One thing I think is kind of odd, but not really surprising, is how much more savvy the African-American community seems about American politics than the general population of the blogosphere. In my experience, African-Americans have a keen awareness that Barack Obama’s ‘style’ is dictated by outside contraints. Obama’s success is dependent on him passing the race test. He can’t appear too black. He can talk about racism, poverty, crime, predatory loans, sentencing disparity, and other issues that are disproportionately important to the black community. But he has to be careful. He can’t come off as a black-identity politician. He can’t sound like Jesse Jackson. And that means he can’t be angry and confrontational in the style of Howard Dean or John Edwards. The moment he adopted that style he would frighten people away. His success is dependent on people looking past his race.
In saying this, I do not at all mean to suggest that Obama’s positive, inclusive, bipartisan, hopeful message is insincere. I think, fortunately, Barack Obama’s wants to campaign this way. But the fact remains that he didn’t have an option.
In fairness to Hillary Clinton, she has been operating under her own constraints. In vying to be the first American female commander in chief (in a time of war, no less) she needed to prove her toughness. If she had taken Dennis Kucinich’s positions on foreign policy she probably would have disqualified herself in the eyes of enough people to doom her campaign. Anyone that discounts these threshold hurdles for Obama and Clinton just isn’t cynical enough.
Some, like our very own Arthur Gilroy, insist that deep down Hillary Clinton is a progressive that is playing the game the only way it can be played if a woman is going to take control of the Pentagon. I don’t disagree that she had to do it this way (at least, substantially this way). But I don’t judge Hillary by some kind amateur psychoanalysis. I judge her by her friends and advisers. And on that count, I think her expressed policies are a fair indication of what she wants to do as president. I could be wrong.
I could also be wrong about Obama. I think deep down he is an activist and a progressive, and that he will take a fresh look at our foreign policies. But maybe he is naive and soft, and will get easily rolled once he gains office.
Regardless, I haven’t written anything (that I can remember) bashing Obama for his tone or style or lack of combativeness or partisanship. Many people I really respect, like Chris Bowers, have been almost obsessed with these aspects of Obama’s campaign. It’s surprised me. Obama and Bowers are like twins separated at birth, but Bowers has struggled to get past discordant rhetoric from the Obama campaign. In my view, Obama’s rhetoric has been finely calibrated to reassure white people, the media, the Beltway, the business community, and the Blue Dogs and moderates. He took the progressives a bit for granted because, frankly, he had that luxury.
In fairness, I guess I shouldn’t leave Edwards out of this analysis. Edwards’ populist pitch was dictated to some degree by the playing field. Ask yourself…if he didn’t go for anti-corporate populism, what other niche could he have used to rise into a three-way tie in Iowa? His options, too, were limited. But he has been consistent. His 2004 campaign was based on the Two Americas of haves and have-nots. He’s been at it long enough to convince me he’s serious about winning and serious about having a mandate for change.
What I am trying to say? Politicians combine sincerity with pragmatism with cynicism. Their positions are often dictated by the particular electorate they are trying to attract. Al Gore and Dennis Kucinich were pro-life when they had only state or local aspirations. Poppy Bush and Mitt Romney were pro-choice when that was possible and beneficial to their campaigns. They’re pro-life now. It doesn’t get more cynical than that. To see what the candidates really believe, deep down, you have to look past what they say, or even what positions they espouse.
I think the blogosphere has been holding Barack Obama to an impossible standard. But all three of the frontrunners have been victims of a lack of savvy from the purity trolls.
And what does the blogosphere do when Obama is the nominee, will they go full bore for him through November?
Definitely.
yeah definitely. i’ve seen quite a bit of criticism of obama in left blogistan, but no one has ever said he’s not better than any of the republicans.
the blogosphere wasn’t particularly pro-kerry before the 2004 primary season either. but we went all out for him once he clinched the nomination.
Some of the criticism I’ve seen seems to be based on genuine dislike for Obama (most of TLC, Taylor Marsh), but I take your point.
My question really relates to the focus and drive of the lefty blogosphere this year, will those who’ve criticised Obama find it easier to go back to Bush-bashing than enthusiatic support of our nominee.
Glad to see consensus here.
speak for yourself.
I’m tired of lip service to the issues I care about.
I’m not backing an Obullshit or Clintoon candidacy. I think they’re both full of bullshit, all talk and no action.
If it’s either of them, I’m voting for my parents’ dog.
