The Obama Delusion By Robert Samuelson

[Clinton Crusader]

February 20, 2008


It's hard not to be dazzled by Barack Obama. At the 2004
Democratic convention, he visited with Newsweek reporters and editors,
including me. I came away deeply impressed by his intelligence, his
forceful language and his apparent willingness to take positions that
seemed to rise above narrow partisanship. Obama has become the
Democratic presidential front-runner, precisely because countless
millions have formed a similar opinion. It is, I now think, mistaken.

As a journalist, I harbor serious doubt about each of the likely
nominees. But with Sens. Hillary Clinton and John McCain, I feel that
I'm dealing with known quantities. They've been in the public arena
for years; their views, values and temperaments have received enormous
scrutiny. By contrast, newcomer Obama is largely a stage presence
defined mostly by his powerful rhetoric. The trouble, at least for me,
is the huge and deceptive gap between his captivating oratory and his
actual views.

The subtext of Obama's campaign is that his own life narrative -- to
become the first African-American president, a huge milestone in the
nation's journey from slavery -- can serve as a metaphor for other
political stalemates. Great impasses can be broken with sufficient
good will, intelligence and energy. "It's not about rich versus poor;
young versus old; and it is not about black versus white," he says.
Along with millions of others, I find this a powerful appeal.

But on inspection, the metaphor is a mirage. Repudiating racism is not
a magic cure-all for the nation's ills. It requires independent ideas,
and Obama has few. If you examine his agenda, it is completely
ordinary, highly partisan, not candid and mostly unresponsive to many
pressing national problems.

More--->
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/02/the_obama_delusion.html

[C_U_L8R]

1. As soon as he had proclaimed "as a journalist..."

i found no absolutely reason to respect this person's opinion.

That's not journalism.

[JuniperLea]

18. That's pretty lame...

You could have at least Googled his name first... jeez. Over 49k hits, reputable sources...

[C_U_L8R]

25. Do you call THAT journalism?

I don't. Sorry, I just don't.
And the author's compulsion to bring it up just reveals his insecurity about it.
As if claiming to be a journalist gives his ill-written thoughts any more credibility (?). It doesn't.
I would have a lot more respect for the author of this opinion piece if he were honest with the audience.
It is his opinion... and nothing more. No need for the fluffy pretense.

[elixir]

35. His opinion? He seems to base most of this on fact, he's stating the facts about Obama's invisible

platform.

[Usrename]

42. It's all based on half-truths, not facts.

The real truth is that the vast majority of Americans would like to have people who make over $102K pay their fair share of payroll taxes. Why do you think they don't pay their fair share now?

The vast majority of Americans would support tax breaks for working folks and students. Why do you think we don't already have those tax breaks?

The vast majority of Americans would love to invest more public funds in green energy. Why do you think we are not already doing that?

He leaves out the real reasons why the American people have not been able to achieve any of these goals, and so he can just belittle the solutions that Obama is offering, without ever even suggesting why Obama's solutions won't work, or if there is even anyone else offering an alternative solution.

I think Obama's way forward is the only way forward, whether Obama is elected or not. His solutions are the only solutions that make any sense. Everyone else is just blowing smoke.

[paulk]

46. you've missed the point

what the author is saying is that, despite Obama's highflown "change" rhetoric, his proposals are the same old status quo political boilerplate we hear every 4 years. There's no real "change" involved.

[Usrename]

48. I saw that part.

He argues that there is no real "change" involved because he refuses to look at the way things really are right now.

His argument is that Obama's platform is just a warmed over version of Hillary's or even Edward's platform. The same old same old. If you've been paying attention, then you will agree that there isn't a whole lot of significant difference between them on any of the major issues. The only real difference, and Edwards was fond of making this point, was in how they each fundamentally believed in a different path to get to these shared goals.

Hillary's method of allowing the lobbyists to control the debate and the legislation doesn't work. It's the way they have always done things, and it has not produced the results. She has stated that this system works just fine, in her opinion, and she doesn't see the problem with it.

Edwards' way was to confront the special interests, and try and deny them the ability to exercise their influence. Although I like this best, and I would have supported Edwards in this endeavor, it has some serious drawbacks. Mainly, the courts, as they exist right now, will rule to ensure that these special interests always get to have their say. The courts would use the force of law to make sure that the lobbyist remain in charge. It would be ugly. And it might not ever work.

