Saint Barack — The Halo Slips

Did you watch that debate? Did you? [if you missed it, you can read a transcript or watch it here]. Am I the only one who was pissed at Saint Barack? You know, I’ve always been very attracted to the guy. It was agonizing trying to decide between him and Clinton. Monday night, I was glad I’d walked away from him.

As I watched the man whose supporters paint him as a latter day Martin Luther King, Jr., I sputtered, fumed and swore. (By the way, lest we forget, King accomplished great things, but he had clay feet). Obama insists that his campaign won’t sully itself with Realpolitick. He harps on the need for a new civility, a non-partisan mindset. It’s all about ‘inspiration’ and ‘transformation’. He attacks, then denies it. He doesn't take ownership of his own dirty tactics, like the Spanish language ad run on his behalf by the Culinary Workers that accused Hillary of not caring about Latinos. If someone calls him on his own distortions, he calls foul, and then whines that he’s mistreated. “Can’t we all just get along?” he pleads. Will someone make that mean Bill Clinton go away? Right. Welcome to politics with Big Boys and Girls Barry.

His arrogant, dismissive style, consisting of “listen, listen” or “look, look” as he lectures and shakes his finger, sends me into orbit. When he cannot find a cogent argument to defend his past actions, he just whines, “trust me, you know what a good person I am, you know I didn’t mean it, my words are being distorted”. Worse, the fucking media plays along, defending him as a poor victim of Clintonian dirty politics.

I watched the key sections of the controversial interview Obama gave to the editors of a conservative Reno newspaper. The newspaper whose endorsement he was fishing for. No one mentions that the paper’s agenda is a Republican one. This is the interview in which Barack just happens to extol the Republican party as the party of ideas, more ideas than even Bill Clinton had during his presidency. Clearly, Obama was trying to align himself with Republicans to win their support. He did, by the way. Yet these key facts are left out by his supporters when they defend him. The media has been utterly silent about the context.

Let me be clear, I have no problem with Obama's strategy to gain votes. I do object to his saintly protestations that we all misunderstood him and are trying to sully his precious attempt to ‘reach across the aisle’. When he is called out, which is what Hillary tried to do during the debate on Monday, he waxes into a lengthy professorial explanation of what he “really” meant. If we didn’t get it, then we must be stupid or bad people who aren’t playing nice. Again, I call bullshit.

And I’m really, really sick to death of Obama supporters who prance around the blogs, spoiling for a fight and accusing anyone who is beginning to see the guy’s flaws, as racists, against change, corporatists, or worse, purveyors of Rovian politics. We older Democrats are getting sick and tired of being accused of racism or cynicism when we point out Obama's flaws and the political realities that expose his weaknesses. Slam us enough and we'll vote for his opponents. I think that dynamic may be taking hold in recent primaries.

Obama is a politician, not a saint. His senate run was essentially unopposed due to problems within the Republican party at the time. He hasn’t been tested in the mud-wrestling environment of national politics. From what I can see, he can’t take the heat very well and he sure as hell can’t think on his feet or respond articulately when attacked spontaneously. He is great at teleprompter speeches but not-so-great when he has to react quickly. A campaign against the Republican machine will require quick responses from him, not just his bevy of strategists behind the scene. This was one of Kerry’s great flaws, he wasn’t a street fighter. Hillary, on the other hand, is. You may hate that reality, but it isn’t going to go away. The Republicans will not play nice just because Barack wants a kumbaya world. That's not cynicism. It's just what's so.

Beyond the campaign, many of the most critical presidential decisions are ones that have to be made in a split-second, when experience and an understanding of context count. There are times when you cannot ponder the options for days or weeks. I continue to worry that Obama’s skill at that is poorly developed. While he is a thoughtful man -- which is a strength -- it can also be a hindrance if you lack practice at making timely decisions about complex international situations.

If we are to have a fair examination of the candidates, not just what they believe but how successful they will be in a national campaign, then I think it is reasonable to evaluate their performance when attacked. It is also fair to identify when they are pandering to the Right to position themselves for votes. If Hillary panders she is accused of ‘triangulating’, as if she is conducting a ménage a trois. When Obama does it, he’s shaping a broader vision and building a consensus with Independents and lite Republicans. That’s utter crap. Let’s call it what it is: they are both trying to win an election, whatever it takes. Playing holier than thou feels way too similar to “God is on my side”, the rationale we’ve all endured for 7 interminable years.