The News
Most Recent Threads
The Blogs
Most Recent Threads
The Boards
Most Recent Threads

 
SmirkingChimpWire

  • Some good reasons that Obama should pick Webb for V.P. May 11 2008 - 10:06pm (3 comments)
  • Republicans vote against mothers May 11 2008 - 5:16pm (0 comments)
  • Iraqis Running Out of Water in Rising Heat May 10 2008 - 4:24pm (1 comments)
  • Obama makes clearest hint that Clinton could be running mate May 9 2008 - 8:38am (26 comments)
  • Irrational Ambition is Hillary Clinton’s Flaw May 9 2008 - 1:11am (11 comments)
  • Raided counsel's office shut down investigation into Siegelman case May 8 2008 - 12:02pm (1 comments)

  • Smirking Chimp
    All Recent Posting Activity | Topics & Issues | Events | Polls | Chimp 1.0

    About | Contact | Advertise | Shop | Donate

    The done deal: Can Obama shatter the tacit covenant of American politics?
    by Robert C. Koehler | April 17, 2008 - 2:30pm

    article tools: email | print | read more Robert C. Koehler

    If politics is the art of saying nothing, then Barack Obama is sure blowing it, isn't he?

    His latest "gaffe," to proclaim at a private fundraiser in San Francisco (of all places) that small-town Americans are bitter and cling to guns and God in lieu of financial security -- these words purveyed to the American public by way of a scratchy, Osama-quality recording -- triggered such heartfelt hypocrisy from his opponents.

    "It is hard to imagine," said John McCain, "someone running for president who is more out of touch with average Americans."

    I almost agree with this. Obama is definitely out of touch with something. However, it isn't "average Americans" -- who, it turns out, really are bitter in large numbers -- so much as what I would call "the tacit covenant of presidential politics."

    Serious presidential candidates aren't supposed to go there, see. That's what makes them "serious" -- their understanding that American politics is settled, a done deal. The deal is this: While real Republicans can drift, unchecked, to the dark side of empire and neofascism, Democrats are supposed to campaign and govern as moderate, "responsible" Republicans.

    We live, in other words, in a corporate state, the basic terms of which are no longer open to debate. The "class struggle" is over. What about this do you not understand, Candidate Obama?

    All hail the (invisible) corporate state and its sacred fetishes: God, guns, flag. All hail the cliche that is America, with its hard-working little people who get the job done. All hail the McWorkers of the new economy, who roll up their sleeves and vote for one smiling liar or another on their way to their second job. All hail the dearth of health care, the children left behind, the endless billions for war and most of all the fact that these matters are not -- I repeat, NOT -- open for discussion in this presidential election year or, God willing, the next one or the next.

    Well, hmm.

    Obama, as a serious presidential candidate, has given plenty of indication along the way that he is indeed in touch with the tacit covenant of presidential politics and has compromised himself accordingly. Skeptical progressives have any number of examples of this they can point to in his record: his voting to renew the PATRIOT Act; his tutelage under and campaign work for out-of-the-closet darksider Joe Lieberman; his support for increasing the size of the U.S. military.

    The signals Candidate Obama has sent out are sufficiently mixed that we should certainly temper our Obamamania with a side order of reality. But I nonetheless confess that I find myself among those getting drawn in, warily, to be sure, by the sense of "hope" his campaign is generating. I say this as someone who pretty much thinks hope is for suckers, especially if it's part of a campaign slogan. But here's the thing. We're not going to get anywhere without it.

    Those of us who feel shut out of the corporate state, who fear the direction it's headed and the damage it will do, need more than just our anger and our ideological purity. We need an ally in the corridors of power -- more than an ally, really. What we need is an instrument of history, on the order of FDR or Lincoln.

    While Obama may certainly turn out to be somewhat less than that, he gives evidence of representing not just change but maybe greatness as well. What's indisputable is that, if elected, he would be the first African-American U.S. president, and this in and of itself is a remarkable sort of change for a country whose roots in racism go deep. He doesn't need to "promise" this, just as Hillary doesn't need to promise us she would be the first female president.

    What I'm getting at is that rational hope for political change must be based on something other than campaign promises. We all know how much those are worth. And so just as Obama is unalterably African-American, it may be -- so his predilection for what the media can only call gaffes because they aren't perceptive enough to know the difference between shards of truth and verbal slips on the banana peel -- he is also unalterably . . . on our side.

    I know this much. He's not courting the "Reagan Democrats" in the manner of three decades of Democratic candidates, and in the manner of Hillary, by jettisoning the values of his party and trying to lure them back with pathetic Republican-lite verbiage that doesn't fool anyone.

