Like many Americans, I have been fascinate by the rise of Illinois Senator Barack Obama. While politically, he’s pretty much a standard-issue Democrat (having a reliably liberal voting record in the Senate), on the stump, he comes across as a fresh face with a charismatic presence and a dynamic speaking style.
When I first saw him on TV for an extended period of time, when live-blogging the Logo debate, I wrote that he “looks and sounds impressive . . . gifted with a nice voice and a way with words,” but noted the “he doesn’t seem to be saying anything of substance.” I wondered if we should call him a “hope-monger.”
In my post on Of Bumper Stickers & Political Passion, I noted that when I “talk to his supporters, their faces light up as they outline their man’s qualities, his charisma and eloquence. They believe he has the potential to unite the country.” (Incidentally, since posting that piece last month, I’ve seen the number of Obama stickers skyrocket in the Los Angeles area while only finding a handful of Hillary stickers.)
Enthusiastic as is the Illinois Senator’s base, I’m discovering now a new kind of Obama supporter, those Democrats supporting him because he’s the best alternative to Ms. Hillary. They’re backing him because they just don’t trust his counterpart from the Empire State. (Some seem to be doing so reluctantly as they’re skeptical about his absence of executive experience.)
So, right now, it looks like Obama is cruising to the Democratic nomination, with Drudge even suggesting that Hillary may drop out of the race (via Pajamas).
Right now, it seems Obama is surging ahead primarily based on his comforting presence and the perception that he is “something unusual in American politics” Yet, he seems more a man of style than of substance.
His charismatic presence should serve him well in the abbreviated primary season, but will he be able to withstand the scrutiny of an extended campaign for the White House once his position as presumptive Democratic nominee is secure?
He has been fortunate so far, emerging as the alternative to Mrs. Clinton. We’ll see how he holds up in the fall campaign.
All that said, I’m intrigued about the guy and expect to read one of his two books in the near future. Perhaps his first book, Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance will move me more than it did Bruce Bawer.
Time will tell if Obama can beef up his sizzle with some substance. I’ve printed up the transcript of the speech which helped secure his place in our national consciousness, that to the Democratic National Convention in 2004. As I read it I’ll consider whether or not he really does represent a new kind of politician. Or just another liberal Democrat, but one with the passion of Bobby Kennedy and the presence of Cary Grant.
UPDATE: After writing this post, I realized, I had a little more to say on Senator Obama and as the last paragraph indicates, I intend to read his 2004 convention speech before offering those thoughts. As I researched the post, I came across two interesting votes which belie the notion of this Democratic presidential contender as a “post-partisan” politician. Not only was Senator Obama one of only twenty-two Senators to vote against the confirmation of John Roberts as Chief Justice of the United States. He also voted against cloture on the vote to confirm Samuel Alito, Jr. to the Supreme Court. That latter vote was not merely a vote against the nominee, but against having a vote on the nomination.
Note that the past two Democratic nominees, Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg were confirmed with only a handful of Republican objections.
Obama is thus considerably more partisan than two-thirds of the Republicans in the Senate during Bill Clinton’s first term, given that at least thirty Republican Senators voted to confirm both of that Democrat’s nominees to the nation’s highest court, even when the confirmation of Ginsburg would move the court to the left.
I have a feeling that Obama could permit liberals – especially liberal media – to *tell themselves* he’s uniting the country, much more than he could actually unite the country. He’d unite their echo chamber, probably.
If Obama is planning to withdraw prematurely or precipitously from Iraq, handing Iran and al Qaeda victories: that will divide the country for generations to come. (A la Vietnam.)
This guy – this incompetent airhead – sure sounds like a divider, not a uniter. I hope that’s not the same Obama who’s running now.
P.S. back in July, Obama did opine that we should withdraw immediately from Iraq, even if it causes genocide.
Yup. That’ll unite the country.
I made an effort to watch Michelle Obama give a speech. It left me with a strange feeling that if she woke up white, she would have little to talk about.
The first viable black candidate has to talk a fine line between victim entitlement, white guilt, and inclusiveness. Obama may be savvy enough to pull it off, but his stable mate and hired hands may repeatedly step in it and succeed in dragging him into the morass of old cliches and divisions.
