The Two Obamas and Me, Part One
At the end of the 2004 presidential primary season and how, after Howard Dean's loss, I found great hope in Barack Obama when I briefly moved to Chicago during the Illinois Senate primary. Reading the latest piece in the media whirlwind surrounding Obama, I found this nugget that reminded me why I liked the guy so much, and why I volunteered for his campaign in a crowded field:
I find these left wing strawmen disturbing on a very personal level. Whenever a right-wing pundit or politician uses those exact same strawmen, I feel as though I am personally being attacked. This isn't paranoia--right-wing politicians probably are referring to me when they make statements like that, since their intention is often to slander any American who would refer to herself or himself as a progressive or a liberal. The problem is that when Democrats who seek to capture the "middle ground" use the exact same strawmen, I have a hard time believing they are not referring to me. What's worse, is that when it comes to someone like Barack Obama, for who I worked and tried to get elected, I am not really sure what I did to deserve being talked to that way. And yes, it actually hurts to be made a scapegoat by someone you wanted to see in office, and that you helped--even if only slightly--to achieve that office. A single phrase keeps going around in my head whenever I hear Obama use one of his strawmen: I helped you, man. Why are you treating me like this? Is this a sign you don't want me to help you anymore? Do you honestly believe that attacking me is more valuable than I help I can provide?
Unlike, say, Ann Coutler, I don't actually believe that Obama thinks he is referring to the entire left when he makes statements like this. However, since he never actually says who he is referring to, I simply have to assume that, like Ann Coulter, he is referring to the entire left, and therefore also to me. And yes--call me naïve, or call me thin-skinned--but that hurts me. He could clear this up by stopping any use of these left-wing strawmen altogether. There is no need for Obama to use these strawmen in order to make himself look more like a "uniter." (Of course, I don't even see how insulting your fellow Americans makes you a "uniter" in the first place). In the end, all his use of these strawmen does is obscure the great Obama that I quoted at the top of this post. I like that Obama. Everyone in the netroots likes that Obama, as his favorables from the BlogPac netroots survey shows. Like I did in Illinois, I imagine virtually everyone in the netroots would be willing to work, bleed, and walk through the fire for that Obama. There is no need, before revealing the first Obama, for him to indicate that he isn't one those shrill lefties who you heard about from Ann Coulter. There is no need to throw your friends under the bus while saying what you believe.
This man has potential for all-time, worldwide greatness for the first half of the 21st century. However, if he insists on continuing to use left-wing strawmen to describe himself and what he believes then, to use his own words, he will just become another "DLC-type commentator" more worried about being "tagged as a liberal" then about doing what "people need." I mean, is there a reason you differentiate yourself from left-wing strawmen before stating your opposition to the war unless you are worried about being tagged as a liberal? I can't possibly imagine one. This can't all be the media putting words in Obama's mouth and trying to form this triangulating narrative around him. Part of this problem starts with Obama himself.
I will probably have more on this tomorrow. There is so much here that I need to get off my chest, both personally and politically, when it comes to the rise of Obama. I can't say it all in one post. This man just potentially means so much to so many people in America and around that world, that we need to encourage him. He should be neither dismissed outright nor embraced uncritically.
Which is not to say that Obama doesn't have very strong partisan convictions. "There are times I think we're not ambitious enough," Obama says. "I remember back in 2004, one of the candidates had made a proposal about universal health care, and some DLC-type commentator said, `We can't propose this kind of big-government costly program, because it'll send a signal we're tax-and-spend liberals.' But that's not a good reason to not do something. You don't give up on the goal of universal health care because you don't want to be tagged as a liberal. People need universal health care."
I remember that Obama. I miss that Barack Obama--but he does still show up from time to time. I hope we will see more of him in the future. That is the man I worked for in the 2004 Illinois Senate primary, and who built up easily the largest netroots following of any statewide candidate in 2004. What I don't understand is where this new Obama came from:
In town-hall meetings, when those who opposed the war get shrill, Obama makes a point of noting that while he, too, opposed the war, he's "not one of those people who cynically believes Bush went in only for the oil."