I think they’re both full of bullshit, all talk and no action.
huh? then who is the “action” candidate? we’re talking about a political campaign which is pretty much just “talk.”
i guess there are actions: clinton’s vote for the war, obama’s protest against it. both of their decision not to fly back to washington to help dodd. their legislative records, etc. but none of that stuff make them worse than a republican. it’s not even close.
but none of that stuff make them worse than a republican. it’s not even close.
I didn’t say i’d vote for a republican. I just won’t vote for Obama or Clintoon, because they seem to equate words with deeds.
I mean, great, Obama opposed the war. of course, he wasn’t in the senate at that point, and you don’t know how he would have actually voted, but I guess that since he SAYS he was against the war, that’s all that matters. pay no attention to his record of, you know, missed votes for crucial legislation (for one example). That’s not leading.
Same goes with Hillary (except of course we know how she stands on Iraq and iran, since there’s a vote. And of course on matters like FISA, she’s been strangely absent as well.
Edwards and Dodd are action candidates. Dodd left the campaign trail to block reid’s FISA capitulation. Edwards not only has a long record of fighting corporations, he did stuff after his Senate career too.
I don’t think they’re worse than republicans, I just think they’re pretty weak tea when it comes to actual leaders. Leaders LEAD, they don’t just sit around talking about what it’s like to be a leader. That’s what bloggers are for.
believe me, if either of these clowns gets the nod, they won’t need my help anyway. they have millions in corporate funding to lean on, and interestingly, that is the constituency that a president Clintoon or Obullshit would primarily serve.
obama was active in the anti-war movement in illinois. he gave plenty of anti-war speeches even though he was planning to run for the u.s. senate and being anti-war wasn’t considered to be a politically wise choice at the time. indeed, that’s why people like your own edwards voted for the war resolution. it’s pretty clear to me how obama would have voted. he was already starting to campaign for senate and criticized those who voted for the war.
plus, when i lived in chicago (obama represented part of my neighborhood in the statehouse) he had one of the most progressive voting records in the state. to say he doesn’t act is simply ridiculous.
sure, he has adopted troublesome rhetoric during the campaign. it seems to me that his political advisors have gotten him to take that strategy. but that doesn’t mean he’s not really a progressive. he has a pretty clear record in illinois on that point. the only issue is whether he has changed since then, or if he just is using the strategy that he thinks he needs to use to get into the presidency
gotcha.
thanks for putting it straightforwardly like that. everyone else uses all these mushy “never mind the rhetoric” lines, with nothing to back it up.
I still don’t trust him, because of the right wing framing. he’d be better than clintoon.
don’t get me wrong. the rhetoric matters. my problem with obama is that i don’t know how much the rhetoric is something his advisors want him to say, and how much he really believes. he used to be a real progressive. i just hope he still is. sometimes i wonder if the people politicians hire when they want to run for national office don’t turn their principles to mush.
I will go full bore for any candidate we choose. They’re ALL better than the alternative, by a wide margin.
I really don’t see how anyone who claims to have even slightly Democratic leanings could go for anyone on the Republican side of the ledger. The differences are as stark as night and day. The blogosphere will rally behind ANY nominee, warts and all, that the Democrats put forth. As a country we are at critical mass with this election cycle and there is no other sane choice.
Well, Bloomberg is not necessarily out of contention. I think if Hillary is nominated and Bloomberg runs it will be extremely tempting to work for the outsider.
I’m afraid that if Hillary and Bloomberg were both in the race, they would be bumping into each other a lot at the Presidential Campaign Centrist Club gatherings.
But, hey, the Wall Street Journal sure is pimping his potential candidacy today. I’m sure a lot of it is the Huckabee Fear Factor from the WSJ and their corporate friends.
Without a doubt.
In fact if he is nominated he will have to be careful not to appear too MUCH the darling of the left.
Look…roughly speaking, here is the way the American electorate shapes up.
A little less than 30% is committed to right wing values, or perhaps better are so hypnotized that no matter how badly the right fucks up,. they will still vote right wing.
Evidence?
Bush’s approval polls have NEVER dipped below 30%-ish numbers as far as I know, and an administration cannot fuck up much worse.
I would guess that a little less than that percentage are deeply committed to some combination of “left-wing” values, the Dem party itself or anti-right wing positions that are driven by mostly economic. sexual and racial/religious positions.
So many Jews quite correctly smell Hitler coming off of the right, so many minority people smell the KKK, so many women smell barefoot and pregnant memes, so many homosexuals smell the incipient bash, etc.
Say 20%-25%. (That percentage would grow enormously if minority voters turned out in huge numbers and right wing women voted with their hearts and brains instead of with their husbands, by the way. But let’s hold it at around 25% for argument’s sake.)