When one promotes style over substance, he must be sure that he alone has control of the message.
Ah, but you see, Obama had good reasons. Because HE is a good guy who voted legitimately from the heart against evil Rethuglicans, blah blah blah blah….
In other words, I think the real significance of Obama is this: Old B.S. in new skin (so to speak). The Clintons’ time is past. Most of the cynicism about the Clintons has proved justified; turns out they weren’t a “Third Way” after all, just the same old lying hard-leftists. And everyone knows. Time to put the same old B.S. in a new dress – excuse me, a “fresh face” – that will require a new years-long cycle of painstaking exposure.
“Note that the past two Democratic nominees, Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg were confirmed with only a handful of Republican objections.”
Meanwhile, the Republicans wouldn’t let other Clinton nominees even pass through committee as a way of stopping Clinton from appointing judges to open positions. Republicans used the excuse of there being too many federal judges, but boy they changed their tune when Bush became president, saying that there was a “judicial crisis” of not enough judges.
Just like the Democrats are doing now, Kevin?
And anyway, your comment hardly addresses the point made in the passage you quoted. For here, we’re talking about the attitude of various senators toward Supreme Court nominees. And instead of addressing the issue at hand, you just look for another excuse to bash Republicans.
At least on the level of Supreme Court nominees, the average Republican Senator showed more deference to a Democratic president than did the supposedly post-partisan Senator Obama to a Republican President.
What I find interesting is one, how shallow the base of support Hillary had—one setback and they’re out the door like lemmings, and two, how quickly the base of the Democrat party has been willing to abandon the one successful franchise for a Dem presidency in living memory, aka the Clinton presidency.
I do agree that the key to Obama’s success is that he is the “new face.” For all the talk and the sappy Kennedy memories, he is the only new face on the scene. The same holds true for the Huck-A-Boom, I think.
#5
Meanwhile the liberals decided that nominees like Miguel Estrada and Pricilla Owen, with the support of the liberal Bar Association and several liberal JD officials were too “extreme”.
Who was it the liberals opposed because he was a Catholic?
Too bad they’re not honest.
Obama could have 9-10 months as the nominee. That’s a long time to keep up all this intensity. He may soon have to return to the Senate floor to show a national audience his ability on issues and bi-partisian leadership. It will be interesting to see the style he chooses to communicate from here on in, Oprah won’t help much between now and November.
He might actually have to author some legislation.
I used to believe Obama that he was not a muslim nor a muslim sympathizer.
But he went to Kenya and gave a speech supporting Raila A. Odinga.*
Here’s a PDF of Odinga’s promise to institute Sharia Law if elected….scan to page 2 section “b.”
http://eakenya.org/newsevents/article.htm?id=8
*http://www.themidnightsun.org/?p=1613
No mainstream media coverage of all this, naturally.
6: 🙂 Oh c’mon. You can’t sit and pat yor selves on the back about 2 Supreme Court nominees while the Republicans put a chokehold on the rest of the process through much of the Clinton years. Also, the Democrats aren’t doing the same thing….they’re actually looking at the nominees, unlike the rubber stamp the Republican controlled senate gave to Bush.
You’re absolutely right. The Republicans didn’t attempt to filibuster nominees with majority support. And the crisis goes to the Circuit Court nominations, not the Supreme Court. They had majority support of Republicans and liberals, but certain liberal SOBs decided it would be more fun to circumvent the US Constitution (surprise, surprise) for political gain.
Face it, Kevin. The liberals are GUILTY on many counts of throwing out the constitution when it suits them and play political games with the country.
And we’re supposed to reward these worthless SOBs by voting for them???? Nah. There’s a place for them in the fifth ring of hell. Well, them and any of their apologists who see fit to lick their twats.
Kevin, you might recall that the Republicans took the Senate for part of the Clinton Administration. They had years of experience with the way Leahy, Kennedy, Biden and the other grand poobahs of the Democrat machine treated the judicial nominees of Reagan and Bush I. You might recall the bruising they gave Clarence Thomas.
Now, it appears that you blame them for playing hardball after upteen years of Democrat hardball. Or am I missing something?
