision. So his so-called flips on issues: death penalty not unreasonable for those who abuse and kill our children, I am okay with that. Gun control, the wording of the constitution will be debated forever. If the current court defines it as individuals rights not in war time then fine, why shouldn't we have laws at state and local levels that allow good controls. The unfortunate person that has mental debilitation, those that haven't learned to control their anger, their depression, those with criminal records, etc., I believe we need to ensure they do not have the ability to harm others or themselves. FISA, his vote would not have changed the direction of the Congress and his best chance at repairing the damage is when he is President. Not just the damage of FISA but the damage in the Congress both both sides.
So, I hope that if you disagree, remember, Obama has said time and again, talk, compromise, consensus, bring people together. If you believe in that, accept the areas of difference and work to understand a compromise position and don't push down the best chance we have of starting a significant shift in this nation. The opposition is doing a good enough job on their own.
Combat and Composure
by David Brooks May 6 08
..This contrast between combat and composure defines the Democratic race. The implicit Clinton argument is that politics is an inherently nasty business. Human nature, as she said Sunday, means that progress comes only through conquest. You’d better elect a leader who can intimidate. You’d better elect someone who has given herself permission to be brutal.
Obama’s campaign grows out of the longstanding reform tradition. His implicit argument is that politics doesn’t have to be this way. Dishonesty and brutality aren’t inevitable; they’re what gets in the way. Obama’s friend and supporter Cass Sunstein described the Obama ideal in The New Republic: “Obama believes that real change usually requires consensus, learning and accommodation.” ..
By Rowan Scarborough
A coalition of American Muslim groups is demanding that Sen. John McCain stop using the adjective "Islamic" to describe terrorists and extremist enemies of the United States.
Muneer Fareed, who heads the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), told The Washington Times that his group is beginning a campaign to persuade Mr. McCain to rephrase his descriptions of the enemy.
"We've tried to contact his office, contact his spokesperson to have them rethink word usage that is more acceptable to the Muslim community," Mr. Fareed said. "If it's not our intent to paint everyone with the same brush, then certainly we should think seriously about just characterizing them as criminals, because that is what they are."
An aide to Mr. McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee who is counting on his pro-Iraq war stance to attract conservative voters, said the senator from Arizona will not drop the word.
http://www.thetimes-tribune.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=19501048&BRD=2185&PAG=461&dept_id=415898&rfi=6
BY ROJA HEYDARPOUR, STAFF WRITER
Source: Times Tribune
It’s been said many times: this is an election year of firsts. The first viable woman presidential candidate. The first viable black presidential candidate.
But the first Muslim presidential candidate?
One in 10 Americans believes that Illinois Sen. Barack Obama is a Muslim, according to a Pew Research Center News Interest Index survey taken in March.
Mr. Obama is, in fact, a practicing Christian, as underscored by the debate over the controversial sermon delivered by his pastor after Sept. 11, 2001.
The same survey found that 79 percent of the general public had heard rumors that Mr. Obama is Muslim, while 38 percent had heard “a lot” about it.
Indeed, rumors have circulated on blogs and comment boards since the fall, spurred by pictures of Mr. Obama in a turban, by talk of childhood time spent in Indonesia — a Muslim country — and by his middle name, Hussein, among other things.
In response to Mr. Inspired's post on this page:
Comment page
By mr.inspired Yesterday at 5:15 pm EST
People, please check out my recent blog post. I'm an English guy who has been observing and analysing the campaigns of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton with extreme interest.I think I have an idea that could really help Barack swing voters in droves over to his side, if it was implemented well enough. Please read and comment on my article, here. ThanksLink
By Freddy from Ohio 10 minutes ago
Very good advice, Mr. Inspired! Everyone, please read Mr. Inspired's blog and spread the word about the importance of consensus in this election. Consensus building is truly both Obama's greatest strength and Hillary's Achilles heel. That's what we learned from Hillarycare. Let's not let the voters forget it.
