| I've been criticizing Obama for literally years now, and it started because I just distrust cults of personality. During the 2004 convention, everyone seemed wowed by his speech. I was never taken in, possibly because I think speechifying is overrated but more likely because I was playing around on the internet instead of paying attention. I suppose this is the political equivalent for bloggers of the Seinfeld episode where Jerry makes out during Schindler's List, but regardless, I never really thought he was teh awesome.
At any rate, my read is that Obama's political psyche can best best explained by his loss to Bobby Rush, and his utter fealty to machine politics thereafter. He didn't run a real race in 2004, so his political experience is colored by losing to the machine candidate and then instantly becoming a rock star Senator, with no negative ads in between. Here's what I wrote a little over a year ago.
Barack Obama knows we must change, but he also knows the penalty for fighting for change. This internal contradiction comes out in his sickening praise of Bush, whom he praised today on Meet the Press, or in his embrace of bipartisanship for him and his Senate buddies. It comes out in a strong disdain for progressives, be it random sneering insults towards liberals or pandering to an authoritarian pagan right-wing evangelical tribalism. He doesn't like that we make him revisit his loss to Bobby Rush, because the last thing he wants to think of himself as is a loser, and because we make him make choices. You know, like the choice he made to not go to Connecticut to campaign for Ned Lamont, which we will remember as the unprincipled betrayal of the Democratic Party that it is. We want to hold him accountable for the dreams that are invested in his persona, and he doesn't want to be responsible for the hope of millions, though he does want to sell a book called The Audacity of Hope.
So why, after all of this, do I think he should run for President? It would be good for everyone if he did. For the Democratic Party, we would be able to engage our hero in a debate over policies and ideas, and we'd be able to take him down off a pedestal and actually grapple together with common challenges. That would make us as a party stronger. For the country, all Americans would be able to move beyond the rock star persona, and get to the substance, and that would be good. Public debate is better than rock star adulation.
And for Obama? Well, Obama is scared. He hasn't had to make choices for a long time, and he knows he has a limited timeframe in which to capitalize on the brand he has out there. His brand has a shelf-life, and running for President would force him to clarify what he wants to mean beyond gorgeous ambitiion. That would be good for him as a politician, and as a man. We haven't yet seen what a Barack Obama would fight for in a public debate, and it's something I'd like to see. I'd like to see him enter the contest, and in all likelihood get crushed for being a go-along-get-along politician. Only then can he become a great Senator or President, after he realizes that it's not about being liked by everyone, it's about being a principled human being.
And that's the gist of what Markos wrote today. This week of the Obama campaign is a test of whether we rationalize away our leaders' betrayals or whether we hold them accountable.
This is truly an epic flameout by the Obama campaign, engaged in actions that are completely indefensible. Those of you who continue to try and rationalize it -- would you be making the same exculpatory arguments if it was George W. Bush doing the things Obama is doing right now? Or one of the rival campaigns? Somehow, I doubt the vast majority of you would.
Obama isn't the be-all savior for what ails our country. No one is. If there's a message I thought we were successfully delivering in the netroots is that it was up to US to move this country in the right direction since we couldn't depend on our so-called "leaders". This sort of hero worship of several of our candidates (Edwards, Obama, and even Hillary) is somewhat creepy to begin with, but serves little more than to set up the inevitable disappointment.
Accountability is what we believe in, not because it's bad for Bush but because it's good for America, good for our country, and good for our party. Obama is getting the scrutiny he deserves, and he will ultimately be a better politician for it. Losing clarifies the political soul.
I'm really proud of how we stood up for our values and ourselves, and didn't rationalize away Obama's pandering. It's how a healthy movement should act. I'm proud that progressives considering themselves Obama supporters are dropping away loudly and angrily, and that there's accountability in at least one corner of the party. It's an important precedent to set, that values are the driving force behind what we do, not incoherent notions of strategy. That is what divides us from DC insiders, that we react badly to acts of betrayal, that we don't let our leaders throw us or our gay brothers and sisters under the bus. That is what brings us strength and credibility, that we stand for something and lead.
This is a remarkable turn of events. Obama isn't getting taken down by another candidate, he's being destroyed by progressives who are angry that he is selling out their values. It's unlikely that we can stop Clinton from getting the nomination, but the fact that the base has reached out from the internet to lead the candidates around, and then attempted to destroy one of them for selling us out, is such a shift since 2004. Know that we are just different from the right. We are not authoritarian, we are democratic and discursive, and we fight for our values.
It's a terrible day for the Obama campaign, but it's been a great week for progressives. This was a test, and we passed. |
