" ... superheroes don't become President; politicians do."
"Making It"
Ryan Lizza
July 21st, 2008
The New Yorker
Rock Star Presidential candidate Obama is not the stalwart outsider he portends to be. Niether is he the standard bearer for left of center positions held by the majority of his supporters, nor is he the crusader for the disenfrancised poor and middle class longing to be free from the abuses of power, nor is he the change agent determined to clean up Washington by rejecting the undue influence of PACs and lobbyists. The author, Ryan Lizza, presents a well-written and well-researched expose that is not presented by the mainstream media or the 24 hour news cable channels. Carefully and skillfully Mr. Lizza documents those individuals, forces, and activities that have catapulted Obama to the political heights he has now achieved. Assesing the evidence of the Candidate's political behavior, one can only conclude that Obama is no more, no less than a typical, ordinary, garden variety politician. Worse, he is a pol.
Although the majority of the electorate has been attracted to the Senator by his oratory and his ability to rally the adoring masses, there is much more to this man than is visible to the eye of the camera or the megaphone of the microphone. Based upon his research, Mr. Lizza summarizes his findings as follows:
"Pehraps the greatest misconception about Barak Obama is that he is some
sort of anti-establishment revolutionary. Rather, every stage of his political
career has been marked by an eagerness to accommodate himself to
existing institutions rather than tear down or replace them. When he was
a community organizer, he channelled his work through Chicago's churches
because they were the main bases of power on the South Side. He was an
agnostic when he started [his work in Chicago], and the work led him to
become a practicing Christian. At Harvard, he won the presidency of the
Law Review by appealing to the conservatives on the selection panel. In
Springfield [Illinois state capitol] rather than challenge the Old Guard
Democratic leaders, Obama built a mutually beneficial relationship with
them. "You have the power to make a United States Senator," he told State
Senator Emil Jones [an influential, black, Chicago, power-broker] in 2003.
In his downtime [as a State Senator] he played poker with lobbyists and
Republican lawmakers. In Washington, he has been a cautious Senator and,
when he arrived, made it a point of NOT defining himself as an opponent of
the Iraq war.
He campaigns on reforming a broken political process, yet he has always
played politics by the rules as they exist, not as he would like them to
exist. He runs as an outsider, but he has succeeded by mastering the
inside game. He is ideologically a man of the left, but at times he has
been genuinely deferential to core philosophical insights of the right."
This is a portrait of a man that you cannot see on the cover of Newsweek, Time, or People magazine. These are the words of an author who does not merely play the sounds bites of Candidate Obama's amazing and inspiring rhetoric. Don't accept the conclusions repeated here. Read the article in its entirety and assess the evidence for yourself. We, as voters, can do no less in this most critical time in our election history than to thoroughly investigate our candidates and their backgrounds. The day, once dreamed, is here! We, the voters, must "judge [this man] by the content of his character and not the color of his skin." If we "buy" into Candidate Obama's message of hope, we could get sold out and be left with a pocket full of $change$.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 21
I'll give you a 10.
Louis,
It might surprise you to know that I am a card carrying Democrat. I have voted for a Democractic Presidential candidate ever since I reached the age of majority. I have not voted for a Republican owing to the fact that I have had significant differences with the party platform in the past. Despite what it says on my voter's registration card, I condsider myself to be an INDEPENDENT. I consider my vote a duty as well as a privilege. I take the responsibility of voting very seriously not only for myself but for all of us. I do take the time to research all candidates (even Nader and Barr). The purpose of my article is to urge others to be as skeptical. It's too important.
I guess if I wanted to vote for conservative OR left of center OR right of middle OR the most liberal Senator in Congress OR a hawk OR a dove OR a chameleon who changes colors in order to blend into everyone's psychee just to achieve political ambitions, I could vote for Obama.