Obama wants to go in another direction. A bottom up strategy. Get the 80% that want universal health care to join together, across party lines if necessary, and assemble a movement that does not have to kowtow to any of the powers that be, not the courts or the lobbyists. I think it has a chance to work. If enough people get involved, and if they can see the issues clearly without all the propaganda, then it's possible that change can actually be achieved. The same with all these other issues, get a huge majority of active voters involved, and Washington will have to listen to them and bend to their will.

The only way one can come up with the author's argument is by completely ignoring the truth about what our real situation is, and how bad things have gotten, and how all of the conventional solutions will no longer work. Frankly, I don't like any of the options, but what are you going to do when the Supreme Court and the Congress are no longer functional? Just continue this descent into fascism?

[paulk]

60. interesting post...

You've just pretty much described why I am so uncomfortable with Obama. The whole idea of a "movement" getting Washington to change flies in the face of everything I understand about politics. I've yet to see anything like what Obama proposes work, either locally or at the Federal level.

I guess that's why I've supported Clinton, even while I don't agree with everything she's done. The Clinton's have been involved in this horror show we call politics long enough to understand how the levers of power are really pulled. Call me a cynic, but I doubt Obama will be able to accomplish much with his approach.

I hope I'm wrong, if he does, indeed, win the White House.

[OhioBlue]

64. Well, how do you think Bush got his war?

He wouldn't have gotten it if the Public weren't behind him. Our Reps and Senators would not have voted for the IWR if it were highly unpopular.

I guess I completely disagree with you - i don't think major change will happen or ever has happened with out pressure from the public.

Civil Rights Legislation - civil rights movement
Women winning the right to vote - suffrage movement
Ending Slavery - Abolitionist movement


etc....

[paulk]

71. those were very broad based movements

and they all took a very long period of time to develop.

The movement described above is centered on Obama, as near as I can tell. It's more of a personality cult than a "movement". And "change" is such a generalized thing - it means different things to different people.

And the "movement" described is pretty small in the overall picture. It's got him barely ahead in the Democratic Primary race - not exactly overwhelming when measured against the entire population. Not like the movements you describe at all - movements that evolved over generations.

[OhioBlue]

72. the point is that major change

requires the public support.

and no - the movement is not about Obama. It is not a personality cult. Obama makes people feel empowered to effect change and to become involved in the process. If we want major change in the health care system, we need public support.

You don't get it. You are looking too narrowly.

[paulk]

78. I freely admit to "not getting it"

I want to, I truly want to...

because he may be our nominee and I will need to support him.

But, phrases like -

"Obama makes people feel empowered to effect change and to become involved in the process"

don't mean anything to me.

I don't need Obama to empower me. And needing Obama to feel empowered, excuse me, sounds exactly like a personality cult. I don't know what he means by "change". I don't know what you mean by "change". I already am involved in the process.

There already is public support for a change in the healthcare system, and, quite frankly, I found Obama's plan to be the weakest of all the candidates.

Maybe I am looking too narrowly, but you should understand that that particular criticism has rarely been ascribed to me. And Obama people need to begin understanding that some of the questions about Obama need to be taken seriously if we have any hope of winning this November.

There are enough people out there who "don't get it" to make a difference in this election.

[OhioBlue]

80. you may already be involved

but too many people are not involved. what percentage of people do you think actually write a letter to their representative or a letter to the editor (I'm not challenging you - I'm just trying to make a point)

Not everyone is self motivated and they need encouraged and they need to be told that their efforts really do matter - they need leadership. A key part of leadership is "encourage the heart". Make people feel like they are worth while and that their efforts are worth while, that they are effecting something and contributing to a larger cause.

Change (to me) is cutting through the divisive, partisan arguments and working towards common goals like health care reform.

When you hear W or Dick Cheney speak, don't you feel completely repulsed and combative? I do. I wouldn't trust anything they proposed. I think some of our Dem leaders make our fellow citizens (mostly registered Republicans) feel the same way. I believe we need a leader that tries to bridge that divide and gain enough public support before we can accomplish any big goals such as health care reform.

