The Fall of Obama
Posted by
Kevin
Has any candidate seen their stock fall so far so fast in recent times? I don’t mean their ability to win a contest, I mean their entire image. Obama promised a new beginning, a politics of hope and reconciliation. But in the last week, he has thrown all of that away with two really bone-headed decisions, the first of which was the deliberate choice to involve a horrible bigot in his gospel tour.
McClurkin is a hateful person, a man who is convinced that gays are trying to “kill our children”, and that homosexuality is a “curse” brought about by abuse and molestation. Those are not the words of a man genuinely concerned with the lives or souls of homosexuals; those are the words of a man who is so filled with loathing for something he dislikes that he is willing to to tell any lie or indulge in any smear to hurt those he hates. And this was the man the campaign chose to headline the event. And, of course, he took the opportunity to attack homosexuals on Obama’s time:
The whole controversy might have been forgotten in the swell of gospel sound except Mr. McClurkin turned the final half hour of the three-hour concert into a revival meeting about the lightning rod he has become for the Obama campaign.
He approached the subject gingerly at first. Then, just when the concert had seemed to reach its pitch and about to end, Mr. McClurkin returned to it with a full-blown plea: “Don’t call me a bigot or anti-gay when I have suffered the same feelings,” he cried.
“God delivered me from homosexuality,” he added. He then told the audience to believe the Bible over the blogs: “God is the only way.” The crowd sang and clapped along in full support….
Mr. McClurkin’s support for Mr. Obama could signal to some black evangelical voters that race and religion are more important than Mr. Obama’s support for gay rights.
This decision was bad enough, but then came the response:
Part of the reason that we have had a faith outreach in our campaigns is precisely because I don’t think the LGBT community or the Democratic Party is served by being hermetically sealed from the faith community and not in dialogue with a substantial portion of the electorate, even though we may disagree with them.
So progressives are “hermetically sealed” from the religious in this country? Really? Tell that, Mr. Senator, to these people, or these people, or, heck, even to me and the millions and millions like me:
For far too long, the right wing has gulled the media and the country into thinking that its religion was the only acceptable face of Christianity. It has used the respect for all religions on the left as evidence of the left’s irreligiosity. That has never been the case. The teachings of Jesus Christ are at the core of how millions define their support for liberal causes, myself included. John Kerry, with one small statement, has reminded the nation of that fact. Millions of us are liberal because of our religion. Millions of us are not represented by Opus Dei, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, James Dobson, or any of the other right wing talking heads the media turns to when it wants to “discuss” religion in this country. Antonin Scalia does not speak for all Catholics.
… The language of religion has always been spoken comfortably on the left, even if the principle of tolerance has caused it to occasionally be spoken too quietly. John Kerry is not speaking quietly now. Whatever George W. Bush may desire, whatever the editors of the Washington Post and New York Times may decree, Christianity and faith are not the property of the right wing. I have a faith, too, as does John Kerry and millions of others. It is strong, and sincere, and, as Kerry has reminded us, powerful. And in the face of provocation and distortion, it has no reason to be silent.
It is bad enough that you stupidly try to pander to a sense of bigotry among some segment of the South Carolina voting population. But to use the same, tired right wing smears against progressives as a justification for your pandering? Disgusting is perhaps the nicest thing that I can say about that decision. This is the worst kind of pandering. It has nothing to do with trying to tread the distance between where many of his supporters are on this issue and where Obama would like to lead them. Obama took one of the most hateful anti-gay bigots, a man who thinks gays are trying to “kill our children” and making him the face of the Obama campaign for the duration of this Gospel event. It is the explicit and deliberate decision to appeal to the basest nature of South Carolina voters in the desperate hope that those voters can deliver him an essential win. It is the worst kind of politics as usual.