Mr. Inspired, you have hit the nail on the head! Obama's consensus-building ability, in contrast to Hillary's inability, is one of the main reasons that I first donated to Obama's campaign ten days ago. I fully agree that the consensus mantra must immediately be made a central element in Obama's campaign narrative. The consensus issue is the most fundamental difference between these two candidates. It is something that Hillary will not be able to successfully deny, try as she might. Everyone in America knows that Hillary is a polarizing figure, which is certainly not only her fault, but facts is facts and there's nothing Hillary can do to change them. Like it or not, that's who she is. On the other hand, Obama is obviously a consensus-builder, and nothing Hillary says to the contrary is going to convince voters who have the evidence right in front of them. Obama should bang consensus like a drum! This leads right into the other main reason that I came on board recently: Obama's appeal to independent voters and his electability in the general election. The poll averages for head-to-head matchups with each Republican candidate are now clearly in Obama's favor. So, now the campaign should find ways of saying what is clearly true: Obama has much broader appeal than Hillary among independents and Republicans, and therefore nominating Obama would be a lot smarter than making Hillary the nominee. In open primary states Obama should make direct appeals to independents and disaffected Republicans. Ask and they will come!
Every time Hillary argues 'experience', Barack should retort 'consensus'. Consensus as a driver of change is infinitely more powerful and compelling than experience. - Mr. Inspired, London, UK. Jan 2008.
Ask the average American voter what the differences in policy are between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, and I’m betting that most could not really give much of an answer. Barack wants to improve the economy, Hillary wants to improve the economy, Barack wants to fix healthcare, Hillary wants to fix healthcare, Barack wants ethics reform and energy and environment policies and an improvement in education. Hillary wants all those things too.
The difference is in the details, the minutiae of how they plan to go about achieving their stated objectives. But I believe that the average American voter doesn’t delve too deeply into the specifics of each candidate’s policy and plan for their presidency.
So, how do voters differentiate then, and decide between the two candidates. Likeability is one big factor. Barack Obama is very likeable, but then most democrats love Bill Clinton, Hillary gets a free ride on that and of course there are many that find her ‘likeable enough’ too.
I’m guessing then that for many voters, the decision comes down to the central tenet of each candidate’s campaign. For Obama that is ‘hope’, for Clinton it is ‘experience’
Hillary Clinton has been bashing away at Obama accusing him of peddling ‘false hopes’ and stating that she has the greater experience to deliver change. If she succeeds in winning the nomination for the Democratic party it will be because she was succeeded in swaying ordinary voters minds by convincing them that she offers true experience and Barack offers ‘false hopes’, and that he’s not ready for the White House.
Barack needs to counter, and counter heavily, by nullifying Hillary’s ‘experience’ message. How can he do that? This is I think how…
Barack should add a powerful new mantra to his existing mantras of hope and change, and that is consensus.
The reality is that true change in America requires more than just hope, belief or even experience. It requires consensus. To achieve consensus, America needs a president that has the ability to work across party lines in order to build broad coalitions. Bill Clinton's most telling legacy was that was able to fix and improve the economy, but from what I understand, he also campaigned on the mantra of 'change' during his run to the presidency. What real change was he able to bring to America in healthcare, energy and the environment, education, immigration and ethics? From what I understand, not that much. Why not? Because he too was a polarizing figure who was generally hated by republicans, he wasn't able to work across party lines to build the broad consensus required to implement change.
So therein lies the rub. Hillary Clinton might also do a fantastic job of improving and fixing the economy, but other than that, just how exactly is Hillary Clinton going to achieve real change? Republicans hate her just as much as they hate Bill, she seems to be an even more polarizing figure than him. Voters need to understand that no matter how much experience Hillary Clinton may or may not have, she will never be able to effect true change in America because it is very unlikely she will ever be able to build the consensus that is required for true change. If Americans really want change in America, they only have one choice. They have to choose a person who has a proven record in reaching across party lines in order to reform the death penalty law in Chicago, and again to bring in ethics reform. They have to vote for a person who, through the mighty power of words, has the ability to motivate and inspire people who normally would never dream of working with their declared 'opponent', to inspire them to work together.
There is only one person who can truly build consensus in today's America, and that is Barack Obama.
