|
What I found is interesting, and I think coming from the POV of someone who can't stand him personally, maybe it will be helpful to others. As preamble, let me say I have always been convinced the Obamarama is mostly about a credulous reception of his rhetoric, but he -is- more complex than just that. On the whole his personal history is most inspiring before he became a serious political figure, with his dabbling in community activism, constitutional law, electoral law, etc. His candidacy against Bobby Rush initiates the period where I become less and less impressed with Obama, but that doesn't mean there aren't many good things there.
According to some local knowledgeable folks, that's where the "hope" thing really kicked off. Dan Shomon called it as "There was a gradual progression of Barack Obama from thoughtful, earnest policy wonk/civil rights lawyer/constitutional law expert to Barack Obama the politician, the inspirer, the speaker." His friend Denny Jacobs also sees it that way: “He stumbled on the fact that instead of running on all the issues, quote unquote, that hope is the real key,” he said. “Not only the black community but less privileged people are looking for that hope. You don’t have to talk about health care, you have to talk about ‘the promise’ of health care. Hope is a pretty inclusive word. I think he is very good at selling that.”
This is what inspires such figures as Tucker Carlson to say "I feel impressed by his inclusive tone. I don’t think he hates me for my ideas and I appreciate that." This sort of "framing" or "marketing" is in my view insulting to voters and degrading for the candidate, but it -works- in this atmosphere. It wins elections.
But I've talked enough about my views on his rhetoric elsewhere. The key issues--where is he at? Mostly he makes good votes, but often it's difficult to pin down his actual beliefs from his rhetoric. Especially on the most controversial issues. I'll take just one to start:
On the war:
Not too bad! Almost Howard Dean good, in the beginning. The case -wasn't- made and it -was- a dumb war, and it's good that Obama recognized it in 2002, when such recognition mattered most. He noted specifically the reality that the "war" would likely be won, yet the aftermath was likely to be an intractable quagmire--wisdom for which he didn't require "experience" in anything other than common sense. Of the major candidates, he has the best record for the authorization period.
His statements condemning the famed $87 billion funding vote are rather at odds with his consistent later votes for funding in the Senate, however. He never "promised" not to vote for funding, however. I would certainly rather he not support these funds.
The "I don't know how I would have voted" in later reference to IWR is not as bad as it sounds given the context of supporting Kerry, and especially since it's reasonable--it's hard to claim with certainty that you'd act a certain way when not bombarded by the same pressures and misinformation that influenced Congress at the time (though neither excuses a "yes" vote on IWR). Ideally he would note that such a resolution put far too much power in the hands of the president, but for a mainstream pol it's not too bad or shocking.
I do take issue with some of his statements, however. Obama did say: “The Democrats have been stuck in the arguments of Vietnam, which means that either you’re a Scoop Jackson Democrat or you’re a Tom Hayden Democrat and you’re suspicious of any military action. And that’s just not my framework.” This misrepresents the full anti-war position on Iraq, and brings up the ugly Vietnam mythology that opposition to that war was suspicion of any military action. In doing he sets up two undesirable extremes to create a reasonable-sounding "middle" position, and I don't care for it.
He also backs the Baker-Hamilton Study Group, which supports leaving thousands of troops in Iraq to ostensibly combat terrorists and train Iraqi forces. This is essentially a plausibly deniable continuance of the occupation--so long as American military forces are the cornerstone of security and have license to eliminate enemies of our interests, Iraq is still under occupation.
He also distanced himself from Murtha's strong call to end the war. In his speech to the Council of Foreign Relations during that time, he said: "we need to focus our attention on how to reduce the U.S. military footprint in Iraq. Notice that I say 'reduce,' and not 'fully withdraw.'" This is rather vague and leaves lots of wiggle room. Obama is against permanent military bases in Iraq, but beyond that he has made no commitment to wholly leave Iraq in any sort of timely fashion. A drawdown even in those terms, however, naturally is superior to what we currently have.
To keep this thread from getting too long (it's extremely long already), I'll post what I've researched about his stances on other crucial issues in the days ahead.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
