The Obama years: a politics of cynicism or a politics of hope?

Obama points to the Kansas delegation while giving his address at the
Democratic National Convention in 2004. Via Wikipedia.

 

 

In 2008, Barack Obama preached hope, not cynicism, but anyone who knows me is aware that I was cynical from day one about the young, inexperienced senator’s qualifications for the presidency – and besides I was a staunch Hillary Clinton supporter in the primary. Now I feel something akin to pity for our graying second-term president as he’s since learned the magic of his personality on display in Boston 10 years ago has not been sufficient to cure the world’s ills.

But here’s the thing, all things considered, I believe Obama has done a credible job so far in the Oval Office. Politico goes into depth, however, highlighting Obama’s “hits and blunders” on the tenth anniversary this Sunday, July 27, 2014 of his keynote speech at the Democratic Convention.

Dovere and Nather write:

Barack Obama’s Democratic National Convention keynote delivered 10 years ago Sunday evening started his journey to the White House.

Those 18 minutes in Boston reshaped American politics. Obama spent a long passage of his speech extolling Democratic nominee John Kerry, but he wasn’t the one whose presidential prospects most people left the Fleet Center buzzing about. Caught by surprise by a convention keynote that was actually worth watching, the crowd went wild. Even Hillary Clinton and Jesse Jackson were spotted clapping for him.

A decade later, the speech remains a road map to the Obama agenda — and the many places where he’s fallen short in his term and a half so far.

The parts that hold up well: transitioning from a manufacturing base, the pursuit of enemies (like Osama bin Laden), a cooperative economy, voting rights, solving the “health care crisis,” “a road to opportunity” for the middle class.

But parts come across as the oratorical equivalent of an embarrassing hairdo in a high school yearbook.
The line most associated with the speech — “there’s not a liberal America and a conservative America, there’s the United States of America” — is the part that’s probably held up the least well over time.
 

Read more:

President Obama, An Unlikely Protégé of the Late Liberal Lion of the Senate

Glenn Thrush at Politico reports on the Axelrod and Edwards embrace at last night’s memorial for Ted Kennedy. I’m reminded that Axelrod is the guru who convinced Americans that a political candidate’s compelling personal narrative was more critical to his or her success than relevant qualifications backed with a substantive resume.

Who can forget Edwards standing tall in his jeans at a campaign site, talking to the folks about his life as the son of a mill worker and his impassioned pledge to resolve the rift between the ‘two Americas’ – the rich and the poor? In case you didn’t know, that was all Axelrod stuff.

Axelrod was also instrumental in the successful campaign of Deval Patrick for governor of Massachusetts and would later lift some of the rhetoric from Patrick’s speeches to pad presidential candidate Obama’s rousing orations. As Hillary Clinton pointed out in a subsequent debate: “That’s not change you can believe in, that’s Xeroxing.”

As we soon discovered, though, Obama was Axelrod’s golden boy with a personal narrative so powerful it even caused the likes of Chris Wallace and David Brooks to fall into a swoon from which they’re only now beginning to awaken. Not to mention the fact that the Kennedy clan saw a flicker of hope for reviving Camelot by passing the torch to the young senator whose sole claim to superior judgment was a speech he gave as an Illinois legislator opposing the Iraq war.

(Have I mentioned that I signed a petition at my church opposing the invasion of Iraq? Odd - I've never once thought that action qualified me to be president of the United States.)

Eight months in and the former peace candidate who gave the eulogy today at Ted Kennedy’s memorial mass has adopted most of the national security policies of George W. Bush, while our military lingers in Iraq and we pour more and more troops and treasure into the nine-year war in Afghanistan.

As Obama continues to follow in the footsteps of his predecessor, it becomes increasingly difficult to see him as a protégé of Ted Kennedy who was known as the liberal lion of the U.S. Senate.

Latest Poll Results: Under Obama’s Leadership, US Politics More Polarized than in the Past Four Decades

Remember back in the Democratic primary – of course, you do – when the upstanding John Edwards, he of the superior moral fiber; and Barack Obama, he of the spanking new politics that transcended the old Boomer divides; made smug remarks during debates and campaign rallies that echoed Karl Rove in questioning Hillary Clinton’s integrity and labeling her a polarizing figure?

