Youthful Obama supporters from 08 “walking around like cattle hit with a stun gun”

Barack Obama Speaks to 75,000 at Portland Oregon Rally, May 19, 2008

 

Newsweek’s Michael Tomasky asks, “How can the president rev up and mobilize his demoralized liberal base?” That would be those folks who supported candidate Obama in 08 from the ranks of “African-Americans, educated white liberals, Latinos, young people, and union members.”

Um, Mr. Tomasky, some of us educated white liberals took a pass on Obama in the 08 primary and voted for Hillary Clinton – for a sampling, click here.

Anyway, Tomasky provides a couple of interesting insights and nuggets of information in his analysis of the hurdles Obama faces in campaign 2012, which, as we are repeatedly hearing, isn’t likely to be a rerun of the media-driven, euphoric stampede the last time around.

Instead, well, Tomasky is suggesting that the Obama camp use fear to get out the vote. Wonder how many of those supporters reeling as if they’ve been hit with a stun gun are going to buy that?  Here’s the scoop:

It was a rare confessional moment for Barack Obama. At a Miami fundraiser in mid-June, the president acknowledged that it’s “not as cool” as it was in 2008 to support him. It isn’t just a matter of fewer hip posters and viral videos. It’s a matter of votes. Rekindling the enthusiasm of African-Americans, educated white liberals, Latinos, young people, and union members—the Democratic Party’s most loyal and progressive members—will be a huge challenge. After all, you can only elect the first African-American president once, and the past two and a half years have deeply disappointed many liberals. “I know a lot of the kids who worked hard in 2008,” says Hodding Carter III, adviser to the last one-term Democratic president (Jimmy Carter) and now a professor at the University of North Carolina–Chapel Hill. “They walk around like cattle who’ve been hit with stun guns between their eyes. This isn’t how it was supposed to be.”

Obama and his people have heard this sort of thing so often that they no longer bother to take umbrage. When I asked chief Obama reelection guru David Axelrod about this sense of disillusionment, he patiently ticked off a list of accomplishments: health-care reform, repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell,” financial regulatory reform, the drawdown from Iraq, student-loan reform. “Did we keep faith with the things that the president said he would do when he ran?” asks Axelrod. “There is a long list of things he said he’d do that we in fact did.”

It’s a solid inventory. But it’s countered by the undeniable reality that the country hasn’t noticeably moved in a more liberal direction (quite the opposite), and by the widely held perception among progressives that Obama will never wage fierce battle on behalf of liberal ideals. When I interviewed Justin Ruben, the executive director of MoveOn.org, whose 5 million members (many in swing states) must be revved up and mobilized if the president is to be reelected, he gave me four or five variants of the line “People need to feel like the president and the Democrats are really going to fight for their side.”

Read more:

Bush Hatred and Obama Euphoria Coexist in the Same Heart

Photo credits: TheScroogeReport

Peter Berkowitz’ column in the WSJ, Bush Hatred and Obama Euphoria Are Two Sides of the Same Coin, reminded me of a Newsweek article by Sharon Begley last February titled When It’s Head Versus Heart, The Heart Wins.

Berkowitz would agree, but with a twist. In today’s piece he argues the opposite passions toward Bush and Obama of hatred and euphoria typically coexist in the same heart, and he suggests individuals with hearts so afflicted continue to rule the day.

In constructing his argument, Berkowitz makes some good points – maybe even two or three. He writes:

(emphasis mine)

In fact, Bush hatred and Obama euphoria -- which tend to reveal more about those who feel them than the men at which they are directed -- are opposite sides of the same coin. Both represent the triumph of passion over reason. Both are intolerant of dissent. Those wallowing in Bush hatred and those reveling in Obama euphoria frequently regard those who do not share their passion as contemptible and beyond the reach of civilized discussion. Bush hatred and Obama euphoria typically coexist in the same soul. And it is disproportionately members of the intellectual and political class in whose souls they flourish.

I likely qualify as a member of the intellectual and political class noted above, however, I’ve not once succumbed to Obama euphoria, and although I’ve been almost continuously outraged by the Bush Administration’s policies since the 2000 election, I doubt my feelings toward our 43rd president ever congealed into pure hatred.

As a former member of the Democratic Party who re-registered as non-affiliated last June to protest the sexism and misogyny that Hillary Clinton endured, I can attest to the intolerance of dissent by those “reveling in Obama euphoria.” Since the early days of the Democratic primary, I’ve felt isolated from most members of my usual circle of friends and acquaintances.