Did anyone with any power every say that? Did any leading Democrats ever say that? Did any progressive or liberal of any public stature ever say that? If they did, I'd love to see the quote. Why is it necessary for Obama to preface his opposition to the war by saying that he isn't like some crazy, left-wing stereotype that he never names or quotes? More:
We're now in a packed room at Eastern Illinois University. A woman stands up and tosses Obama what I assume she thinks is a bit of red meat. What, she asks, does the senator think of the pervasiveness of religion in public discourse these days? Obama doesn't take the bait.
"No one would say that Dr. King should leave his moral vision at the door before getting involved in public-policy debate," he answers. "He says, `All God's children.' `Black man and white man, Jew and Gentile, Protestant and Catholic.' He was speaking religiously. So we have to remember that not every mention of God is automatically threatening a theocracy.
Who ever said that any mention of God is automatically threatening a theocracy? Did the woman who asked the question say that? If not, then why did he respond that way? Even if she did say that, why is what one woman in a crowd at Eastern Illinois University the equivalent spokesperson for the left as, I don't know, Sam Brownback is for the right? Where is the equivalence in making everyone on the left accountable for every statement of every random person who shows up to any event or a protest and, say, the right being only accountable for what Dick Cheney says?"No one would say that Dr. King should leave his moral vision at the door before getting involved in public-policy debate," he answers. "He says, `All God's children.' `Black man and white man, Jew and Gentile, Protestant and Catholic.' He was speaking religiously. So we have to remember that not every mention of God is automatically threatening a theocracy.
I find these left wing strawmen disturbing on a very personal level. Whenever a right-wing pundit or politician uses those exact same strawmen, I feel as though I am personally being attacked. This isn't paranoia--right-wing politicians probably are referring to me when they make statements like that, since their intention is often to slander any American who would refer to herself or himself as a progressive or a liberal. The problem is that when Democrats who seek to capture the "middle ground" use the exact same strawmen, I have a hard time believing they are not referring to me. What's worse, is that when it comes to someone like Barack Obama, for who I worked and tried to get elected, I am not really sure what I did to deserve being talked to that way. And yes, it actually hurts to be made a scapegoat by someone you wanted to see in office, and that you helped--even if only slightly--to achieve that office. A single phrase keeps going around in my head whenever I hear Obama use one of his strawmen: I helped you, man. Why are you treating me like this? Is this a sign you don't want me to help you anymore? Do you honestly believe that attacking me is more valuable than I help I can provide?
Unlike, say, Ann Coutler, I don't actually believe that Obama thinks he is referring to the entire left when he makes statements like this. However, since he never actually says who he is referring to, I simply have to assume that, like Ann Coulter, he is referring to the entire left, and therefore also to me. And yes--call me naïve, or call me thin-skinned--but that hurts me. He could clear this up by stopping any use of these left-wing strawmen altogether. There is no need for Obama to use these strawmen in order to make himself look more like a "uniter." (Of course, I don't even see how insulting your fellow Americans makes you a "uniter" in the first place). In the end, all his use of these strawmen does is obscure the great Obama that I quoted at the top of this post. I like that Obama. Everyone in the netroots likes that Obama, as his favorables from the BlogPac netroots survey shows. Like I did in Illinois, I imagine virtually everyone in the netroots would be willing to work, bleed, and walk through the fire for that Obama. There is no need, before revealing the first Obama, for him to indicate that he isn't one those shrill lefties who you heard about from Ann Coulter. There is no need to throw your friends under the bus while saying what you believe.
This man has potential for all-time, worldwide greatness for the first half of the 21st century. However, if he insists on continuing to use left-wing strawmen to describe himself and what he believes then, to use his own words, he will just become another "DLC-type commentator" more worried about being "tagged as a liberal" then about doing what "people need." I mean, is there a reason you differentiate yourself from left-wing strawmen before stating your opposition to the war unless you are worried about being tagged as a liberal? I can't possibly imagine one. This can't all be the media putting words in Obama's mouth and trying to form this triangulating narrative around him. Part of this problem starts with Obama himself.
I will probably have more on this tomorrow. There is so much here that I need to get off my chest, both personally and politically, when it comes to the rise of Obama. I can't say it all in one post. This man just potentially means so much to so many people in America and around that world, that we need to encourage him. He should be neither dismissed outright nor embraced uncritically.
|
|
|
Permalink :: 211 Comments :: Post a Comment
|