It's really a simple message, but I believe that if the majority of Americans were to get that message, were to digest it and truly understand it, Hillary Clinton wouldn't stand a chance of making it back into the White House.
What do you think? Being an outsider looking in on the cauldron that is American election campaigning, I believe that 'consensus' should be the next and new mantra that Barack Obama should be driving into the minds of voters. Certainly if I was a Hillary Clinton supporter and I got that message, I would think twice about voting for her.
The following letter, which appeared in the Sterling Gazette, was authored by We the (Obama) People member Elroy Wylde.
This year is one of much turmoil in America. Likewise, 1968 was a year of political and social turmoil in America. Campaigning on a platform of peace and justice, the 42 year-old Senator (Robert Kennedy) from New York was viewed by many as the candidate who could bridge the gap among the races and our nation's best hope for an honorahble withdrawl from an unpopular war. These were the expressed hopes for many for the election of Robert Kennedy as President. Of course these hopes were dashed with his brutal assassination. The country continued to be divided on the war, race, gender, economics, and politics. This divisive period was filled with the tragedy of Vietnam, the scandel of Watergate, race riots, and the generation gap.
Today we face problems and divisions just as real and just as difficult. Yet we have another chance for reconciliation. There is one man who has shown throughout his career ti be someone who can work with people from the other political party, who has shown the courage to speak up on important issues like the war in Iraq, and who can begin to heal our nation's wounds. He is Senator Barack Obama.
Senator Obama has worked with Republicans in Chicago, in the state legislature, and in Congress to find common ground. Our nation cannot afford another divisive person as President. Let us move beyond the Clinton and Bush years. It is time to turn the page and to look forward. We need to turn the page on Iraq, on wholly partisan politics, and turn to governing with real solutions reached with bi-partisan support.
This has been done in the past as our nation conquered depression, Facism, and the Cold War. The unity we all felt after 9/11 was squandered, mostly due to the war in Iraq. Senator Obama is the one candidate who can move us toward unity of purpose.
Bobby Kennedy's words from long ago speak volumes to us today. "Your generation, this generation cannot afford to waste its substance and its hopes on the struggles of the past. For beyond these walls is a world to be helped and improved and made safe for the welfare of mankind."
All candidates have experience for they have all participated in activities and learned from these involvements. When evaluating the “experience” of a candidate, the important consideration rests upon the type of activities in which that person has been involved and what that individual has learned as a result.
Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and other Bush administration officials were considered “experienced” when they came into office because they had held governmental and administrative positions in the past. However, their ability to analyze and derive meaningful insights from these past performances was clouded by philosophical beliefs that distorted reality and substituted wishful thinking for sound judgment.
Barack Obama has the experience needed to become an effective President. He has worked as a community organizer, bringing various interests together to effect positive change. He has been a professor of constitutional law, exploring the meaning and application of the fundamental basis of American government. He has stood for elective office, communicating with the voters and understanding their hopes and desires. He has held elective office, bringing divergent positions together to focus on common goals in order to enact meaningful change. In his writings it is obvious that throughout his life, Barack Obama has continually analyzed the interaction between his circumstances and life situations and his perceptions and beliefs in order to draw meaningful insights, to grow and mature, and to establish the standards and grounding for good decision making.
Of all the candidates, Barack Obama is the most experienced in terms of bringing people together, building consensus, and effecting bipartisan action. He is an experienced leader that can be trusted to conduct the office of President in a positive and effective manner.
Americans today are showing a level of interest early in the 2008 presidential race that is completely without precedent. The intense focus of the American public on the race for the presidency, many months before even the first primaries and caucuses, reveals the extent to which regular Americans are longing for a new, meaningful politics. It is this extraordinary pang of hunger for change in America right now that explains Barack Obama's unlikely and astonishingly rapid ascent to become the most inspiring and hopeful figure in American politics since President Ronald Reagan, or even President John F. Kennedy.
America is ready to turn the page. To turn the page on patronage, on dynasties, and on polarization. On cronyism, on Swift-Boat style attack campaigns, and on the auctions we've held in place of elections. America is ready to turn the page on the tired politics of the last generation.