[rcsl1998]

85. "Visionary"

If I hear one more supporter tell me that 'he's so visionary becuase I heard him speak of his vision and we all want that same vision and it's so great that he's so visionary because he has this great vision..." - AAARRRGGGHHH!!!

[mrbluto]

74. The only thing that could have stopped Bush...

...was the truth.

(not "hope" by the way)

Imagine if there had been real reporting on the issue?

Imagine if there had been real oversight?


People demand things (Civil rights, sufferage, end to slavery) that they can understand and know about.

Information and communication is where the fight is.


If we can't communicate - we can't coordinate.

If we don't know they're doing it - we can't ask them to stop.

If they have a map of our communications (ala' all the wiretapping) then they have a map of our vulnerabilities.


Free speech, Transparency, Privacy.

These are the things we need to fix.

They'll hijack or dissolve any movement that doesn't have a handle on these factors.

With a scandal, with a leak, with a "Dean scream".

[OhioBlue]

81. who said "hope" would have stopped it?

My point was that he had the will of the people behind him. That is how the IWR sailed through Congress. If the public at large had been outraged at the thought of invading Iraq, if the Public screamed that we need to go after OBL in Afghanistan and not create a distraction, the IRW wouldn't have passed.

[mrbluto]

87. The critical bit

How many people would have been behind him and going into Iraq if they'd know the following bit of information:

Saddam Hussein had little, if not nothing, to do with 9/11.

Or this bit:

There were no weapons of mass destruction.

People without decent information are a mob - it's almost a hazard if they're motivated under that circumstance.

People with decent information are a force to be reckoned with.

Even people you'd rarely agree with otherwise will bail the water out of a sinking boat.

Let's not elect a president that will reach across the aisle in liberman-like capitulation while singing kumbiah.

Let's stake out the sensible territory that sincere citizens of any stripe can agree on and leave deluded wingnut republicans to fawn over the shills who nurse their twisted delusions of hegemony. They'll molder in their own sophomoric, solipsistic mire.

We'll have a path to a sane, healthy future for us and our children. They can join us when they snap out of it.

Let's get the information ecology fixed.

[superkia]

62. So if they are both the same, I will take the one that makes me...

feel good as they rape our country.

[Sadie5]

67. Do you call BO presidential material?

I have plenty of doubts about Obama, Samuelson just wrote the same things that I have been thinking all along.

[elixir]

34. I'm a little confused, slow down and speak into my good ear. What does "over 49K hits,

reputable sources" mean? He's a hack because he's well read. Here's his resume and I'll save you the sarcasm smiley, I got it from Wikipedia (shameless of me, I'm such a wench!). here you go, you latte liberal:


*******
Robert J. Samuelson (Born Robert Jacob Samuelson on December 23, 1945) is a contributing editor of Newsweek and Washington Post where he has written about business and economic issues since 1977. His columns appear in both publications.<1> His articles also appear in the The Los Angeles Times, the The Boston Globe, and other influential newspapers.

He began his career in journalism as a reporter on the business desk of The Washington Post 1969. He left the paper to become a freelancer in 1973. His work has appeared in The Sunday Times, The New Republic and The Columbia Journalism Review. He joined the National Journal in 1976, where he wrote the "Economic Focus" column. He was a contributing editor there from 1981 to 1984, until he left to write for Newsweek.<1>

Samuelson was born in New York City.<2> He received his bachelor's degree in 1967 from Harvard University, where he majored in government.<3>He lives in Bethesda, Maryland with his wife, Judith Herr, their daughter, and two sons.<1> His commentary focuses on illustrating and explaining economic problems, with conclusions based on extensive facts and figures. One of his recurring topics is Social Security and the unwillingness of the politicians to deal with problems he and others believe it will have in the future.

[JuniperLea]

38. 49k google hits...

49k mentions/articles. By reputable, I mean he doesn't write for a local paper no one ever heard of. What publication is 100% reputable these days? :shrug:

I used to read his economic articles when I was in the stock market biz.

All I'm really saying to the poster is that he IS a journalist, and his mention of same in this particular article doesn't warrant that kind of bullshit remark.

Quid pro quo... what the heck is a latte liberal?