This means that 45% to 55% of the potential voting population of the U.S. is basically uncommitted. And it is those so-called centrists…more like without a center-ists, really…who will determine the outcome of the election.
Now most of them are scared to death of extremism in any form. It’s been a long, LONG time since a line like Goldwater’s ” Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice” line would resonate with tired, hypnomedia-sleepled Americans.
“A chicken in every pot and a car in every garage” is more the speed of this vast, somnolent majority.
If Obama is nominated and allows himself to be isolated to the left…and I can hear the Swift Boaters revving their rhetorical rotary engines as I speak…Black, Afro-Muslim name, madrassa educated while still young enough to be turned, peacenik, socialist, crooked Chicago Dems, closet Black Muslim,. darling of the leftiness blogs etc. etc. etc…that centerless center will be stampeded to the right and we will end up with Huckabee, Romney or McCain. With a right wing President who is…in the preceding order… either honestly and good-heartedly stupid, dishonestly, robotically stupid or smart as a whip and in bed with the warhawks.
Or worse than any of them Giuliani, who I would cast as the Anti-Christ in a split second if I were to make a horror film in that general genre.
Nosferatu comes to the White House.
Thus the question might very well become not whether the blogosphere will they go full bore for Obama through November, but whether doing so might actually hurt his chances of being elected.
Provided of course he is not “ARRRGH”-ed out of contention by the pro-center media before he even gets in a position to be nominated.
The war cry of the left should be:
They did it a scant 4 years ago.
They can do it again.
Just sayin’…
“And what does the blogosphere do when Obama is the nominee, will they go full bore for him through November?”
It ain’t that simple.
Not by a LONG shot.
Later…
AG
I wish everyone I know could read this. I think you summed up exactly what I think, on each of the three major candidates.
They say what they say in part because they have to, and they are not entirely insincere by doing so. But they’ve each found the style that best suits their niche.
I think this post is dead on about Hillary and Obama. And to me, the problem with the “closet progressive” angle (even if true) is, what do supporters think will happen after the election that will allow Hillary or Obama to come out of the closet? As with ending the war, which so many folks kept saying in early 2007 and repeatedly thereafter that the Democrats would do when the time was politically right (but not right now, whenever “now” was), won’t there always be another election to be concerned about? If you can’t be too anti-war or anti-domestic spying or anti-racism or whatever prior to the election, how can you be afterwards? Won’t there be a midterm election to think about? No Democrat is going to want a repeat of Bill Clinton’s 1994 drubbing, after all. Losing the Congress compromised the rest of his presidency. And after that, of course Hillary or Obama will want second terms, and– if their logic is correct– no one is going to re-elect a weak woman or bomb-throwing Jesse Jackson clone, right?
I understand the external constraints. I just don’t see how those constraints, once accepted, ever come off. Particularly, as Boo points out, when you look at the advisers these two have surrounded themselves with and consider the sort of political instincts they have.
I am voting any Democrat over any Republican. But at this point I have to hope the Democrat is Edwards (and that is a conclusion that I have some to reluctantly, because I have never found Edwards to be as moving or impressive as some seem to).
I’ve been thinking long and hard about why I just can’t get behind one of the “big three” dems right now. And, as often happens, the BooMan gives me the thoughts to figure it all out and make me feel more comfortable with the inevitable Dem I’ll be voting for next November.
I went full-bore for Dodd even before his senate fight (but then, I have an undying crush on the US Constitution and rule of law) and am still hoping that he’ll end up in a very powerful position in the next administration or in the senate when the dust settles.
Living in Omaha, just across the river from Caucusland, I’ve been subjected to the TV commercials of the candidates (and have even seen a few GrOPer ads since Omaha is the source of TeeVee for western, retarded-conservative Iowa).
A co-worker’s son went to a Clinton rally and had his picture taken with her (which his father subsequently passed around as a joke – stupid dick). The kid was really impressed by her. Hopefully he can talk some sense into his idiot parents (not that a Dem vote in Nebraska matters anyway…).
The Omaha Weird Herald even had a columnist lament how all of his friends in Iowa count but he doesn’t because he lives in the wrong state (in more ways than one, I might add). This prompted me to fire off a letter to the editor responding that it’s good that Nebraska doesn’t “count” since this idiot state went in a landslide for Bush – TWICE.
Crap, I’m rambling again.
Let me close by saying that I actually welled up with tears when watching Edwards’ commercial last night. So, who knows? And I didn’t feel skeevy when Clinton’s and Obama’s commercials were running, either. Romney & Chucklefuck? Skeeved to the max.
