A recent diary by "jbou" painted Obama as old wine in new bottles. That isn't the first time someone has made that charge. LC Johnson was even more biting last month in his diary. Unlike Johnson's rant, jbou's diary got me thinking. If Obama really does lean left and he is savvy about the net... why hasn't he posted here? After all, at least twenty percent of senators post here: Dodd (3 times), Schumer (4 times), Edwards (4 times), Durbin (7 times), Webb (9 times), Harken (10 times), Boxer (10 times), Kennedy (12 times), Tester (16 times), Kerry (24 times), and Feingold (28 times) to name a few... Heck, even former president Jimmy Carter (4 times) has posted here. Clinton, of course, has been conspicuous by her absence, but that is not surprising given the way things have played out this season. So what about Obama? You may be surprised to learn he has posted here ...
His first post was in direct response to what others had written here about him. If this comes as a revelation to you, don't be too hard on yourself. This was almost three years ago, long before he was a household name. His essay was titled "Tone, Truth, and the Democratic Party". I think reviewing his post in the current climate offers an excellent opportunity to compare the way he approached criticism back then with his more recent behavior. As I've already noted, a lot of politicians post here, but his essay was notable for a variety of reasons. To begin with, I was struck by his opening sentence:
I read with interest your recent discussion regarding my comments on the floor (1, 2, 3 ) during the debate on John Roberts' nomination.
It's a truly remarkable opening, especially when you compare that post to the dozens of others we've seen here from various politicians over the years. Forget about the implied compliment that he read anything written here with interest. How many people here can honestly say they figured out how to embed links in their first posting? That may seem trivial to you ... now. He did it in his opening line -- three times! That is a very clear "hello world" sort of signal. He was demonstrating he spoke our language, was comfortable with the technology, and understood our culture. The second time I read his essay it occurred to me that adding those links were far more than the technical equivalent of stupid pet tricks. Including those references leveled the playing field so any latecomers to the conversation would be able to follow along. That reminds me of a slogan I've heard recently bandied about... how's it go? Oh, I remember... Include.Empower.Respect. I think it's incredibly elegant that he could put all of that in one sentence. To show you how elegant that is requires several paragraphs to outline the articles he referenced. However, it is necesary to summarize them if you want to follow his line of reasoning. The first article referenced by "ltsply2" took Obama to task for opposing Roberts' nomination while simultaneously defending Leahy from "largely Democratic advocacy groups" who attacked him for supporting Roberts' nomination. I'm sure the more jaded observers dismissed this as just another example of the classic political game called "trying to have it both ways." There is nothing noble about that, and it certainly would win no friends here. Nor should it. The poll associated with ltsply2's article is informative because it reflects a sense of the Dkos community at the time. About 10% felt Obama was just posturing. About 20% felt Obama was too harsh in his criticism and should "remember who supported him." About 50% felt he was not overly harsh because "special interest groups are ruining our country." The remainder voted for pie :) The second post was not merely critical of Obamaa. It was downright disdainful. "Wu ming" started by saying:
The fact that it has come to the point where they sent out Obama, one of the most popular democratic politicians with the blogosphere and the democratic base, to tell us to back off, to stop being so unreasonable, is a good sign, because it means that we're getting to them. It means that they've heard us, and that we're bugging them, and that they're getting defensive about not following their constituents' will when the chips were down.
And finished by noting:
They're listening now. Let's turn the heat up and hold their attention.
The final article did not receive anywhere near the attention of the other two. There were only 44 comments and 9 recommendations. Of course the title, Obama is Smart, may have helped attract Obama's attention but there was more to it. The author, "Steve4Clark", carefully examined Obama's words and put them into a broader context, drawing conclusions which -- and this is important -- are consistent with the image and approach we have been presented with time and again during the recent campaign.
Obama's remarks are incredibly telling. He goes through an analysis of what he finds right with Roberts, and then what he finds wrong. I think he puts together a concise rebuttal to the theory of Originalism, pointing out that it is a smokescreen placed upon an unreasonable position to make it sound legitimate...
From the beginning, it is clear that Obama is intelligent. Of course intelligence alone is not a selling point. No one doubts Bill Clinton's intellect. However, he is famous for convincing everyone in the room he agrees with them, even though they all disagree with each other. The unanswered question is whether Obama's sincerity can be trusted. Does he really stand for something or is he just better at using words to confuse people? That's a good question. Steve4Clark goes on to analyze Obama's comments as follows [emphasis added]:
He says he is voting against, and after explaining why, he then goes on to say that he really hopes he is wrong. He is acknowledging that his vote matters little, for the confirmation will occur, but that he is doing so anyway because in his heart he feels that he must vote this way. You cannot claim, Obama stands for nothing, can you? He's deeply disturbed. He's not taking people to task for this, he's not calling names. He's using a passive voice to scold. It's my grandmother again... not yelling at me, but scolding by showing deep disappointment that I'm not better than I was. He's acknowledging the ridiculousness of the Republicans. That they have engaged in slander and all sorts of other smears. But he questions the wisdom of applying tit for tat. He suggests a high road. He has distanced himself, and perhaps the party, from the special interests. That's a positive, for the party has been much too beholden to them in the past. But he does so in a way which is not demeaning. He acknowledges their feelings their concerns... He simply says that the way they behaved, the language used, is non-conducive to a civilized discussion.
