Monday, December 3, 2007

Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid: The Obama Edition.

There’s Reason to be Afraid of Obama

By Taylor Marsh

Frank Rich gets the question correct. But his answer is off by a mile. Who’s afraid of Barack Obama? Any Democrat who thinks compromise isn’t what it’s cracked up to be, especially when dealing with the current crop of conservatives.

I particularly love this nugget from Rich: Even Tom Tancredo, the most virulent immigration demagogue of the G.O.P. presidential field, has spoken warmly of Mr. Obama. It’s about as useful as this one: Obama led on traits such as most likeable, principled and best able bring together Republicans and Democrats, which appears in a new Iowa poll that shows Mr. Obama leading by three in Iowa. If you can call channeling Robert Novak "principled." Yet another analysis based on who you want to have a beer with. As for bringing Republicans and Democrats together, well, that’s the Obama bingo. It’s called compromising our Democratic principles to make a deal, which all politicians do eventually, which is why trusting any of them is dangerous. But Obama leads with the promise of compromise, instead of making it the last choice of people who believe our ideology actually is what works. However, since Obama doesn’t have an ideology he doesn’t get it. It’s why there’s no clear sense of why he wants to be president. This is the political trait that all Democratic party members who believe in our ideals should be scared about when it comes to Mr. Obama. Because there is no evidence whatsoever that Obama will fight for what we’ve stood for all of these years. He’s said it many times: he is not an ideologue. He hoisted up Social Security to prove it. But it goes further than that. It’s what he talks about in lieu of putting his political rhetoric where is votes should be.

It’s about putting up health care ads that talk about "covering everyone" when his plan leaves 15 million out of the picture.

It’s finding out his PAC (see video above), when he’s been railing against what he’s currently doing himself.

It’s talking about the "politics of hope," then opening up the attacks by calling Clinton "Bush-Cheney lite."

It’s about Obama blasting Clinton on her Kyl-Lieberman vote for two months. However, the man didn’t show up to vote on it, even though he had plenty of warning. He recently apologized. Noted, but we still don’t know how he would have voted if he’d shown up. Maybe that’s the point.

Remember the MoveOn.org ad vote? He skipped it too. See a pattern yet?


Senator Obama’s criticism of the vote and refusal to join with his Democratic colleagues on the letter to the president appear to be based more on the politics than the substance. The entire Senate was notified a day beforehand about the vote on the Kyl-Lieberman resolution. If he truly had a sense of urgency on the issue he should have made a point of participating in the debate and voting, when he would have had the opportunity at the time to air his substantive disagreement with his home state colleague Senator Durbin, rather than waiting to raise the issue afterwards in a purely political context and using it as a campaign tactic. - Ambassador Joseph Wilson

Who’s afraid of Barack Obama?

I am. Because if we win the presidency I’m not interested in compromising our Democratic ideals. There is every indication that Mr. Obama is.

As a woman in politics, Clinton being the first viable female candidate for president in my lifetime has drawn me to cover her candidacy closely from the start. How could it be otherwise? Any woman covering politics would be drawn to analyze her candidacy. However, I found myself also taking the position of contrarian many times, which came easily, because her coverage on the whole has been abysmally biased against her.

The same Iowa poll that shows Obama ahead because he’s a keen guy gives Clinton kudos for being the "most presidential, knowledgeable about the world, electable and experienced." There is little question in my mind that this is indeed correct. The "dynasty" question bothers many, but penalizing a competent and capable woman ready to lead for the man to whom she’s husband is certainly not very modern.

I can’t help but feel a warning is necessary. Beware the man promising to heal your wounds. What he may be selling is our Democratic soul. With friends like Tom Coburn and Donny McClurkin who can separate compromise from political convenience and expediency?

Hillary Clinton is a Democratic ideologue, unlike her husband, who will fight for what we believe in before making a deal. But in the end to get the job done a deal will be made. However, she will leverage her presidential power to push Democratic principles first because she believes in them. Some don’t like her because she’s a Truman like hawk. What woman running for commander in chief in this country could run on any other platform? But with Wes Clark by her side, a man committed to stopping a war with Iran, there can be little doubt where she’s headed.

Barack Obama is not a Democratic ideologue, by his own admission. Deals in lieu of Democratic goals for the country, disguised as needed to get something done, will likely be the order of the day. It’s why I’m afraid.

-End of Article-

Go visit Taylor Marsh at her Web Site. While you're there toss a few bucks in the kitty for her.

Post a Comment