I have found that happens a lot to my stuff (i.e., the drive by #1). From some of the comments I get, I was beginning to think that there weren't any moderates or independents among the Gatherians. I get "hit" the hardest when my posts even smack of criticism RE: Obama. ? It seems that if you "criticize" the Darling of the Dems, some Gatherians, like Louis, assume that they know you're a "Rush Limbaugh radical right wing propagandist." Well, to assume means that you make an "ass" of "u" and "me."
You attack him as a "pol". What the heck do you mean? McCain isn't ambitious and political?
Your comments show Obama to be effective, to be a realist, and to be less of a radical than those n the right assume.
McCain, don't forget, was part of the Keating 5 who used his wife's wealth to peddle his own influence. McCain has started out against torture and then embraces torture. He was against the President's tax cuts because they helped the wealthy, then he was for them.
McCain is too old, too ill, and too psychologically tormented from his horrible experience as a POW to make a fit President.
Obama is skillful, not as liberal/radical as portrayed, and an effective leader and communicator.
What's your point?
Obama is my pick.
A "pol" may be a pejorative term that may be somewhat more familiar to mid-westen, Chicagoans like myself than to others. Simply, a "pol" is a politician who will say anything he/she knows that the electorate wants to hear in order to achieve political power AND uses political power brokers for advancement even though he / she swears off visits to the back-room ala Karl Rove. That is my point... there is evidence which supports the fact that Obama will say what he needs to change the poll data in his favor AND he does unabashedly use power-brokers to get where he is.
For example, in 2002 when asked to give an speech at an anti-war rally in downtown Chicago. This speech was given a few months before his official declaration of his U.S. Senate candidacy. He said, "Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an antiwar rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war under these circumstances." As you know, subsequently, he has been the poster boy for "I opposed the war and he/she voted for the war" even to the defeat of his opponent, Senator Hillary Clinton.
As you may have noticed, I supported my conclusions with evidence. If you can back up your statements about Senator McCain with evidence, I am willing to listen. I think the fact that McCain was cleared of wrong doing in the Keating 5 incident by the Senate Ethics Committee after long gruelling investigations speaks volumes. He was not even sanctioned. He describes this investigation as the "lowest point in his life" because his honor and integrity was in question. The lessons he learned resulted in McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform. BUT I am not here to defend McCain. I will investigate your notions and go from there....
You say, "Obama is skillful, not as liberal/radical as portrayed, and an effective leader and communicator." He is, fact, skillful. He is not a "radical liberal." He is a "communicator." That is my point, if that's all you base your support on, you are in for a rude awakening. Because there is much more to this man than his political platitudes - a great communicator does not a leader make.
I have found that happens a lot to my stuff (i.e., the drive by #1). From some of the comments I get, I was beginning to think that there weren't any moderates or independents among the Gatherians. I get "hit" the hardest when my posts even smack of criticism RE: Obama. ?"""
There aren't many but we are here:)
" ... superheroes don't become President; politicians do."
"Rock Star Presidential candidate Obama is not the stalwart outsider he portends to be"
I cut and pasted these two pieces from above because they epitomize the problem. The author, and others with the same opinion, creates a strawman that then becomes the foil to be struck down. Yet it is not Obama that is categorizing himself as a superhero or a rock star, it is those who disagree with him or prefer the other candidates. Obama doesn't say he a stalwart outsider, he says that he wants to change the way business is done in Washington. The people and the opposition say he is these things.
Case in point, the McCain campaign and his supporters harp on Obama's "lack of experience." What they are saying implicitly, and often explicitly, is that Obama hasn't spend enough time in Washington to qualify for President. What Obama is saying is that spending that much time in Washington is actually a detriment to being President. It makes prospective candidates think that they understand "how things work." But what it really does is help them to understand "how to play the Washington game."
But the fact is this isn't a game. This isn't about which party is in power. This is about governing for the people. All the people, not just the half that voted for your party in the last election. Each party (including the smaller parties like the Libertarians) has valid concerns and ideas. Each elects representatives to present those concerns and ideas.
