I have not written about my home state Senator Barak Obama previously to this. Generally speaking, I don’t write about obscure left wing politicians much anyway unless they do or say something hilariously stupid. But this recent boomlet for Senator Obama seems to have taken everyone by surprise. And still more than a year away from the first Presidential primaries and caucuses, it amazes me so little information has been disseminated about this likable, thoughtful man.
First, it must be said that a Democratic corpse plucked from a Chicago graveyard could have won the race for Illinois Senator in 2004. You might recall that the Republican nominee Jack Ryan was forced to withdraw 4 months before the election following revelations contained in child custody documents relating to Ryan’s divorce from actress Jeri Ryan (the sexiest Borg in the Star Trek Universe) that he forced the comely actress to go to sex clubs with him. The court records were retrieved by the Chicago Tribune and a local TV station in one of the most shameless examples of yellow journalism this city has seen in a while. As it turns out, Jeri Ryan released a statement saying that she still supported her ex-husbands candidacy while Jack Ryan was summarily dropped by the state party.
Casting about for a replacement, the desperate Republicans turned to “Da Coach” Mike Ditka, former Bears coach, restaurateur, motivational speaker, and the biggest loose cannon of a mouth this side of Howard Dean. Striking out with Ditka, the party considered everyone from former Senate candidate John Cox to the weird and wonderful Ted Nugent; former Amboy Duke, solo rocker, bow hunter extraordinaire, and second amendment absolutist.
In the end, they settled on Alan Keyes, a former ambassador and at the time, a major spokesman for the hard right. Keyes, an extremely articulate and passionate speaker, began to put his foot into it immediately by saying that a vote for Obama would be a “mortal sin.” He compared abortion doctors to terrorists, he said that “Christ would not vote for Barak Obama,” and homosexuality was “selfish hedonism.”
Obama was so far ahead by October 1st that he campaigned for other Democrats across the country, contributing millions to their campaigns. On election day, John Kerry polled 55 percent of the vote while Obama destroyed Keyes by winning more than 70%.
In the last two years. Obama has proved himself a typical freshman Senator, mainly keeping his nose to the Senate grindstone while maintaining a relative quiet demeanor. However, glancing at his votes on key pieces of legislation, one sees a cautious, thoughtful approach to a wide variety of issues from the economy to homeland security to the War in Iraq.
Is Obama really a new “New Democrat?” Tough on our enemies, tender hearted to those less fortunate, more protectionist without throwing free trade to the dogs, welcoming of immigrants, and on liberal touchstone issues like health care, taxes, and poverty programs someone capable of embracing new ideas and new solutions?
Or is he just a typical lefty who has been running for President since he stepped foot in the Senate and has deliberately positioned himself with his pronouncements and votes as a centrist candidate?
Obama is an empty vessel. Not a Clintonesque figure in that he tries to appeal to all voters in some way but rather a welcoming icon who invites the voter to take something away and make it their own as far as how they view the man. Is this dishonest? Or is it great politics?
At this point, it would be hard for Americans to say. That’s because we have no real sense of the man’s character. His personal story is among the most compelling in American political history. A man proud of his black African heritage but who grew up with his mother’s white family, if there was ever a more likely candidate to bridge the racial divide in America he has not emerged as of yet.
His state Senate voting record was decidedly liberal. He was perhaps best known for his stand against the death penalty in Illinois – an issue that was to prove him prescient when it was discovered several Illinois death row inmates were actually innocent. Governor Ryun took the extraordinary step of ordering a moratorium on executions until a review of every death row inmate’s case was completed. Obama has also fought to eliminate racial profiling which has not endeared him to homeland security advocates who believe that profiling passengers at airports is absolutely vital in protecting civil aviation.