And then Obama compounded this with another stupid mistake: an attack on Social Security:
A new Obama ad in Iowa shows the candidate talking to a small group of people are Social Security, and calling for an honest discussion about the problems that the program face
There is no Social Security crisis. Even with the GOP spending money as it grows on trees, the program is set through 2047. And the events of 2005 showed, people like the program just fine the way it is. Having spent all that time and effort beating back the privatization monster, it is incredibly depressing to hear a Democrat open the door for its return. But Obama needs an issue to attack Clinton on, and attacking Social Security is an issue that the media Village just adores and so is sure to pick up and treat favorably, especially since it fits into their notion of what a “serious” Democrat should be. A “serious” Democrat, of course, is one who is more than willing to attack the underpinnings of the New Deal and any other Democratic program that is popular with the general public but not with the Villagers.
There are plenty of other issues out there Obama could have chosen to differentiate himself from Clinton: the coming war with Iran, universal health care, fair trade, the war on drugs, the GOP’s war on the Constitution, etc, etc,etc. The problem, though, is that the Village disapproves of the progressive side on all of those matters, so taking on Clinton over any of them would have been meant with Village scorn. And that would have meant that it would have been harder to generate positive press and to force Clinton onto the defensive. That would have taken courage, something Obama does not seem to poses in any noticeable measure these days.
I had hopes for Obama. He came out of Chicago’s politics, so I knew that he knew how to brawl, but his rhetoric had given me hope that he would use those skills to advance a genuinely inclusive, progressive vision. Apparently, that is not to be. Twice in less than a week, Obama has chosen to take the low road, the easy way through the political landscape. Twice in a week, Obama has chosen to pander to the basest of motives of voters and the self-important nitwits that run our national press. Instead of actually being bold, instead of actually trying to build a new politics built on the Audacity of Hope, Obama and his campaign chose to take the basest route to the White House. They have embraced politics as usual — and as dirty as can be — with the speed of a drunk embracing a free case of beer. In the process, they have shown Obama to be a hollow candidate, a smiling face for the same old politics of division and sycophancy.
[…] Utah Mine The Fall of Obama » This Summary is from an article posted at Lean Left on Tuesday, October 30, 2007 This article’s contents are copywritten by the author of Lean Left. Please click "View Original Article…" below to view the article. Summary Provided by Technorati.comView Original Article at Lean Left » 10 Most Recent News Articles About White House […]
Pingback 10/30/2007
[…] Lean Left has lost a significant amount of esteem for Barack Obama based on his support for ex-gay evangelical Donnie McClurkin: It is bad enough that you stupidly try to pander to a sense of bigotry among some segment of the South Carolina voting population. But to use the same, tired right wing smears against progressives as a justification for your pandering? Disgusting is perhaps the nicest thing that I can say about that decision. This is the worst kind of pandering. It has nothing to do with trying to tread the distance between where many of his supporters are on this issue and where Obama would like to lead them. Obama took one of the most hateful anti-gay bigots, a man who thinks gays are trying to “kill our children” and making him the face of the Obama campaign for the duration of this Gospel event. It is the explicit and deliberate decision to appeal to the basest nature of South Carolina voters in the desperate hope that those voters can deliver him an essential win. It is the worst kind of politics as usual. Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages. […]
Pingback 10/30/2007
I have to object to the ’set through 2047′ characterization of Social Security, which assumes the trust fund represents some actual store of economic value. The important date is much sooner, when the amount paid in benefits begins to exceed the amount collected by the social security tax.
Comment 10/30/2007
I bet some bond traders would be quite surprised to learn that T-notes have no “economic value.”
However, the point that something will have to be done (i.e. taxes will have to be raised) when it comes time to dip into the trust fund does have merit. And I’m pretty sure that starts to happen before 2047.
Comment 10/30/2007
When it comes time to dip into the trust fund? News flash: the trust fund has been more than dipped into already. Basically there is no trust fund, only a bunch of IOUs. So as soon as payments exceed revenues (most estimates place this event about 12 years in the future), something has to give. Granted, this is more of a general fund problem than a SS problem, but it is a huge problem in any case.