Obama, to me, represents someone with the intellect and the broad-based thinking that will allow all sides to have a say. Meanwhile, he will listen and then he will set a direction and the priorities for the future. And he will communicate this to the public. This is something the current Administration has not done.
I don't think that my phrasing was particularly clear. I don't actually think Obama is saying that anyone who spends that much time in Washington could not be President, or that being in Washington in itself is absolutely a detriment. Only that it is judgment that is important, not just number of years. There are those Washington long-timers who have good judgment and those who don't; meanwhile, those without long Washington experience also run the gamut between good and bad judgment. It is the individual that matters.
But in general, being in Washington skews politicians views on the rest of the country. I was reminded of this when my brother, who lived in Florida at the time, told me that while most politicians in Washington think the world revolves around them, most people in the real world don't care what happens on a daily basis in DC. They just want to their elected representatives to do their jobs and deal with the tough national and international issues that individuals cannot address.
Sometimes it takes a person who hasn't been unduly influenced by the artificiality of Washington to see the people's point of view. As a former community organizer, Obama is much more likely to be in tune with Americans than someone of privilege.
First, you are correct the Senator does not describe himself as a "Rock Star." You are incorrect that it is "those who disagree with him or prefer the other candidate" that characterize him thus. Time and again, it is the mainstream media who are in awe of his ability to rally the electorate who describe him in that manner. In fact, he is not described as a "Rock Star" in the article I cited.
RE: As a Community Organizer... He tried to turn his partnership with the churches into a political force on the South Side of Chicago but his work accomplished very little.
To quote Senator Obama himself, "And for the most part, I would say I wasn't wildly successful. The victories that were achieved extraordinarily modest: you know, getting a job-training site set up or getting an after-school program for young people set up." - 2007
The real extent and nature of his efforts as a community organizer and the success he achieved through these efforts should not now be touted as evidence of his ability to identify with and get things done for the poor and disenfranchised. He, himself, recognized that fact before he started running for President.
In order to find documentation of his efforts, one has to examine his early days in Chicago. The evidence is there.
We need leadership to help us unwind the Adversarial Culture that is weakening our country and out spirits.
We need leadership to make things happen.
It's too early to tell, and I won't be studying candidates in depth until much later, but I will say that "He is ideologically a man of the left, but at times he has been genuinely deferential to core philosophical insights of the right" certainly goes into the plus column for the type of leader I am talking about.
It does not matter who is president unless our congress starts to work for us and with the president. The way things are now, the Democrats can pass 10 laws a day in the house and none get passed in the senate or the president uses the veto. I guess they did pass a mortgage bill. I don't know enough about it to know if that is good or bad. Will it help folks losing homes or just bankers?
BTW, did you see that 10,000 people with mortgage credentials had criminal records. That's comforting.
We need to fix healthcare, infrastructure (especially trains), and foreign policy. I think if we put forth a "man on the moon" type effort we could put a big dent in the energy problem. For all our warts we Americans can do real well in both the brains and brawn department when we get after it and quit yelling at each other.
Anyway, good article Soozan and given the tight race between Obama the Clean and McCain the Ancient, I'd say that Obama's glow is starting to wear off. The more he speaks, the more its obvious he is no different than any other pol in being untrustworthy and unscrupulous
I heard an interesting interview on NPR this afternoon all about the Obama fatigue factor. Basically, Candidate Obama has garnered so much media attention that viewers are getting tired of hearing from him and seeing him. I wonder if that is true. It may account for his slip in the polls but I hope it's because the electorate is starting to get wise.
Ultimately, the only real power we have is through our Congressman because no one man can get anywhere w/o Congress except if your POTUS Bush and you can attach signing statements to everything. Washington is a mess! I wish we had a viable 3rd party.
For fun (NOT POINTS) take a look at my post "Talking Politics on Gather 2: WUSSSS!" I just got sick of "talking head" and pollsters and attackers! I thought I'd try a little satire for a change. Take a peek. I might see you over there.
Thanks again.