Obama opposed the War in Iraq, giving a rousing speech to a downtown Chicago rally in late 2002 that many observers believed was the most inspiring anti-war message they had ever heard. But Obama is no knee jerk pacifist:
“I noticed that a lot of people at that rally were wearing buttons saying, ‘War Is Not an Option,’ †he said. “And I thought, I don’t agree with that. Sometimes war is an option. The Civil War was worth fighting. World War Two. So I got up and said that, among other things.†What he said, among other things, was “I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.†Invading and occupying Iraq, he said, would be “a rash war, a war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.â€
And indeed, Obama supported the War in Afghanistan. And he voted against establishing a timetable for withdrawal in Iraq, believing that we can’t leave Iraq until the situation is stable:
Q: You’re in favor of keeping troops in Iraq. How long?A: The War on Terror has to be vigorously fought. Where we part company is how to fight it, because Afghanistan in fact was not a preemptive war, it was a war launched directly against those who were responsible for 9/11. Iraq was a preemptive war based on faulty evidence-and I say that not in hindsight, or Monday-morning quarterbacking. Six months before the war was launched, I questioned the evidence that would lead to us being there. Now, us having gone in there, we have a deep national security interest in making certain that Iraq is stable. If not, not only are we going to have a humanitarian crisis, we are also going to have a huge national security problem on our hands-because, ironically, it has become a hotbed of terrorists as a consequence, in part, of our incursion there. In terms of timetable, I’m not somebody who can say with certainty that a year from now or six months from now we’re going to be able to pull down troops.
Clearly not a typical liberal on the war.
Nor on homeland security. He voted yes on re-authorizing the Patriot Act but nay on extending the Act’s wiretap provision. But he is not a civil liberties absolutist, believing we should balance intelligence reform with Bill of Rights protections. He is for increased military spending and expanding the army.
In short, an interesting (or calculated) mix of hawk and dove. Again, an empty vessel that we, the voter, can fill up with whatever we wish to see in him. Do his positions on these issues denote thoughtfulness? Or a singular ability to sniff out the center and adhere to it like glue?
On other issues important to Democratic interest groups such as labor, teachers, blacks, Hispanics, and bureaucrats, he has a pretty standard liberal voting record. But there are interesting exceptions, such as his more balanced view of free trade. While voting against CAFTA, he also advocates “fair trade” practices, requiring other countries to enforce the labor and environmental laws that many nation’s like China and Mexico honor in the breach. While this may seem typical liberal pablum, he makes a point when speaking to labor groups to say that he knows that all of them support free trade – a brave pronouncement before the most protectionist group in America. He explains it this way:
He mostly told the union men what they wanted to hear. Then he said, “There’s nobody in this room who doesn’t believe in free trade,†which provoked a small recoil. These men were ardent protectionists. A little later, he said, with conviction, “I want India and China to succeedâ€â€”a sentiment not much heard in the outsourcing-battered heartland. He went on, however, to criticize Washington and Wall Street for not looking after American workers.Later, I asked him if he wasn’t waving a red flag in front of labor by talking about free trade. “Look, those guys are all wearing Nike shoes and buying Pioneer stereos,†he said. “They don’t want the borders closed. They just don’t want their communities destroyed.â€
Straddling? Or “triangulation? Or is it a position born of thoughtful reflection and heartfelt belief? Obama invites you to choose.
Is this what makes him such a threat to a run by Hillary? My good friend Richard Baehr, National Political Correspondent for The American Thinker hits the nail on the head:
Edwards, Clinton, and perhaps Al Gore are the likely candidates standing in the way of Obama’s next coronation, should he make his candidacy official. For now, he is being drafted to run by a liberal national media, hungry for a fresh face, weary and wary of the old demons that a Clinton candidacy will dredge up.Obama would be a huge threat to Hillary, since African Americans, along with single women, are her two biggest support groups. I think it is a safe assumption that some of that huge haul of tens of millions that Ms Clinton has raised for her non—competitive Senate race this year is now going to pay for opposition researchers trolling for ‘material’ on Obama going back to his State Senate days in Illinois.
We see this dance by the media every four years. Bored with writing and talking about the same old faces, the media seeks out a darkhorse candidate and elevates him for a short while to prominence – only to then amuse themselves by tearing him apart piece by piece once they’ve decided he is not worthy of all the glowing coverage.