Which Edwards commercial made you well up in tears? The laid-off factory worker ad?
It got to me. Pretty powerful stuff that.
Absolutely. Hearing the catch in that guy’s voice as he’s talking really got to me.
The problem is, we have no way of knowing whether Obama’s need to not ghettoize himself would extend to his presidential behavior as well. Where is the line?
I’m strongly for Edwards, but could be happy and enthusiastic about Obama if he became the candidate. The race problem is certainly one factor, but I think inexperience accounts for some of the blandness that sometimes blunts his effectiveness. I listened to the speech he gave at the big Dem dinner in Iowa a few weeks ago and he was everything a real progressive could want. And in non-gotcha conversational settings he comes off as extremely intelligent, informed, and likable.
Of all the candidates, I suspect that Obama has the potential to be one of America’s great presidents. But then Bill Clinton probably did too. Whether the potential is realized remains to be seen, but I think Obama really does offer grounds for realistic hope. (I just wish he’d quit talking about it so much.)
It’s good to see the blogger and liberal obsession with “sincerity” questioned. I think part of it grows out of our experience with Bill, which all the candidates now have to try to live down. I’m as cynical as it gets, but do believe that a candidate’s attitudes, and the passions they display during campaigns does set something of a standard they are forced to honor. So I don’t really much care what Edwards and Obama and the rest think in their inner depths. Their presidencies will be shaped by the priorities they’ve projected and by the people they choose to be around them. Which is why any of the Dems except Clinton and maybe Biden could win me back as an enthusiastic Democratic supporter.
A “four” not because I favor Edwards, but because this is well-expressed (as always) and the key to what I perceive is the angst/negativity/dislike (I don’t know if any of those words properly capture the sentiment), to Obama’s candidacy in some quarters.
I really believe this gets to the heart of the matter–and I believe that Obama wins on this. Obama is a progressive; Bill never was. (I supported Tsongas.)
How soon we forget: hurrying back to “oversee” the death penalty being administered to a mentally retarded man; the “Sista Souljah” moment; etc.
Bill was DLC all the way, and he made no bones about it. But when B. Clinton won the nomination, it then became important to get behind him to get rid of the dreaded Poppy.
[Not that this has anything to do w/ the above topic, but why, oh why am I acting as if I have no work to finish?!?!?!]
This is the problem with the liberal blogosphere and Obama. They equate black with “ghetto” (which the height of pigeonholing bullshit, IMO) and hand-wring whether Obama is “Black enough”. It took me awhile to realize that the insultingly stupid question and the repeated occurrences of it, didn’t mean “Is Obama ‘Black enough’ for Black people?” What the question was, “Is Obama ‘Black enough, but not too Black’ for white people?” My answer: Who gives a fuck?
Let’s face it, despite the repeated denials, the (white) liberal blogosphere upset that Obama didn’t kiss their asses, just like the so-called (media appointed) Black leadership is upset that Obama didn’t kiss their asses. So, they create (or use the GOP) slams–that would be the mind boggling and untrue ‘inexperience’ BS–against the Senator that can equally be attributed to the other candidates.
While the Senator does enjoy support from some Black people, those who tend to support him, especially in the liberal blogosphere are put down as either backing just because of his race or that since they’re a higher educated Black person that their support doesn’t really count or equate to what blackBlack people think. You know…the ghetto ones.
I assume none of this is directed at me, since I haven’t said anything of the kind.
huh?
Markos and Pam Spaulding aren’t white, and I don’t recall reading any of the other liberal bloggers whom I know to be white wringing their hands over whether Obama’s Black enough or too Black. I haven’t read a single such discussion, though maybe there’s been one, but I think that sort of thing has been the province more of the mainstream press. Like, for example, the Washington Post. See:
Or in this widely reprinted Stanley Crouch article that was also not written by a liberal blogger of any color:
How the WaPo and an editorial originally printed in the NY Daily News count as the white blogosphere, I just don’t know.
The thing we’ve been complaining about most loudly, in fact, has been Obama’s use of GOP-style slams against liberals and progressives. His campaign attacks Krugman, he had an ex-gay headline a gospel concert, he revived right wing talking points about Social Security, dissed Gore, dissed trial lawyers, … I mean, criminy, but who’s using right wing messaging?