[BlackVelvet04]

22. Who else would you expect to write an article...

God? I'm sure if it were a glowing report by a journalist you would have no trouble respecting it.

How obvious you are.

[niceypoo]

58. When you can't counter the message...kill the messenger

Hey, it has worked for the republicans for years (librul media.)

[BooScout]

82. He's an award winning journalist actually

And well respected in his field of reporting on the economy and business.

Of course since he doesn't think obama is 'the chosen one' you automatically dismiss him.:eyes:

[WinkyDink]

88. Are you unfamiliar with Robert Samuelson?

[emilyg]

2. TY

[mtnsnake]

3. Good article

Lots of truth in it

:thumbsup:

[The_Casual_Observer]

4. This Obama thing will have to play itself out I guess. He'll either

be successful at it or he won't.

[juajen]

86. How incredibly careless. Our counriy is going down the

sh**hole and you say it will just have to play itself out? We need to get to the bottom of Barack Obama BEFORE he might become the nominee, where our choices will be minimal. I hope if Hillary gets out of the race, it will be only temporary, you know, I hope she suspends her race, not ends it. I believe we will know a lot more about obama later. I only wish it were sooner.

[tokenlib]

5. Samuelson has written crap before too n/t

[islandmkl]

6. dude has switched flavors of his kool-aid...

I thought 'journalists' all drank like, whiskey and gin and stuff

[boobooday]

7. This is horrible writing.

He is totally mischaracterizing Obama's positions, and his campaign theme.

Then he says he considers Obama the same as Clinton and McCain, but he is holding him to a higher standard.

So he creates a new and different standard by which to judge Obama, finds him lacking because under his hopeful rhetoric he suspects him of being status quo. Then he endorses the for-sure entrenched status quo. That's not too convincing.

I find it a bit, well, hack-ish.

[underpants]

12. That is a very good review of this

well said

[boobooday]

39. Thanks!

:hi:

[GarbagemanLB]

13. So true. The Hillbots won't read your post, though.

[QC]

20. And the Obamatologists won't read the article. n/t

[ElsewheresDaughter]

21. touche

[rhett o rick]

45. "Hillbots" how childish. Grow up. nm

[elixir]

37. Now you're sounding like the hack that you all so desperately protest. He lays out the facts for you

r reading pleasure.

[boobooday]

40. I didn't see facts

I saw arguments, with major holes in logic, some of which I pointed out.

One of the most blatant is that Obama is campaigning to end racism.

This is a desperate plea for cynicism, that's what it is.

[underpants]

8. I read this earlier

Samuelson seems sure that Obama just can't be for real because he is like, unreal.


Samuelson also appears to have never been around a political campaign before.

[wishlist]

9. Delusional Repubs have worshiped Reagan and Bush despite their flaws

Apparently it is okay though for Repubs to put undeserving icons like Reagan up on a pedestal.

[Lucinda]

10. Thanks!

Bookmarking...

[villager]

11. This is the same hypercautious hack who warned against getting carried away with "Global Warming"

...after Newsweek devoted an issue to the urgency of it...


Well, this can only add to Obama's crediblity!

[GarbagemanLB]

14. Good supporter of Hill's, then!

[villager]

36. I wasn't making a Hillary slam -- just noting that Samuelson is terrified of anything non-mainstream

n/t

[Emit]

17. But, but, but ...according to Brit Hume

"I check RealClearPolitics every day. It is the best collection of political commentary on the web." - Brit Hume, FOX News

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/about.html

[Kolesar]

41. "Real Clear Politics" is a red flag for RW journalism

I read Obama's energy plan the other night. It is well conceived. I know that material, too.

[Emit]

15. I fell to see your logic in posting this article as a slight toward Obama

in support of Clinton.

The author, it seems, isn't too pleased with Clinton's policies either for apparent similar reasons:

... Whatever one thinks of these ideas, they're standard goodie-bag politics: something for everyone. They're so similar to many Clinton proposals that her campaign put out a news release accusing him of plagiarizing. ...

[stillcool]

16. too bad this "journalist"

doesn't do his homework. The only advantage Hillary has over Obama, is proximity to the White House. I do not buy into the argument that experience with bullies without triumph is anything to write home about, but I have to admit it has resonated with some people. Since 'experience' only matters as it equates to time spent in D.C. I am sure I will be hearing much more about it. I think it's kind of funny that people clamor for substance but when presented with it, somehow it does not count. Like so many other things.