The haloed Edwards and Obama also hammered Clinton for her pragmatic approach to lobbyists. She contended there were ethical lobbyists as well as unethical, and it was a mistake to put them all in the same category.

Since then the real John Edwards has stood up and revealed himself. He’s the guy who was having an affair with another woman while his cancer-stricken wife faithfully supported him in his run for the Democratic nomination.

And as for lobbyists, early in his presidency, Obama picked William Lynn III, the Raytheon Company’s top lobbyist, for the number two position at the Pentagon. Obama argued that Lynn was the best qualified person for the job even though he’d landed huge defense contracts for Raytheon. Obama said you just can’t go around being all that choosy or else you’d never get important posts filled.

But back to that polarization charge against Clinton during the primary. Infatuated Obama supporters truly believed their guy could unite first the country and then the world solely by virtue of his personal charm. But here’s a little news flash for you: the Guardian reported today:

Barack Obama's promise to overcome partisan political divisions and reunite the United States has so far failed to materialise, according to independent analysts in Washington.

The Pew Research Centre carried out a survey of polls six weeks into the Obama era and found that, contrary to the bipartisan note he has sounded, US politics is more polarised at this early stage in his presidency than at any equivalent point in the past four decades.

The researchers looked at the approval ratings for Obama reflected across several polls in early March, comparing his support among Democratic voters which stood at a huge 88% with that among Republican voters - only 27%. That gives a partisan gap of 61 points.

That is wider than even the 51-point gap between Republican (87%) and Democratic (36%) voters recorded at the start of George Bush's first term in 2001, despite Bush's reputation for divisiveness.

Read more:

Couric Interview: Obama Admits Messing Up (video)

Photo credits: AP


Keep in mind that following one of the most rigorous vetting processes in contemporary history, the Senate confirmed Hillary Clinton as secretary of state with a 94-2 vote.

The Obama Administration obviously did not vet either Bill Richardson as nominee for commerce secretary or Tom Daschle as nominee for secretary of Health and Human Services as thoroughly as it vetted both Hillary and Bill Clinton. (I doubt the activities of Mrs. Richardson or Mrs. Daschle ever came under scrutiny.)

Today, Daschle joined the previously sidelined Richardson, who is still under investigation, by choosing to withdraw from the process rather than face further embarrassment over tax issues.

Speaking to Katie Couric on Daschle’s withdrawal today, Obama said, “I messed up.” (Watch video here.)

I agree Mr. President: you should have made sure the boys were vetted as rigorously as Hillary Clinton.

Here’s the irony: with Daschle’s withdrawal, three prominent male Democrats who supported Obama against Clinton during the primary have since been publicly humiliated. I include the ethically challenged John Edwards along with Richardson and Daschle.

Echoing through the disarray in the Obama Administration this evening, one can almost hear Maya Angelou’s voice: “Rise, Hillary, Rise.”

Comparing Sarah Palin to the Democrats' Previous Vice-Presidential Pick John Edwards and Today’s Joe Biden

Conservatives in the media continue to put liberal pundits to shame by pointing out the sexist assault on Sarah Palin, which has reached a point beyond what even Hillary Clinton underwent during the corrupt Democratic primary and its rigged convention.

In the National Review Online, Victor David Hanson reports on “what Sarah Palin has taught us about ourselves,” and it’s not flattering.

Hanson writes:

“Clearly, it is more than we would have ever wished to know about ourselves.

“First, there turns out to be no standard of objectivity in contemporary journalism. Palin’s career as a city councilwoman, mayor, and governor of Alaska was never seen as comparable to, or — indeed, in terms of executive experience — more extensive than, Barack Obama’s own legislative background in Illinois and Washington. Somehow we forgot that a mother of five taking on the Alaskan oil industry and the entrenched male hierarchy was somewhat more challenging than Barack Obama navigating the sympathetic left-wing identity politics of Chicago.