The connections between Obama and the teachings of Saul Alinsky are well worth noting.
If Obama is the master communicator of the Alinsky “pick the scab” radicalism, the “inspired” masses may be unreachable by reasoned debate.
I am amused that people on the right are just now figuring out that not everyone in the Democratic Party is in love with the Clintons. I voted for Bill in 92 and 96 but not without reservations. I’m tired of Clintons and Bushes. Basta! (Enough already!)
Yes, Obama’s main appeal is that he’s a good speaker and talks about things people are interested in. It seems genuine and not from a list supplied by political consultants. That is refreshing considering what we usually get from politicians these days. (BTW, I think Huckabee’s appeal in Iowa was similar…not the same but similar. He’s a very good speaker and was addressing issues that many delegates at the caucuses cared about very much. Candidates who have hit such a nerve might not get the nomination, but the eventual nominee ignores those issues and concerns at his or her own peril.
About Breyer and Ginsberg…Clinton picked them from a list supplied to him by Republicans (I’m remembering it was Hatch but I could be wrong) of potential justices that they would find acceptable. It’s no surprise that they had no trouble being confirmed.
We are a slow witted group. We assumed that every single democrat voted for Clinton in the exact same way every single Republican voted for Bush and worships every move he has made as president.
Obviously, the Republicans are holding back on who their candidate will be. The money is not flowing. There is a lot of caution in the air.
It looks like the democrats may have been picked up by a pied piper who will lead them all the way to the polls. The question now is whether any significant number of democrats will eschew the elevating platitudes and demand substance. Huey Long comes in all shapes and forms.
When Thurgood Marshall was the nominee, Ted Kennedy said that the committee should not ask questions about cases that would be ccoming before the court. When it was Clarence Thomas turn, he changed his tune and said it was appropriate to know Thomas´position on cases that would be coming up for review.
I am wondering if Obama should become president, will he divorce Michelle and marry Oprah so that she could become the first lady?
18: “It looks like the democrats may have been picked up by a pied piper who will lead them all the way to the polls. The question now is whether any significant number of democrats will eschew the elevating platitudes and demand substance.”
Nope.
Agreed.
The question now is whether any significant number of democrats will eschew the elevating platitudes and demand substance.
Substance has historically not done well for Democrats.
Witness their attempt to give wealthy children free health care by hiking a tax — the cigarette tax — that they themselves have screamed is “regressive” and unfair to poor people and minorities.
Or, phrased differently, they support healthcare for the rich by more heavily taxing the poor.
This is why, during the S-CHIP debate, they kept shoving wealthy children out in front of the camera, rather than posting numbers that would demonstrate exactly who their tax would affect versus who would be receiving the free healthcare.
As the adage goes, if someone has numbers, they give them — and if they don’t, they do everything they can to stay away from them.
Obama already demonstrated that he doesn’t do numbers (the “10,000 killed by a tornado in Kansas” debacle).
Okay like it or not the President nominates judges and the Senate has to approve. Those are the rules. I don’t think there are any other rules as to criteria or what questions can be asked. Pardon me if I am mistaken. So it’s total BS to act like the Senate has to rubber stamp appointments or can’t bar someone they don’t like. Those are the rules and if you don’t like it either elect a Senate and President from the same party or amend the constitution. Yeah, I know sometimes those rules piss me off too but that’s how it works and I can deal. Throwing a hissy every time you can’t get whatever you want is absurd.
Up until Jimmy Carter, there was a tradition called “senatorial courtesy.” When a federal judgeship was open, the senators of the state involved would send the president a list of people they could support. The president would choose from the list and if the state senators agreed, the rest of the senate would go along.
Carter decided to ignore the tradition in favor of fast-tracking women and blacks in the judgeships. With the old system smashed, a new system has evolved to the point of nominees needing 60 votes and giving rise to threats of the nuclear option.
From my vantage point, I do not see that anything positive has evolved from the destruction of senatorial courtesy. We have had an escalating judicial warfare that has led to near stalemate in the nomination process. The balance has been overwhelmed by the stagnation of always “checking” the president’s move. That is pure politics, not government.