I wrote the following email to one of my groups seeking information from our Research Committee and thought I'd post it here for others to help with too.
If anyone has sources that connect Obama's personal history, track record, agenda for future to any of the aspects of this many-sided issue, please give specific links and how you think it relates:
Lynn
----------------------------
Hi Folks!
The immigration issue is where I think we can highlight Obama's skills and demonstrated history in bringing diverse sides of an issue together to solve a problem. If we could get some examples of how he's done this before, that will help. This is the type of work that Obama excels in and why he attracts so many of us to him. These are the issues the people here in California, the other border states and the rest of the states of our Union will want to hear the Senator speak about. The whole issue of immigration is so complex and such an ingrained part of our economy, that it isn't just a matter of legal/illegal. It will take someone of his caliber to gather all sides together and get them each to give a little toward a solution everyone can work with. Achieving such a consensus will solve a lot more problems for our country than just illegal immigration. It is going to take all of us being willing to budge a little and Obama has the skills to accomplish it. As far as just giving people a bunch of links to find the information themselves, let's not exclude or ignore those people who choose not to use computers or don't have access to them or lack the knowledge to navigate a website in search of information. We have to craft our campaign literature for them as well as the internet crowd. There aren't enough bodies in the internet crowd to be able to win an election by ourselves. We have to draw in and include those other folks too. We need info that relates Obama's skills, history and agenda on these aspects surrounding the immigration issue:
I guess the biggest concern most people have with Obama is the impression that he is a centrist who will compromise the core values of the Democratic party. In his book "The Audacity of Hope" he does describe certain moments that could give people that impression, for instance at the welcoming ceremony for new senators. Obama chatted cordially with Bush and even subconciously put his arm over his shoulder at one point when they were talking about both of them having had to debate Alan Keyes.
On the other hand, Jim Webb (D-Virginia) whose son is in Iraq, refused to be photographed with Bush and when Bush asked him how his son was doing, he said "I wished we would withrdraw the troops." To which Bush responded "That's not what I asked. I asked 'how is your son'?" To which Webb responded "That's between me and my son." Now I don't blame Jim Webb for being adversarial in this situation, he obviously has a lot more personal stake in Iraq than a lot of people. I absolutely loved his reply to the State of the Union and I think he too represents the future of Democratic party leadership.
What comes out in the book, however, is not that Obama is apt to shy away from contentious issues, it's just that the adversarial nature of the currrent system is something that was specifically created by the Republicans (starting in the 80s and worsening greatly in the 90s with the likes of Gingrich et. al.) and not organic to our system as imagined by the founding fathers. Furthermore, he feels that when democrats play the same game (strict party-line voting, threatening the careers of senators who won't fall in line, negative campaign ads, etc.) then we cheapen the values of the Democratic party, which he feels are much more evolved that those of the Republicans.
Such overt disregard for the checks and balances of the system always leads to a backlash, and it did against Gingrich's cronies in the 90's or with the last Congressional election. We have control again, but we should not not remake ourselves in the image of the Republican party out of spite. Getting more of a consensus in Congress by the merit of the issues themselves can go a long way in terms of getting things done.
There's an interesting anecdote he has in the book about a democratic senator with a lot of clout whom Karl Rove and other's tried to bully into a position on a certain bill. The senator said that if the Republicans gave them an amendment to the bill that he could guarantee 70 aye votes in the Senate, two which Karl Rove replied "but we only need 51." Basically, he was saying if we can't get your support then we'll find it somewhere else.
According to Obama, this is what is wrong in the current environment, and would never have happened in decades past, when political adversaries could have great respect for one another and even be friends outside of the arena of politics. In the end, he is saying that the core values of being an American override those of party. I think he said it best in the 2004 DNC:
"The pundits like to slice-and-dice our country into Red States and Blue States; Red States for Republicans, Blue States for Democrats. But I've got news for them too. We worship an awesome God in the Blue States, and we don't like federal agents poking around in our libraries in the Red States. We coach Little League in the Blue States and yes, we've got some gay friends in the Red States. There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq and patriots who supported the war in Iraq. We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America."