“So we seem to have forgotten that the standards of censure of her vice-presidential candidacy were not applied equally to the presidential campaign of Barack Obama. The media at times seems unaware of this embarrassment, namely that their condemnation of Sarah Palin as inexperienced equally might apply to Barack Obama — and to such a degree that by default we were offered the lame apology (reiterated by Colin Powell himself) that Obama’s current impressive campaigning, not his meager political accomplishments, was already an indication of a successful tenure as president. The result is that we now know more about the Palin pregnancies — both of mother and daughter — that we do the relationships of Tony Rezko, Bill Ayers, Reverend Wright, and Father Pfleger with our possible next president.”

Read more.

While Others Slack Off, Hillary Clinton Works

Hillary Clinton campaigns for Obama in Henderson, NV. Photo credits: AP

As a member of the US Senate, representing the state of New York, Hillary Clinton has long maintained a reputation for dedication, knowledge of the issues, wisdom, compassion, an ability to work across the aisle, and a passion for hard work.

Heidi Li Feldman observes that in the midst of the general election campaign, “Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton keeps on working while those around her take vacations, lay low on bus tours, or spend time laying out the melodramas of their lives on national television.

"Meanwhile, here's where everybody else is.
Senator Obama: on vacation (Hawaii)
Speaker Pelosi: on vacation
DNC Chair Howard Dean: on a bus tour to register voters (most recent stop Pittsburgh)
John Edwards: on television (proclaiming his own narcissism)"

Feldman suggests the Democratic Party’s presumptive nominee, Barack Obama, is having a problem generating enthusiasm for his election to the presidency and that Hillary Clinton is apparently the only person attempting to do anything about it.

Read more:

Flashback to John Edwards’ Endorsement of Barack Obama

In yesterday’s confession of his marital infidelity on ABC News, John Edwards said:

"Then I went from being a young senator to being considered for vice president, running for president ... becoming a national public figure, all of which fed a self-focus, an egotism, a narcissism that leads you to believe you can do whatever you want, you're invincible and there will be no consequences. And nothing could be further from the truth."

Those words prompted a flashback to an earlier post at Katalusis in which I quoted Kathleen Parker who had already made note of Edwards’ tendency toward “self-focus:”

Here’s the background: on May 13, Hillary Clinton won a landslide victory in the West Virginia primary, propelled mainly by working class voters. The breaking news the next day was the endorsement of Barack Obama by former candidate John Edwards at a campaign event scheduled that evening, obviously designed to upstage Clinton’s win.

Posting at Real Clear Politics, Kathleen Parker reported:

“As Edwards gave what amounted to a stump speech highlighting his favorite subject -- John Edwards -- and his own anti-poverty initiative, Americans were reminded of why the North Carolina son-of-a-millworker won't be their presidential nominee.

“Enraptured by his own message, Edwards seemed reluctant to hand over the microphone. He finally relinquished the stage, after describing, yet again, the ‘wall’ that he says divides Americans: ‘There is one man who knows in his heart that it is time to create one America, not two. And that man is Barack Obama.”’

Obama supporters were delighted by the Edwards endorsement, evidently convinced the guy who had gained notoriety for his $400 haircuts would help their candidate lure working class voters away from Hillary Clinton.

That never happened and after all the hoopla last May, we’ve already learned that Edwards won’t be appearing at the Democratic convention, and he’ll probably have no role in an Obama administration.

In the meantime, Elizabeth Edwards will likely continue to be one of the most widely respected women in America.

The John Edwards “Love Child” Story

Alex Koppelman at Salon summarized on Friday the latest reports on the John Edwards “love child” story. Koppelman begins:

“The sordid story of an alleged affair between former Sen. John Edwards and Rielle Hunter has popped up again, courtesy of a National Enquirer article saying that the paper's reporters caught Edwards going to meet with Hunter and the couple's purported "love child" at a Los Angeles hotel.