My position notwithstanding, scanning the readers’ comments on the message boards of liberal online news outlets easily confirms Berkowitz’ claims that Bush hatred and Obama euphoria are two sides to the same coin.

Recently, for example, the Huffington Post provided a video of the Today Show that featured Jenna and Barbara Bush reading the letter they wrote to the Obama girls in which the Bush twins, playing the role of older sisters, offered some poignant advice to Malia and Sasha. The Today Show’s Meredith Vieira and Matt Lauer were both visibly moved.

Here’s a sampling of the hatred toward even Bush’s daughters expressed in readers’ comments from Obama supporters in response to the above video:

*Who TF Cares?

Every day it's something about these two drunks and thier letter to the Obama girls. They are starting to rival Paris and Lindsey on the annoying scale.

*All the Bushes need to just go TF away.

*"We are still relevant! We are still relevant! Look over HERE! Hello! Anyone?!? Pay attention to us!"

*Zzzzzzzz, just go away.

*They need to go away. No one cares what they have to say!

Reflecting on the 2008 presidential election, I agree with Begley’s contention in Newsweek that voters in America are more apt to vote with their hearts than their heads. And Berkowitz is right in calling the media to account for its preference in appealing to the emotions rather than intelligence:

Bush hatred and Obama euphoria are particularly toxic because they thrive in and have been promoted by the news media, whose professional responsibility, it has long been thought, is to gather the facts and analyze their significance, and by the academy, whose scholarly training, it is commonly assumed, reflects an aptitude for and dedication to systematic study and impartial inquiry.

Berokowitz’ next paragraph oversimplifies the issues while revealing a trace of his own passion, but his words should at least prompt citizens to fact check claims made by candidates a little more thoroughly before casting their ballots:

From the avalanche of vehement and ignorant attacks on Bush v. Gore and the oft-made and oft-refuted allegation that the Bush administration lied about WMD in Iraq, to the remarkable lack of interest in Mr. Obama's career in Illinois politics and the determined indifference to his wrongness about the surge, wide swaths of the media and the academy have concentrated on stoking passions rather than appealing to reason.

In conclusion, Berkowitz points to a favorite conservative scapegoat: academia.

He writes:

Consequently, though Bush hatred may weaken as the 43rd president minds his business back home in Texas, and while Obama euphoria may fade as the 44th president is compelled to immerse himself in the daunting ambiguities of power, our universities will continue to educate students to believe that hatred and euphoria reflect political wisdom. Urgent though the problem is, not even the efficient and responsible spending of a $1 trillion stimulus package would begin to address it.

I disagree with Berkowitz’ claims about universities. I received my own liberal arts education (BA in English) at a state university in Minnesota in the 1970s where I learned to think critically and in the process developed a healthy skepticism for the media and politicians of every stripe.

And just for the record, I'm a progressive from this great state in the tradition of our late U.S. Senator Paul Wellstone, former professor of political science at Carleton College, Northfield, Minn. Like Obama, Sen. Wellstone was once a community organizer; however, he did not feel this experience qualified him for the presidency.

Democrats Trample the Progressive Banner En Route to Denver

Democratic National Committee Chair, Howard Dean

In the heat of August out here in the Midwest, the mind balks at recalling the frozen terrain of New Hampshire in January. But the compulsion to understand what brought Democrats — just days ahead of their national convention — to a state of affairs in which they willfully trample on the banner of progressivism demands it.

As a Unitarian-Universalist, the significance of that progressive banner was brought home to me by the July shooting at the Tennessee Valley Unitarian-Universalist Church by a crazed intruder motivated by hatred of gays and liberals. Ironically, the liberal or progressive movement as defined in the UU tradition would have embraced the unemployed suspect in compassionate outreach.

The first two of the UU’s seven principles are undeniably at the core of the progressive movement: 1) The inherent worth and dignity of every person; and 2) Justice, equity, and compassion in human relations. Given half a chance, progressive economic and foreign policies flow naturally from that core.

Politically, progressives most often identify with the Democratic Party, but it was during the run up to the New Hampshire primary that a peculiar aberration from the above principled credo became impossible to ignore. In the 160th year after the first women’s rights convention at Seneca Falls, NY, an extraordinarily well-qualified female presidential candidate could not count on even minimal respect from otherwise progressive party officials, the campaign staffs and backers of her opponents in the Democratic primary, and certainly not from either the old or new media.

On Monday, Jan. 7, I tuned in the PBS News Hour where I’d once taken for granted at least fair-minded news coverage. That evening, Jim Lehrer smirked as he referred to Hillary Clinton’s moment of “weakness” captured in a video clip at a meeting with supporters in a New Hampshire restaurant where Sen. Clinton’s eyes welled up as she spoke these words:

“This is very personal for me. It's not just political; it's not just public. I see what's happening. We have to reverse it.”