In Obama’s case, there is the added significance of race to be considered. Will the Senator’s blackness protect him from the usual smear tactics practiced by politicians from both parties? This is a fascinating question and one that won’t be answered unless or until Obama runs. Being able to ignore the criticism of his GOP rival during his one statewide campaign, Obama never had to develop a strategy to deal with political attack dogs. And since Alan Keyes himself was black, no one could accuse him generating attacks that were racially motivated.
My own sense is that Obama would be crazy not to employ his race as a shield in any campaign he undertakes. Just about any criticism that comes his way can be twisted and manipulated into the appearance of an attack on the candidate’s racial heritage. Perhaps not figuratively. But a clever campaigner can always bring the subject around to race. Will such a tactic appeal to the American sense of fair play? Or will it backfire and look like pandering?
And what of the media frenzy that would surround an Obama candidacy? The first African American with a legitimate shot at the White House is a storyline too compelling not to have the media do everything in their power to see that it comes true. We will be treated to daily features about racists who are opposed to his candidacy as well as the hope generated by his run in the inner cities. It certainly would make great copy and would be irresistible in the end. No wonder Hillary is worried. Even she would be overshadowed in the media shadow boxing that would accompany an Obama candidacy.
At age 42 and still just a first term Senator (who sailed to electoral victory with nary a rough spot to challenge him), Obama’s decision on whether or not to run is not the issue for him. In an already crowded Democratic field, he would emerge as a likely alternative to Hillary – someone who many Democrats believe cannot win the general election. Will the empty vessel Obama be able to entice enough voters to place their faith in whatever they want to see and believe about this man?
We’re going to find out sooner rather than later, I’m sure.
10:40 am
It will be very interesting to see how the media comes down on this, if Obama does decide to run and if the Clinton opposition research team goes into action. Prior to the current boomlet for Barak, conventional wisdom had the big media folks in the Clinton’s pocket for the 2008 election, but that may not be the case—at least until the Democratic nomination is decided.
There’s already been one story put out in the weeks after the election questioning the ethics of some of Obama’s Illinois associates, though not of the Senator himself. Research on it may or may not have been assisted by the Clinton camp, but if you’re Hillary, you really do have to walk a fine line here due to the racial issue. Attack Barak too much and/or too directly, and even if you win the primary, you risk turning off black voters in November of ‘08, which would doom Mrs. Clinton’s presidental hopes (a constant barrage of negative stories on Barak coming from Hillary’s camp would also make a Clinton-Obama ticket exteremly problematic for the fall election).
The ideal strategy for Hillary would be to somehow get the Republicans to go on the attack first against Obama with any damaging opposition research, or at the very least, be able to blame Republicans for the attacks. That way, the damage is done, but Hillary’s fingerprints are not on the knife and she can play the stateswoman in all this, and then turn the racial issue around to use against the Republicans in the general election. Whether the Republicans are smart enough to simply stand on the sidelines and let the media treat Obama like a movie star, as long as it hurts Mrs. Clinton more than it hurts them, remains to be seen.
1:18 pm
There are just too many racists on both sides of the political spectrum in this country to elect a black man. I can’t see it happening for another half-generation or so.
I do see it as possibly very dividing for Obama to run and lose.
Frankly, I don’t see how either he or hillary are electable.
I think we’ll see a mediocre Dem oppose a mediocre Rep (McCain)...and may the most mediocre white male win.
1:25 pm
I don’t think Mr. Obama’s position on a timetable is as clear as you’ve made it out to be, Rick . Via Obama’s website 11/20/2006 (emphasis added):
When I first advocated steps along these lines over a year ago, I had hoped that this phased redeployment could begin by the end of 2006. Such a timetable may now need to begin in 2007, but begin it must. For only through this phased redeployment can we send a clear message to the Iraqi factions that the U.S. is not going to hold together this country indefinitely – that it will be up to them to form a viable government that can effectively run and secure Iraq.
1:46 pm
My Nickname for Obama;
The Human Rosarch Test
He can be anything the view wants him to be.
2:21 pm
This is the most important article I have ever read.
4:25 pm
My hunch is that Obama and Hillary have already made their deal, and that we’ll see him running as Hillary’s VP.