“I know what you're thinking: Why even bother with anything printed by the Enquirer, a supermarket tabloid you probably think of as the kind of "newspaper" that focuses on rumors that Elvis Presley is alive -- and leading a band of rampaging space aliens? That's certainly the message Editor and Publisher's Greg Mitchell sent in an item he published at the Huffington Post on Friday. That's not really the Enquirer's niche, though. It gets confused with publications like the defunct Weekly World News, but in fact the Enquirer is surprisingly good at reporting on these kinds of stories, and it has a decent track record with them. It was the Enquirer that published the photo of Donna Rice sitting on Gary Hart's lap. It was the Enquirer that broke the story of Rush Limbaugh's addiction to painkillers. And new information about the Edwards story makes the Enquirer's reporting on it look more solid.”

Koppelman continues:

The Enquirer had first alleged that Edwards and Hunter were having an affair last year; it later reported that Hunter was pregnant with Edwards' child, though Andrew Young, a friend of Edwards', has said the baby is his. The latest chapter in the saga happened earlier this week, when reporters from the paper claimed that they spotted Edwards -- and confronted him -- at the Beverly Hilton on Monday night after being told beforehand that the former Democratic vice-presidential nominee would be there to meet with Hunter and the baby.

“These stories have largely been ignored by the mainstream press, but new details that emerged Friday lend some credibility to the Enquirer's account, though they're not proof of it. FoxNews.com has now published a story based on an interview with one of the security guards at the hotel, who gave an account of intervening ‘between a man he identified as former Sen. John Edwards and tabloid reporters who chased down the former presidential hopeful.”’
Read More:

Can John Edwards Help Obama Win Over the Working Class?

Photo credits: AP



The breaking news this afternoon is the pending endorsement of Obama by John Edwards. No doubt Hillary’s landslide victory in West Virginia last night, propelled primarily by working class voters, motivated Edwards to spring to Obama’s aid.

It reminds me of the debate in Philadelphia last October, hosted by MSNBC, when the two callow young men, Edwards and Obama, attempted to prove their viability as candidates by piling on Hillary Clinton, aided and abetted by Timmy and Brian.

I have a question, though. Edwards was John Kerry’s vice-presidential running mate in 2004, and his populist pitch got the team absolutely nowhere. Meanwhile the Bushies were downright gleeful in their mockery of Kerry’s windsurfing and Edwards’ $400 haircut. The trial lawyer may be the son of a mill worker, but today he’s right up there among the elites with the Obamas.

And readers take note: Edwards failed in the 2008 campaign as the populist candidate just as he did in 2004. So one has to ask, just how will his endorsement help Obama attract working class voters?

Whatever wealth the Clintons possess, no one to my knowledge has ever attempted to label Hillary an elitist. Throughout her campaign, Hillary has demonstrated the rare ability to empathize with people of all stations in life. She is equally at home speaking at an Ivy League college as she is listening to the story of a wife and mother in a village square in West Virginia.

And I can guarantee you, Hillary has better sense than to say to a male factory worker or male reporter, “hold on there a second, sweetie.”


Keep the faith, Hillary. The people of West Virginia have spoken, and Edwards and Obama cannot drown them out.

Hillary Clinton Stars in New Hampshire Debate

I just watched the Democrats debate in New Hampshire this evening. In a very real way, Edwards and Obama appeared as youthful novices in government, arrogantly proclaiming big generic changes; whereas, Richardson and Clinton came across as candidates of experience with extensive records of major changes they’ve actually achieved and the know how and work ethic to continue to do so.

In their early remarks, both Edwards and Obama brought up familiar lines of attack against Clinton, although they avoided mentioning her name. As usual, Obama pushed the fact that he opposed the Iraq War from day one without mentioning that he was not a member of the U. S. Senate at the time the war resolution was passed. He also failed to note that after he was elected to the Senate, he voted for funding the war.

In Clinton's response to her antagonists, she interjected a reference to George W. Bush, by reminding the audience that the inexperienced Bush was elected on his likeability – “someone you’d like to have a beer with” - and that he ran on promises to unite the country and bring about big changes to Washington.

Clinton confronted Edwards and Obama, the two self-proclaimed “agents of change,” by declaring that passionate words aren’t enough. And as she has throughout the campaign, she offered concrete suggestions for addressing both major foreign policy issues and domestic problems, including the potential economic crisis facing our country.

If you didn’t know it before this debate, you do now: Clinton is the candidate best prepared to lead America into the future.

The debate can be seen online on the WMUR site.