    My hope is that Obama continues to stand up to history and speak with impolitic courage -- on race, on economic justice, on war and peace -- where others have tried to wriggle off the hook. My hope is that he challenges the historically left-out and ignored to shed their bitterness and help him undo the done deal of American politics.
    _______

    About author

    Robert Koehler, an award-winning, Chicago-based journalist, is an editor at Tribune Media Services and nationally syndicated writer. You can respond to this column at bob@commonwonders.com

    Vote Result
    +++++++---
    Score: 7.8, Votes: 4

    Comment viewing options

    Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

    What are your alternatives?

    Obama,
    who has a loud-mouth preacher, who knew somebody who was a radical 40 years ago, who had the AUDACITY to TELL THE TRUTH,

    or HILLARY
    who wouldn't know the TRUTH if it bit her on her ample ASS, who has proven time and again to be a CHAMELEON who would say anything to anyone to get what she wanted, who has a rap sheet of "almost indicted" that could almost be wrapped around Pittsburg,
    or
    McCain
    who has PROUDLY DECLARED he's going to follow bush's CATASTROPHIC policies to the letter, and it WILL WORK, BY GOD, if we just "STAY THE COURSE".

    Please tell me this isn't a sitcom, or a bad Dr. Seuss book, PLEASE SOMEBODY TELL ME AMERICA IS NOT THIS STUPID!

    OBAMA, BEING HIT BY A SPEEDING TRUCK, OR BEING EATEN BY A SHARK, THOSE are your alternatives, America...

    _______

    "I am obviously wrong" Rush Limbaugh Oct 19, 2006

    Submitted by kebo on April 17, 2008 - 3:14pm.

    So you don't like Clinton's weight............

    What does that say about your standards for political candidates.........or women?

    And please, tell us what Hillary Clinton was "almost indicted" for. Just one example?

    It's not OK to say anything you like about a Clinton just because of the name. The truth matters.

    Submitted by dirt on April 18, 2008 - 6:51am.

    key words: 'warily, to be

    key words: 'warily, to be sure'

    That's what we've got, that's all we've got.

    And of course, IMPEACHMENT.

    Submitted by nedlud on April 17, 2008 - 6:17pm.

    Try A Good Purgative ...

    "My hope is that Obama continues to stand up to history and speak with impolitic courage -- on race, on economic justice, on war and peace -- where others have tried to wriggle off the hook."

    Continue to stand up to history and speak with impolitic courage? Huh? When did Obama start doing that? Wasn't it just yesterday that he was vomiting on the rug on que for AIPAC. If you're looking for a genuinely courageous person, former President Jimmy Carter will qualify. Contast Carter's moral courage with the effete, soft hands and chablis, lets-keep-funding-the-war liberalism of a zero like Obama. I mean, please, with the ca-ca about character.

    Submitted by John Lowell on April 17, 2008 - 10:18pm.

    there are some similarities

    Obama and Jimmy Carter seem to be a lot alike when one places their character and personalities side by side.

    Both Obama and Jimmy are idealistic.They are well meaning people, serious about both God and country but not willing to traffic in cheap right-wing sentiment either of these things.They have a good grasp of what America should be all about morally,and a good grasp of what America's standing in the world should be.Both of them have made speeches which led Americans to confront reality, Carter with his much maligned ''malaise'' speech--it was true-- and Obama with his pathbreaking comments on race and class.

    That resemblance is worrisome, too, with the presence of Rockefeller's man Brezezinski advising Obama, presumably because the new candidate is viewed as the same sort of useful tool.

    Yes, we have a right to some misgivings. I share them.But this article is correct. Misgivings and all, it's possible to see some flickerings of greatness in Obama, and there sure aren't any at all in Hillary or McCain.

    Submitted by MizzGrizz on April 18, 2008 - 10:16am.

    No, No, Morals Not Ideals ...

    "They have a good grasp of what America should be all about morally..."

    You entertain. My point was that Carter had moral courage in meeting with Hamas, something our Chicago Clos de Vougeot and brie specialist is never likely to manage, not that either of them have a "good grasp" - or any grasp, frankly - of what America should be about morally, they simply don't. Having that would require knowing what a human is going in and neither of them have ever been quite able to reach to that kind of height. The "morality" one might expect of our Chicago darling is that curious, superficial version of it that identifies and absolutizes the personal political outlook embraced by his faculty friends. I've had quite enough of the kind of morality that emerges from the librarians and sociologists at Harvard Law, thank you.

    Submitted by John Lowell on April 18, 2008 - 1:45pm.
     
    100 Most Recent Threads | Topics & Issues | Events | Polls | Chimp 1.0

    Home | Top

    About | Contact | Advertise | Shop | Donate

    Privacy Policy | Terms of Use

    © 2008 Smirking Chimp Media

    bot trap