That way he gets access to her money and campaign organization, sidesteps the caveats about his foreign policy inexperience, and lines himself up nicely to run for president later on. She benefits by getting the Democratic rock star on her ticket, and by creating an MSM feeding frenzy over a progressive dream team – the first woman president and the first black vice president. That’s why he’s out in front of the cameras so early.
4:43 pm
To Nate:
I doubt it is predetermined. He may very well never have as good a shot at the presidency as he does in 2008. Cripes, if he is Hilary’s VP, he is overshadowed by both her AND Bill, plus we have already seen one Clinton Whitehouse, and we know it was scandal plauged. If Hilary has a similar cast of characters around her, she will only be hurt worse because she won’t dodge the issues nearly as adroitly as Bill did. Plus, does Hilary seem like the kind of person that will be comfortable sharing the spotlight any more than she has to? I dont’ think that the next VP will enjoy anywhere near the power that Cheney has, but you can just about bet hers will be invisible.
In fact, if I was him, I wouldn’t go anywhere near that ticket. If he thinks about it, then he should just watch a video of Al Gore saying “no controlling legal authority” over and over with someone who says – “that’s gonna be you Barak if you become her VP.
Face it, Barak’s appeal is the fact that no one knows who/what he is, but many people have bestowed saint-like status upon him. He can’t survive a wiff of scandal because then he becomes like “all the rest of them” and the word “scandal” is frequently found in close relation to the word “Clinton”.
6:07 pm
To headhunt23:
I agree it is hard to imagine anyone with a brain willfully associating with the Clintons, but I don’t understand then why Obama is out in front of the cameras so early. If he’s smart enough not to lie down with dogs, he should also be smart enough not to peak too early, or to run for President at all before he’s got the credentials. The only way his actions make sense to me is that (perhaps surprised by his own popularity) he’s making an opportunistic bid for the VP slot. I’m giving him the benefit of the doubt that he’s not fool enough to run for president without any credentials.
Anyway, I hope I’m wrong. The resulting MSM fawning frenzy over that pair would be sickening to witness.
10:16 pm
To Nate:
Oh, I know he doesn’t have the credentials, but for a Senator, i think that is actually benificial (unless he had governor time previously). people that vote have records that get twisted, and there is a reason why the last person to be elected directly out of the senate had a empty record there – JFK.
Obama’s stock will never be higher than it is during this election cycle, at least as a presidential candidate. I agree he probably shouldn’t be quite as visible now, but who knows? It isn’t like he is out there taking a lot of contentious issues head on. He is playing everything close to the vest, and trying to be statesman like by asking people to rise above politics.
Credentials cut both ways. Bush didn’t have a particularl illustrious resume. Carter was a one term governor. Reagan and Nixon had been out of office 8 years each. If he can position himself as a winner and get the funds rolling in, he is legit, even if he is an empty suit.
11:08 pm
Why does he seem like a star? Compare him to Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and Al Gore and the reason is obvious. While he’s just as liberal as they are, he doesn’t condescend, sneer and, so far, operate by the politics of personal destruction. Compared to them he appears soft-spoken, flexible, telegenic and charismatic—traits sorely missing in the other three.
Obama’s obvious faults are his lack of experience and his far left voting habits. But while the media felt a lack of experience was Bush’s major flaw, it won’t be a concern for them in Obama’s case because he believes in all the “right” things. The same can be said for his liberal views. Since the media, by and large, agree with him, there won’t be long articles detailing their concerns with his agenda. In fact, Obama’s liberal views won’t become an issue until they’re mentioned by a republican opponent, who will quickly be accused by the press of going negative.
Also important is the fact that his peers in the U.S. and Illinois Senate seem to genuinely like him. Can Hillary, Kerry and Gore say the same?
Some think he’s a flash in the pan like Howard Dean, but he isn’t. The media may have reported on Dean’s ascendancy, albeit temporary, but they didn’t understand it. Dean was clearly an oddball—an oddball they wanted shoved out of the way. That isn’t the case with Obama. This fevered lovefest will last unless Hillary has the FBI research his past. But then what could he have done that is worse then what she’s already done?