To say SS “is set” until 2047 is like saying the planet “is set” wrt global warming until 2080 (or some future date) because until then we won’t get burned to a crisp. In 2047, the entire surplus is gone and SS will be on a pay-as-you-go basis. And of course the 2047 date is plus or minus 15 or 20 years, depending on a multitude of unknowns including, but not limited to inflation, productivity, birth rates, and life expectancy. Given the GAO can’t accurately project the deficit 12 months into the future…
One more thing, perhaps we are taking Obama a bit too literally here. Perhaps he meant to include Medicare as part of the honest discussion we need to have. Because, if we choose to discuss the two programs combined, then the truth hurts a lot more and a lot sooner.
Try as I might, I can’t come up with a defense for him re the McClurkin fiasco. He does appear to be fading - which given his meteoric rise is not too surprising - but it is disappointing, at least to me.
Comment 10/30/2007
T-notes can have value to bond traders because the issuing party is not the purchasing party. The government cannot save money by buying its own bonds though.
It’s like me writing a check made out to cash for $100. If I give the check to you, it has value because you can cash it in to increast your net assets by $100. It’s worthless to me though, because cashing my own check just reduces my checking account by $100, so that I have no net change in my assets.
Likewise, the only way the government can use the bonds in the social security funds is by retiring them with fund from the general budget. Which has exactly the same effect as if the bonds never existed and the shortfall was just covered directly.
Comment 10/30/2007
“Likewise, the only way the government can use the bonds in the social security funds is by retiring them with fund from the general budget. Which has exactly the same effect as if the bonds never existed and the shortfall was just covered directly. ”
Except of course for the timing…
More on SS - does anyone who saw the clip agree that Obama “attacked” SS or that he implied it is in crisis? And he states in the spot that he is against privatization. We should not discuss the largest spending program in the history of man for fear of a conservative agenda? Talk about gutless.
Comment 10/30/2007
Stormy:
I’m not saying it’s not robbing Peter to pay Paul. But that’s not the same thing as implying it has no value. If I write a check for $100 to “Cash,” then anyone, including but not limited to myself, can exchange that check for $100. It’s the same way with T-notes. Just because the general fund borrowed the money from the social security fund doesn’t make those notes somehow worthless. They only become worthless if the government decides to default on them, which sounds like what you want or expect them to do.
Comment 10/31/2007
Ted:
The analogy to global warming is a good one. Just because the problem doesn’t threaten to doom us tomorrow doesn’t mean we shouldn’t look at fixing it now.
Comment 10/31/2007
tgirsch, yes. Especially since the cost and complexity of fixing either problem increases with each passing day of no action.
On a different topic, did you see the debate last night? Obama really rocked the stupid, vapid “do you believe in UFOs” question.
Comment 10/31/2007
[…] the permalink. Follow comments here with the RSS feed. Comments are closed, but you can leave a trackback. ‹ Who said what The Romney Record: Governor Romney's Top Ten Line-Item Vetoes› […]
Pingback 11/1/2007
Time to ditch your SUVs and get out and vote in the primary for Bill Richardson for president. Oh hell yeah! Go get ‘em Richardson!
Think of it as only a short referendum on getting the hell out of Iraq. Obama has always been a lightweight bullshitter.
Comment 11/1/2007
Ted:
No, I didn’t watch the debate. I pretty much never watch the primary debates, as they strike me as a largely futile exercise.
As to the social security issue, however, I believe Kevin and others do have a valid point — there’s not a problem with social security specifically, so much as a larger overarching budget problem that hits when T-notes start coming due. It’s true that this problem has a profound impact on social security, but it’s not a problem inherent to the social security system. Had we put in Gore’s proposed lock box, we’d still have similar budget issues, they just wouldn’t impact SS as much.
Comment 11/1/2007
“It’s true that this problem has a profound impact on social security, but it’s not a problem inherent to the social security system.” which was precisely my point above (#4).
Comment 11/1/2007