The senator continued:

“And some people think elections are a game. They think it's like who's up or who's down. It's about our country; it's about our kids' futures. It's really about all of us together.”

Lehrer’s scornful attitude toward Hillary Clinton on the eve of the New Hampshire primary was not all that remarkable. Week after week during The Analysis of Mark Shields and David Brooks, Shields, the progressive counterpart to the conservative Brooks, unabashedly fawned over Barack Obama, while failing to conceal his contempt when forced to speak the name of Hillary Clinton. By then, however, I relished the power of the off button on my remote to cut short offensively biased news broadcasts —whether originating from PBS, network, or cable.

As Tuesday, January 8, dawned on the Granite State’s primary, five days after the Iowa caucus, the polls were nearly unanimous in predicting a double-digit win for Obama, happily exulting to his followers about riding a wave. Even then, talking heads were wondering aloud to one another when “Hillary” would most likely drop out of the race.

Pundits would later manage to avoid giving full credit to Sen. Clinton for her New Hampshire win by calling it “miraculous.” But that very night on the News Hour, Mark Shields predictably agreed with a comment by David Brooks in chalking up Sen. Clinton’s win to gender: “I think David's point about gender is crucial. Gender did not work for Hillary Clinton in Iowa. It worked for her in New Hampshire. We know what happened; we don't know why.”

As pollsters and pundits scrambled to explain the New Hampshire upset, Jesse Jackson, Jr., national co-chair of Barack Obama’s campaign, went on a rampage. The day after the primary, the grim-faced Jackson’s spin on Sen. Clinton’s moment in the New Hampshire restaurant was egregiously sexist; he accused Clinton of melting the Granite State by showing emotion over her appearance that she had failed to show over national catastrophes such as Katrina video and text here.

To my recollection, there was no immediate outcry from Democratic Party leaders, the mainstream media, or the new media over Jackson’s blatant injection of sexism into the campaign.

By then it was clear to any semi-conscious Democrat that Barack Obama owned the party’s left wing, ginned up by the netroots — hundreds of thousands of political junkies swarming Internet message boards 24/7 in aggressive support of their idol.

Having co-opted the label, the netroots, along with various social networking sites, redefined the progressive movement to suit its own purposes: any hint of racism, real or imagined, in the 2008 presidential campaign was taboo, but it was open season for the most obscene expressions of sexism and misogyny.

Whereas, Jesse Jackson, Jr.’s hate-mongering, sexist slur of Hillary Clinton in the aftermath of her upset victory in New Hampshire went largely ignored, Princeton historian Sean Wilentz pointed out in his op-ed in the Philadelphia Inquirer:

‘“Obama's backers, including members of his official campaign staff, then played what might be called ‘the race-baiter card.’ Hillary Clinton, in crediting both Lyndon Johnson as well as the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. for the Civil Rights Act in 1964, had supposedly denigrated King, and by extension Obama. Allegedly, Bill Clinton had dismissed Obama's victory in South Carolina by comparing it to those of the Rev. Jesse Jackson in the 1980s. (In fact, their electoral totals were comparable — and in the interview at issue, Clinton complimented Obama on his performance ‘everywhere’ — a line the media usually omitted.)”’

When pinned down during the Las Vegas debate, Obama made clear – after most of the damage had been done – that he was well aware the Clintons were not racists.

In the meantime, misogynist attacks against Hillary Clinton continued unabated. In response to MSNBC’s suspension of David Shuster for his on-the-air remark accusing the Clinton campaign of “pimping” their daughter Chelsea, an unbelievable number of Obama’s online supporters jumped to Shuster’s defense while verbally assaulting Sen. Clinton and her family. Here’s a sample:

“Shuster should have given them the middle finger. Pimp is becoming part of the vernacular today. It's one of the slang words that{’}s utterly harmless. And the fact that the Clinton Machine is pimping Chelsea out makes this even more pathetic. People get so pissy and uppity over the stupidest things.

“What they really need to address is how the hell Chelsea became the ugliest child/ person in politics. Or Public office. That poor thing got beat with the ugly stick one too many times.”

Similarly, after Obama aide Samantha Power resigned for publicly calling Hillary Clinton a monster, the following response from the netroots was typical:

“…Powers was 99.99% correct Mrs. Clinton is not only a monster but Lucifer's twin sister.”