[immoderate]

19. Well Samuelson has nothing to contribute...

--IMM

[BlackVelvet04]

23. Thanks. n/t

[Tennessee Gal]

24. I fear that the author of the piece is correct.

"The result is a mass delusion that Obama is forthrightly engaging the nation's major problems when, so far, he isn't."

I have yet to be convinced that the author is wrong about this. If the author is right, and Obama is the nominee, we could be in for some major problems should Obama take the Presidency.

The right wing fell for the words of the current resident of the White House. I hope we Democrats are not repeating the same mistake.

[noiretextatique]

29. obama reminds me more of reagan than bush

and though i believe he would be a far better president than both, i am not impressed "feel good" candidates.

[Tennessee Gal]

33. I am not impressed either.

[joeybee12]

26. This is also online at Newsweek...

...face it, this is the storyline now that people think obama can;t lose the nomination.

[KoKo]

27. I just feel he "shouts at me" ...sounding like "T.J." whose the Anchor on CNN..

I feel he's part Evangelical Preacher and Part Sports Announcer...it turns me off.. I'm waiting for him to lead me to the Baptismal Fount...so I can be submerged in the Waters.

What's with that stuff he does. Shouldn't Obama be "moving on" from theatrics now that he's the DEM PARTY Lead? :shrug: ENUFF!

[noiretextatique]

28. pretty much sums up my qualms about obamania

his "hope and change" is remarkable in that it is hardly change, which does not give me hope.

[flordehinojos]

30. truth is under attack in this country ...

and obama's "highly partisan, not candid and mostly unresponsive" campaign "to many
pressing national problems." ... continue the attack on truth that the bushes started in this country beginning with poppy bush's 1980 october surprise.

[ProgressIn2008]

31. Thanks. We'll see what happens.

Political candidates routinely indulge in exaggeration, pandering, inconsistency and self-serving obscurity. Clinton and McCain do. The reason for holding Obama to a higher standard is that it's his standard and also his campaign's central theme. He has run on the vague promise of "change," but on issue after issue -- immigration, the economy, global warming -- he has offered boilerplate policies that evade the underlying causes of the stalemates. These issues remain contentious because they involve real conflicts or differences of opinion.

He made certain choices about how to frame his campaign. It will be interesting to see how they play out.

[Jim Sagle]

32. Samuelson is a notorious RNC hack. OTOH, so is Obama.

:puke:

[LadyVT]

43. Thank you... "his biography is his platform" --Bill Moyers

[rhett o rick]

44. The reason for the large turn-outs for Obama is that we also view Sen Clinton

and Sen McCain as known quantities and we want something different. We don't want more war or more NAFTA's.

I would rather have had Kucinich or Edwards, but will settle for Obama, even as an unknown quantity.

And by the way, does your being a journalist give you special insight?

[Ichingcarpenter]

47. Robert J. Samuelson- a global warming Naysayer,

global warming:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/8/15/134336/326/385/371831


supporter of Bush's tax cuts for the rich
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1568/is_6_33/ai_79353987

The myth of a polarized america: that states the growing economic gap between the rich and poor are not polarizing

http://www.realdemocracy.com/polrmyth.htm

[fascisthunter]

66. Nice Company She Keeps (nt)

[Cronopio]

73. So he's right about some things and wrong about others.

Tell me, who *doesn't* that apply to?

Samuelson is right about Obama in this article - he's expressing valid reservations that I share.

I do not support Hillary and am leaning to Obama (and not because of his primary sweep), but most Obama supporters and Obama himself are making the decision to support him very difficult.

[Ichingcarpenter]

77. He is a neo-liberal hack

and has been for sometime. I read him but take
his writings in the context on who he has supported
in the past, such as the Bush administration consistently
over the past.

[CyberPieHole]

49. Great article. I agree with him.

:kick: and rec

[Skittles]

50. I detest the stupid slogans

YES WE CAN!! :puke:

f'n GLOSS

[ProSense]

51. Wow! How desperate. That's about as valuable as Inhofe's opinion.

The big lie of campaign 2008 -- so far -- is that the presidential candidates, Democratic and Republican, will take care of our children. Listening to these politicians, you might think they will. Doing well by children has now passed motherhood and apple pie as an idol that all candidates must worship.

