Subscribe to Breaking NewsWithers: Did anyone really pay attention to Obama?
During the campaign, Barack Obama noted he was against the Iraq War and pointed to a speech he made in 2002 at an anti-war rally.
It’s fair to point out though, he was just a state senator at the time and if he were operating on the national stage, like Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, and John Edwards, his position might have been more muted (it was very hard to find any mainstream national pol willing to go against President George Bush at the time).
However, being against the Iraq War did not make Obama a dove, and he made this clear in that speech.
“I don’t oppose all wars. I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war (emphasis added).”
Some in the liberal/dove wing of the Democratic Party forgot that line and now are scratching their heads as they watch Obama’s national security team take form. Their befuddlement, however, has much more to do with projection than anything else.
“A lot of people took his position on Iraq and projected our politics onto him,” said Maryiln Katz, one of the organizers of the 2002 rally. “And that was never him. It was never true.”
PS: Hope everyone has a restful and safe Thanksgiving week-end.
There is nothing in Obama’s actions or his words that directly confirms a dovish position. Ditto for any impulse for a socialist makeover. I voted for him because I saw him as wanting to stop the demolition of our economic system. He’s not here to protest war, but to wage war in a practical manner. He’s not here to make Wall Street advocate for the poor, but to restore functional order to our financial system. At this point, especially after eight years of Dubya, his stance is revolutionary. He’s a sober centrist. Anybody who really expects him to make unilateral efforts at major progressive actions hasn’t paid much attention to his past. None of that seems bad to me–and if he manages to achieve all of this stabilization, it still leaves room for a Democrat who would follow similar policies, but would perhaps be more overtly gay-friendly.
Did anyone really pay attention to Obama?
Uhmm…yes? Invading Afghanistan was right. Invading Iraq was wrong. The Taliban and al Qaeda are the enemy. That’s been my opinion from the get go.
Was this even worth writing? What is the point? Sounds like you are just picking the fly-sh*t out of the pepper.
Jim–Yeah, it was a column worth writing because the externally-assigned role of President Obama has been all over the place. He’s advocate for the disenfranchised. No, he’s a perpetuator of a messed-up status quo. He’s a dove, maybe incapable of engaging a legitimate military deployment. No, he’s really much closer to the status quo (which ususally involves using force where it’s deemed convenient by Wall Street or corporate interests). He’s a socialist and he’ll take our guns and herald the advent of the Apocalypse. No, he’s really just more of the same.
It does make a difference which choices he makes. Sometimes, the conservative gesture–saving an economic system–involves some radical action–massive government intervention not seen in the US in decades. What constitues liberal, or conservative, or radical? Those are old labels from a passing time. The “liberal” saves something–that’s the very definition of a political conservative.
These are legitimate areas of concern. President Obama is very good at playing his cards close. His campaign showed that he runs a very loyal, very on-point support organization. I suspect the Obama White House will be less prone to leaks than even the Bush administrations were. This isn’t likely to be a repeat of the Clinton melodrama, because Obama is not that. Again, an Obama more concerned with righting the badly damaged ship of state is an Obama not likely to put gay issues at the top of the list unless it’s clearly a broadly shared stance. Only time will tell, but the campaign gave at least some insight into the M O of this new President.