By the time Barack Obama claimed the title of presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party on June 3 in St. Paul, he boasted only a narrow lead in delegates; whereas, Clinton led in the popular vote. Nevertheless, the same pundits who had been trying for months to force Clinton out of the race, railed at her for taking the time to thank her supporters for her South Dakota win that night instead of immediately conceding the nomination to Obama.

It took feminist icon Gloria Steinem to point out: “No candidate in history has been asked to step down by the media. She {Clinton} was.”

Steinem added, “The average time it takes for a loser to endorse a winner in this situation is four months. “She {Clinton} did it in four days. And look how she was criticized for not doing it the very same night.”

After Clinton made her concession speech and the dust from the primary had somewhat settled, Melissa McEwan and Maureen McCluskey published their two-part article titled Destroying Hillary Clinton in the Guardian. The article documented how the Left, also known as the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, mined the Right’s smears from the nineties for its prolonged orgy of Hillary-bashing to secure the nomination for the favored Barack Obama.

However, since first declaring himself the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party in early June, Obama has shifted from left to center on almost every major issue that once endeared him to progressives including abortion, public financing, FISA, faith-based initiatives, NAFTA, gun control, the death penalty, tapping the nation’s oil reserves, and offshore drilling. Obama’s sudden shifts drew expressions of disappointment, scoldings, and advice from once unwavering supporters in both the mainstream media and the blogosphere: here, here, and here.

Moreover, Obama has given his opponents the same kind of ammunition they used so successfully against John Kerry in 2004. Here’s how the conservative blog RedState described Obama’s sudden betrayal of his left-wing base: “Once he won the Democratic nomination, though, Obama started moving so quickly to re-brand himself as a 'centrist' that you'd be forgiven getting whiplash watching him move.”

By abandoning his earlier positions – in the spirit of whatever it takes to win - Barrack Obama, the party’s presumptive standard bearer, effectively tossed aside the progressive banner, already desecrated by the unrelenting sexism and misogyny long endured by Hillary Clinton.

Meanwhile, hopes grow dim for an open convention conducted according to democratic procedures requiring Sen. Clinton’s name on the ballot and a roll call vote. Instead, party leaders have reportedly planned a rigged election to conclude with Sen. Clinton turning over her delegates to Obama.

Thus, Democrats trample the discarded progressive banner on their march to a carefully staged media event in Denver expected to culminate with Obama’s coronation before 75,000 onlookers in the Mile High Stadium at Invesco Field.

Obama’s Fuzziness on the Constitutional Separation of Church and State

As a member of the Unitarian-Universalist Church, I continue to feel uneasy about Barack Obama’s notion of strengthening and embellishing the Bush Administration’s faith-based initiative when and if he is elected president.

In the days since he became the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party, Obama has been attempting to broaden his base beyond the extreme left, which - as lefty guru Arianna Huffington recently reminded her pick - brought him to the dance in the first place.

In the process Obama has pandered to the right on FISA, abortion rights, public campaign funding in the general election, wearing a flag pin, gun control, the death penalty, and in the little matter of the constitutional separation of church and state.

Obama has said that he found Christ at Trinity UCC in Chicago where he was a member for 20 years before the Rev. Wright controversy erupted and threatened to throw his drive to the presidency off course.

If Trinity is indeed where Obama was introduced to Christianity, he very likely learned the version offered by liberation theology. And in that case, he is left with a very naïve theological understanding that can be construed to mean that God takes sides and condones the use of violence in resolving conflicts.

Other theological perspectives teach that God leads by invitation, not by coercion, and seeks to transform, rather than destroy those who are guilty of wrongdoing - that would be the image of God modeled in scripture by Jesus.

It’s hard to determine how much Trinity UCC influenced Obama’s faith perspective. We know from the viral videos of first Rev. Wright and then Father Pfleger that politics and religion – church and state – were not separate in the venom spewing from Trinity’s pulpit. First Wright, then Pfleger, used his office to ridicule and mock Hillary Clinton, Obama’s main adversary in the Democratic primary.

As noted earlier, since first arriving at the dance on the arm of his left-wing partner, the Democratic presumptive nominee has quickly slipped out of his liberal guise to – among other flip-flops - snatch the faith-based initiative out of Dubya’s hands and use it to appeal to the evangelical crowd.

Who knows where the theologically naïve, but politically astute Obama will move next as he attempts to straddle the centerline on the road to Denver.

If you’d like to read more on this topic, I recommend James Carroll’s thoughtful column in today’s Boston Globe titled Secular Rule Benefits the Faithful, Too; and Jacques Berlinerblau’s post at On Faith (WashingtonPost/Newsweek) titled Obama’s Faith-Based Initiative: a Dissent.