He may or may not be an empty suit, but I’m convinced that that doesn’t matter to the average American, who I believe votes for looks and personality first, gimmees second and long after that considers a candidate’s depth.
9:44 am
First, a slight error of fact. Obama is 45, this year. He was born 1961. Not that it makes a smattering of difference in the overall scheme of things. Truth is God. Anyone who can deal with truth is right for the job of president. It is the major failing of all leaders, philosophers, scientists and media commentators.
Obama is in touch with truth, but admits that he does does not know all that is true. A willingness to find the vital truth is the formula for both a win at the polls and a win in the history books. He has an instinctual understanding of the difference between truth as a transcendental lord over all that is true or to become true, and truth as facts, reality and ordinary events.
Obama is a blast of fresh air for us who have been in the musty closet of politics most of our lives or approached the decaying flesh of a political animal dead for some time but not buried yet. We have had others like him, but we missed the opportunities. We had others who got there only to find that truth is a hard sell in the halls of government. Obama has the guts, charisma, and the “audacity of hope”. That is a winning formula.
10:44 am
I’m a lifelong Illinois resident, and I have to take exception to this: “First, it must be said that a Democratic corpse plucked from a Chicago graveyard could have won the race for Illinois Senator in 2004.”
Jack Ryan was a credible and attractive candidate who would have had good shot at beating any other Democrat. But he was trailing Obama by 22 points BEFORE his “sex scandal” broke. If he had been trailing by 2 points, do you think the Republicans would have risked losing the Senate seat? Of course not! The “scandal” was just a convenient excuse to replace a candidate who clearly wasn’t going to Washington. The Illinois Republicans launched a comedy of errors by choosing Alan Keyes, but that’s another story.
Pundits have so overanalyzed Obama’s appeal that they miss the obvious. Americans are TIRED of politicians who are focused on blaming “the other side” while spectacularly failing to get anything done. Obama’s time in the Illinois Senate proves his M.O.: work with the other side to make a real difference. In the U.S. Senate, I think he’s done more than anyone can expect of the 98th Senator in the minority party.
In Illinois, we aren’t debating whether Barack Obama is “the real deal.” We already know he is.
10:49 am
First of all, for God’s sake lighten up.
Secondly, what are you arguing with me about? The reason a corpse could have won that race is because of the fact that Alan Keyes entered the race on August 8 and promptly committed political suicide.
You don’t know how Ryan would have done. Nor do we know how Obama would have responded to a genuine candidate who took him on the issues and not on his support for abortion or gay rights. That was the entire point of my article. The man has not been tested in big time political combat.
And reading his statements on a variety of issues, one is left wanting much more in the way of specificity. He’s clever by not saying much – but it also raises questions about what he really believes; another point I tried to make in the article.
11:41 am
Racism won’t prevent an Obama victory. His name will prevent it. One very close and reasonable person I know said, “I won’t vote for him. I don’t care what stands he has on the issues or how smart he is. His name (Obama rhymes with Osama) makes him sound too much like a terrorist.”
When polled people will say, “I have no problem voting for a black man.” In the privacy of the voting booth, many will decide, on the spot, that they can’t take the chance that they’d be voting for a terrorist sympathyzer. It’s not sound reasoning, but it’s how a lot of people think.
12:20 pm
The Obama Rorschach Test
Obamamania is in full effect (and not just among lefties seeking some sort of national racial therapy) ... at least for now … until the media tire of giving him the Full Monica and begin tearing him apart, ahead of their quadrannual ritual of kissi…
12:55 pm
To Reidblog:
hey, thanks for the credit on the Obamo Rorsarch test theory. Glad you got a post out of it. Not.
3:47 pm
Empty vessel my butt. Spend any time reading Obama’s speeches, or reading his books, and you will find a lot more substance there than any other president since G.W.H. Bush, and most of the candidates for that office since then as well. What, you want someone to hold your eyeballs open and force you to read it? No, you have your own agenda. You and your ilk are throwing labels at Obama just to see if one sticks a little.
