In Defense of Senator Obama
A couple of days ago, Senator Obama gave an interview to a Reno newspaper where he said the following:
Liberal press outlets like Democracy Now and the Huffington Post and certain activist friends have jumped all over this as an indicator that Obama is a wolf in sheep's clothing:
They say when he mentioned "the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s" he was referring to the civil rights and women's rights movements.
They say that Reagan was a union buster, and Obama's statement is tacit approval of such tactics.
They say that Reagan did more than any other President to roll back social progress in this country, which means Obama will also head in that direction.
Here's what I say: You're smarter than that, guys. Don't fall into the same decontextualized, gotcha mentality that drives political dialogue 99.9% of the time.
Obama was making an academic statement about an historical moment in this country where the confluence of public attitudes, political message and personal charisma caused our country to move in a fundamentally different direction. He was suggesting that the country is ripe for another such categorical shift, and that he is best positioned (because of his message and his charisma) to make that shift happen.
This is exactly what I was suggesting when I mentioned Reagan in an earlier post.
Obama is not anti-union.
Obama is not pro-corporation.
Obama is not anti civil rights/women's rights.
In fact, there's more in John Edwards' record than Obama's record to suggest that HE'S a wolf in sheep's clothing.
I don't think either of them are. I'm just sayin'.
Please, stop practicing the same gotcha politics that already hampers real discussion. And start thinking about this in a bit more rational terms. All three viable Democratic candidates agree what the big picture problems are in this Country. The nomination comes down to a question of style:
Do you think we need an activist to tackle our problems head-on? Then Edwards is your candidate.
Do you think we need someone to inspire us, which will give an Administration the political will to address our problems? Then, Obama is your candidate.
Do you think that we can triangulate our way out of our problems? Then, Clinton is your candidate.
| Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think people, he just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing. |
Liberal press outlets like Democracy Now and the Huffington Post and certain activist friends have jumped all over this as an indicator that Obama is a wolf in sheep's clothing:
Here's what I say: You're smarter than that, guys. Don't fall into the same decontextualized, gotcha mentality that drives political dialogue 99.9% of the time.
Obama was making an academic statement about an historical moment in this country where the confluence of public attitudes, political message and personal charisma caused our country to move in a fundamentally different direction. He was suggesting that the country is ripe for another such categorical shift, and that he is best positioned (because of his message and his charisma) to make that shift happen.
This is exactly what I was suggesting when I mentioned Reagan in an earlier post.
Obama is not anti-union.
Obama is not pro-corporation.
Obama is not anti civil rights/women's rights.
In fact, there's more in John Edwards' record than Obama's record to suggest that HE'S a wolf in sheep's clothing.
I don't think either of them are. I'm just sayin'.
Please, stop practicing the same gotcha politics that already hampers real discussion. And start thinking about this in a bit more rational terms. All three viable Democratic candidates agree what the big picture problems are in this Country. The nomination comes down to a question of style:
Do you think we need an activist to tackle our problems head-on? Then Edwards is your candidate.
Do you think we need someone to inspire us, which will give an Administration the political will to address our problems? Then, Obama is your candidate.
Do you think that we can triangulate our way out of our problems? Then, Clinton is your candidate.
Labels: Politics
posted by isaacjosephson at 11:04 AM
3 Comments:
I could not agree more. Folks are reacting the wrong way to his statement. He was merely drawing similarities with himself and Reagan in scale of change not type of change. His statements from a historical perspective were 100% correct.
Obama's statements were consistent with his general message. Most Democrats would run from drawing similarities with between themselves and Reagan during primary season. However, Obama staying consistent with his one country message seems to believe that folks will look beyond the demagogue which has become the name Reagan (like communism, socialism, race/gender cards, etc...) and see his statements for what they are. I hope people prove him right.
Since I recognize much from this post from our recent emails on the topic, I just want to clarify that I never said Obama was anti-union, etc. What I said was, it was strategically dumb of him to invoke REagan in a primary but more importantly I think the idea of Reagan's rhetoric and vapid inspirational speeches, while at the same time he was ruining this country through policy is not a change any candidate should want to align themselves with. I do understand what he is saying and I don't have trouble with that quote as much as his overall disdain for activism and social justice as a movement (evidenced throughout his many appearances/interviews). At one point he says he is not invested in the civil rights movement. Oh yeah? Don't you think that movement, in which he is "not invested" has something to do with his current candidacy? Not giving activists their credit, where credit is obviously due, angers me and makes me think that he is blinded by his own inspirational one country rhetoric. This ain't one country and for those who want to believe it is because they are scared to fight, maybe he's your man.
Please send me links to evidence of Edwards being anti-union or anti-social justice.
Democracy Now said "some have suggested" that the quote meant Obama was anti civil rights/women's rights. MSNBC said that "some have suggested" it meant he was anti-union.
So, no you didn't. But you weren't the only one that was talking about this.
I have heard Obama say he is not invested in civil rights. It's merely to deflect the notion that he is a Black (capital B) candidate, which would pigeonhole him and decimate the white vote.
He does NOT have disdain for activism. His first job out of school was an activist. Then, he became a lawyer for activists. I truly don't know where you're getting that.
Post a Comment
<< Home