"We will do whatever it takes to make America a better country, to give our kids a better future," says Mike Huckabee, winner of the Republican Iowa caucuses.

"We will deliver for our children, our grandchildren and our great-grandchildren," claims Sen. Barack Obama, the Democratic winner in Iowa.

"We're going to reclaim the future for our children," says Democratic Sen. Hillary Clinton.

Actually, these are throwaway lines, completely disconnected from reality.

link

Samuelson is obviously an idiot.

[saltpoint]

52. Well, that's Bob's take on it.

It doesn't appear to have been several hundred thousand Wisconsin voters' take on it, though.

[sendero]

53. To this guy I say...

.... better the unknown than the known bad.

[MethuenProgressive]

54. The Obama campaign is all about how great the Obama campaign is.

Barack Obama is the Beanie Baby of modern politics.

[Scriptor Ignotus]

55. Obama is not a panacea

he knows this and 99% of his supporters do too. That's why criticisms attacking his ability to "change" everything and anything fall flat. None of us really expect him to do that. Consider the alternatives too:

We know McCain won't change a damn thing.

Hillary will be a very mild change to the left, from what I can tell. I think her positions are harder to pin down then Obama's, despite her being a "known quantity". I guess I also don't trust her to come through on any of her campaign promises. Yes, I expect Obama to break or bend a few as well. I know how these things go, sadly...

Obama will be a moderate change to the left. It won't be an overnight thing. It won't be a massive seismic shift to the progressive agenda. but it will be a good start. and more importantly he will be able to pull millions of independents and republicans out from under the sway of the GOP. Hillary will certainly not be able to do this.

[dionysus]

56. well that does it, i'm switching to hillary!

:eyes:

[oasis]

57. This we already knew: Obama is mostly a creation of his own hot air.

:puffpiece:

[4_TN_TITANS]

59. Like I'd give any credence to Samuelson...

I've seen his crap for years, just another administration shill. Thnk Joe Klein.

I really don't care if Obama doesn't have razor sharp plans. Anyone about to step into the steaming pile of remains that used to be the presidency needs to be open to selecting the best shovels for the job.

[TexasLawyer]

83. Very well put!

[txaslftist]

84. "Anyone about to step into the steaming pile ...

...of remains that used to be the presidency needs to be open to selecting the best shovels for the job"

I just had to type that again. It was most excellent.

[CadenBlaker]

61. Really?

Why do you people INSIST on insulting the intelligence of Obama voters? I mean, honestly. ENOUGH. This is petty.

[tripitaka]

63. "known quantities" are being rejected. where's the mystery?

This piece is exactly like the cultist theme. Voters fall tit over arse for Obama, and instead of asking why, guys like Samuelson assume the reaction is irrational and conclude Obama must therefore be Jim Jones.

Hey Robert, maybe voters have finally learned that the system under which points used to be signed, the same system that has declared HRC "experienced" and McCain a "maverick", is broken and that the metric needs to be tossed in the dustbin.

[fascisthunter]

65. delusion? Keep On Diggin'.... Duh

what a stupid campaign she's run.

[mistertrickster]

68. One problem--you're too late. Obama's only one big state away from wrapping this up.

Thank you for playing and better luck next time . . .

[natrat]

69. i like obama, but it wont surprise me if he turns out to be a scumbag

[davhill]

70. They are both Democrats

Both Clinton and Obama subscribe to the principles of the Democratic Party and both will draw on the same pool of qualified people to form their administrations. The philosophical differences between them are slight and illusionary. What we are nominating is someone who can lead and inspire those people to achieve those principles. Obama has the edge on inspiration and he has shown in the quality of his campaign a greater ability to lead.

[Bleacher Creature]

75. Samuelson should go back to trying to privatize Social Security.

Who cares what he says.

[miceelf]

76. Robert Samuelson?

The corporate right-wing economic writer?

Jeesh.

[Skidmore]

79. Injustices like slavery and mysogyny were perpetuated by

people like this who preferred to deal in "known quantities." Nothing ventured nothing gained except the status quo. What a small-minded person.