Audio and Text of Senator Barack Obama’s Remarks “A Way Forward in Iraq” at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs Now Available Online, text and/or audio – http://www.thechicagocouncil.org/hottopics_details.php?hottopics_id=52 Yep, compare the breadth and depth of this speech to ANY made by the current president, or any of his official representatives.
Or read this editorial from that well-known hot bed of liberalism, the Chicago Tribune. Entitled “Obama Should Run,” the editorial begins “With the 2008 presidential field taking shape, the striking thing is how little excitement most of the possible candidates are likely to evoke.” http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0612060034dec06,1,6299295.story?coll=chi-opinionfront-hed
“I think Barack Obama is the most interesting persona to appear on the political landscape in decades. He’s a walking, talking hope machine, and he may reshape American politics.”—Mark McKinnon, top advisor to G.W. Bush in last two White House runs, as quoted in NY Times, Dec 4, 2006
Why not go for fresh blood, charisma, and smarts from the heartlands? Our strategy of electing seasoned political veterans from Texas and Arkansas has worked so well.
If this column is the best you can do (we don’t know who he is, he doesn’t have the experience, he is too young, etc.), you are going to be in for a long two years if Obama decides to run, and a long eight years after he becomes president.
4:14 pm
To 17WhitIV
Did you actually read that speech slugger?
Here are the points:
Predetermined PHased withdrawl
Better Training of Iraqi Troops
No More No Bid Contracts
Talk to our Syria and Iran
Plan for the Aftermath next time
Don’t think you can instill democracy at Gun Point.
OHhhhhhh….he is really going against the grain of popular opinion there, isn’t?
never mind he is wrong on the witdrawl portion (we should either double down or pull out immediately IMHO), and doesn’t really say what we should say or give Syria and Iran in exchange for our cooperation.
Yes Virginia, he still maintains empty suit status.
8:01 pm
To: headhunt23
Did you actually read the date he gave that speech? Did you notice that he gave that speech well before the ISG released its report? Did you notice that the ISG made many of the same points as Obama, with no disagreements at all with anything that Obama said? Not that anyone of any significance was on the ISG - yank yank. Not that the ISG didn’t come up with its conclusions with a whole lot more resources than Obama has. Like W could make such a speech. Yeah, like that.
9:28 pm
THere was nothing on the list that was a surprise, and the ISG was a commission with a predetermined outcome. Everything was what the left had been saying for quite a while. I really fail to see any great analysis there, because there is no original thought.
Perhaps if he would articulate the stakes in the war (something Bush has failed to do consistently) I would have a different opinion of it.
3:16 am
Re: headhunt23
If you think Obama’s speech had no great analysis there, because of no original thought, I can only imagine how low your opinion is of the current bunch of fratboy knuckleheads who are running the joint. Mismanage a war so bad, like they never heard of the Powell Doctrine when he was standing right there, and then blame everybody else all these years while at the same time telling us all is well! What a bunch of jamoches. Twelve years of a Repulican congress, and it’s still the democrats fault. People are finally starting to wake up.
9:02 am
To WhitIV
Oh, I 100% agree that the Republicans totally have botched that war – a war i am a veteran of I might add. I dont’ blame any Democrat for the administration’s policy failures.
I just don’t see how Republican failures make a pedestrian speech given by an empty suit a great policy initiative.
10:19 am
[...] I pointed out before that “a Democratic corpse plucked from a Chicago graveyard could have won the race for Illinois Senator in 2004.” The Republicans self destructed six months before election day. And their choosing Alan Keyes – an extremely conservative, out of state politician – to replace the scandal damaged Jack Ryun barely 10 weeks prior to the voting was such a clear act of desperation that Obama outpolled Democratic Presidential candidate John Kerry by more than 20 points on election day. [...]
10:28 am
[...] I pointed out before that “a Democratic corpse plucked from a Chicago graveyard could have won the race for Illinois Senator in 2004.” The Republicans self destructed six months before election day. And their choosing Alan Keyes – an extremely conservative, out of state politician – to replace the scandal damaged Jack Ryun barely 10 weeks prior to the voting was such a clear act of desperation that Obama outpolled Democratic Presidential candidate John Kerry by more than 20 points on election day. [...]