I disagree completely with BooMan that this particular aspect of his campaign is the product of outside constraint. No, he’s not going to sound like a radical and can’t. But no one forced him to start attacking members of the liberal/progressive coalition. Krugman’s one of the handful of progressive media voices we can count on; LGBTs are strong supporters of the Democratic party and homophobia polls worse every year, but he has to go and have the creep MC the concert when he could’ve just sung and downplayed it after concerns were raised; everyone in the party and on the blogs had to fight like hell to keep the Republican trifecta from turning their grumbling about Social Security into a policy of dismantling it; and that’s just the appetizer.
He’s ‘bipartisan’, he wants to reach out to those who disagree with him. Fine. Have at. Quit bloody well kicking the people who started off on your side to begin with. That’s what always ticks me off the most about Dems who talk about bipartisanship. Somehow, their desire to build bridges so rarely extends to the progressive communities I identify with. Their idea of who it’s important to ‘work with’ just leaves me on the curb, so I don’t see why they deserve my time of day.
If he wins, I’m just not going to write about the presidential race if I can at all avoid it. And the Donnie McClurkin incident, sod all, but his campaign isn’t getting a penny from me. Not one red cent. If he likes Republicans more than me, more than my friends, more than the people I’ve watched sweat bullets to make this country better over the last few years, then he can ask them for money, instead. I’m sure he won’t have any trouble.
I won’t work against him, I’ve said my peace. But I’m not working for him, either.
The other problem of the liberal blogosphere…I say, “liberal blogosphere” and somehow that translates to the BBB. The fact still remains that that question has been raised over and over again in the liberal blogosphere. And two examples out of the entire liberal blogosphere is a tiny drop. Try doing a search on various blogs about this stupid subject and you’ll find them.
The rest of your post, I can see your point. There’s a reason that Obama was not my first choice and you hit on many of the points.
With all due respect BooMan, the above is a little off the mark. Was Colin Powell constrained?
I’m one of those bi-racials. See Americans have finally coined a new term. But we havn’t yet dropped the hyphen.
Unafraid and without constraints, Obama has handled all those “issues” very well. He did not run away from his race. On the contrary.
True when you look at Obama you see his skin tone. When you get pass that and listen, whatever your hue, he speaks to you. He connects.
Jack and Jill is worth a read:here
and here
I actually agree with both of you. Both things are true: that he is neither Magic Negro nor Messiah (thank God!) AND that he has precisely the constraints that Booman highlighted.
Powell, running as a repubulican, wouldn’t have been as constrained because he wouldn’t be expected to talk about “…racism, poverty, crime, predatory loans, sentencing disparity, and other issues that are disproportionately important to the black community” as a republican candidate.
His constraints would have come in a repub primary that is so totally wingnut that he’d be considered “liberal.” And his skin tone, no matter how light, would not help matters.
“But he has to be careful. He can’t come off as a black-identity politician.”
Or has he already? A lot of people think he played the race card because Oprah supported him.
Then those people are morons. Did Clinton play the gender card when Streisand supported her? Did Huckabee play the race card when Norris supported him?
Yeah, anyone who thinks that Obama played a fucking race card because of Oprah is a complete moron and frankly, too stupid to vote.
If Oprah Winfrew doesn’t “transcend race” then nobody ever will…
I think you have pretty well summed it up, BooMan. All three of them have to thread a needle in some way. I think it says a lot about where we are that all three of our leading contenders have pretty much the same needle threading problem. In any other election cycle I suspect Dodd and Biden, the establishment white guys, would be at the front of the pack. Not this time. The first woman to have a serious shot at the White House. The first black man to be even seriously considered. Those two, in the same election cycle no less, speak volumes about where we are as a movement, where we are as a party, where we are as nation. In a way it’s a shame that they are both happening at the same time. Either one alone would be making history, no matter what the outcome or what else was goin on.
And I find it particularly noteworthy (to me at least, YMMV) that John Edwards, the good looking southern white guy, who is the third contender in this astonishing cycle, seems to have the tightest needle of all the thread. Whoulda thunkit? His unapologetic, strident even, angry even, populist message seems to be such a threat to the powers that be that they would rather have a woman or a black man. Let your mind roll that one around for a minute.
I want to be very clear about this. Edwards is my first choice, by a long way. I don’t really have a second choice, unless you want to say that Biden, Clinton, Dodd, and Obama are tied for second. Oh, and Richardson — the first Hispanic who is more than a token in this process. If Edwards were not in this race, I would be laying awake nights trying to figure out not who I support, but who I support the most.
None of our candidates is perfect. But they are, without exception, exceptional people with astonishing potential. We have an embarrassment of riches.
Obama and the Leftiness Blogs, Take Two. Another angle.
AG