Now you see why I find Obama's opening so impressive. He conveyed all of that with an economy of language that is astounding. Given Obama's eloquence, it is not surprising that Steve4Clark was ultimately seduced by his prose and wound up concluding:
Obama truly believes in the United States of America that he spoke about at the Convention. That is what he is advocating for. But he is also acknowleding that there are differences of opinion, and he details those, along with what it is he believes in. He's good...
These are the same points people make today when examining Obama's response to his critics. The good news here is we can safely make a case for consistency. That's not a trivial point these days given the other candidates still in the running. However, consistency alone doesn't address the lurking concern that Obama may just have a style well-suited to playing both ends against the middle and he is really good at staying in character. Maybe he is just the Bizarro Stephen Colbert. The answer to this question requires one to read beyond the first line of his post. Given the title of his posting "Tone, Truth, and the Democratic Party," his next few sentences were not all that surprising:
I don't get a chance to follow blog traffic as regularly as I would like, and rarely get the time to participate in the discussions. I thought this might be a good opportunity to offer some thoughts about not only judicial confirmations, but how to bring about meaningful change in this country.
That is a humble entrance and a lofty entrance at the same time. He is not preaching, he is offering solutions to problems and concerns raised by people who have just finished treating him with disdain. One might expect anger, a little jibe perhaps. But, true to form, he addresses his critics without criticism.
Maybe some of you believe I could have made my general point more artfully, but it's precisely because many of these groups are friends and supporters that I felt it necessary to speak my mind.
The self-deprecation is clearly a ploy worthy of Atticus Finch himself, but no matter. His opening line made it clear that only a fool would underestimate him. If you look closely, you realize that embedded in that comment is a gentle reminder that we can all be more artful. For those who mistake compassion with weakness, he also puts the reader on notice that he will speak his mind when necessary. Gently but firmly rooted, the message of tolerance is being foreshadowed. Continuing below the fold, most of his subsequent remarks were directed against the arguments of his critics. Note he addressed their arguments, not them. He didn't personalize the debate. He addressed their concerns without recrimination. He talked about "our mutual frustrations" and points out our common goal. He dissected the arguments of both sides in the signature style we have seen him use time and time again. The arguments were fairly displayed. The affect behind them was captured in the way he described the positions. I think that display of emotional intelligence may be one of the secrets to his success. After laying out the particulars, he gently chided those who would attack his colleagues. He talked about Leahy's treatment, but he offered up his strongest arguments when he discussed the treatment of Feingold.
Russ Feingold, the only Democrat to vote not only against war in Iraq but also against the Patriot Act, doesn't become complicit in the erosion of civil liberties simply because he chooses to abide by a deeply held and legitimate view that a President, having won a popular election, is entitled to some benefit of the doubt when it comes to judicial appointments.
I find it refreshing that Obama is not enamored with titles and honorifics. Note he didn't defend Senator Feingold. He defended Russ Feingold. I don't think that choice was an accident. If you check the stats, Russ Feingold is the guy who posted here more times than any other senator. Of course, Obama was not blind to the absolutists, especially those likely to claim fealty to the Constitution trumps any political alliance. He saved his best for last when he simply concluded the defense of Feingold by saying:
Like it or not, that view has pretty strong support in the Constitution's design.
That punch is thrown so fast, you don't even see it coming. But it's devastating. In fact, you probably didn't even notice what turned a jab into a knockout, so let me replay it in slow motion: the Constitution's design. He's not interpreting anything, there is no room for interpretation here. He's talking about the way it is built. When have you ever heard anyone use that construct in common discussion? One word and he takes the winds out of any sails you were planning on hoisting. Once again, the brilliance (and I don't use that word lightly) is demonstrated by the economy of language. A man given to bravado would be inclined at that point to taunt "is that artful enough for you?" while they dragged you back to a neutral corner. He didn't do that. Instead he took the opportunity to elevate the conversation. And that is where he addresses the very issue raised by Johnson, jbou and the chorus of cynics who wonder if he is for real or just really good at faking it.
Unless we are open to new ideas, and not just new packaging, we won't change enough hearts and minds to initiate a serious energy or fiscal policy that calls for serious sacrifice. We won't have the popular support to craft a foreign policy that meets the challenges of globalization or terrorism while avoiding isolationism and protecting civil liberties. We certainly won't have a mandate to overhaul a health care policy that overcomes all the entrenched interests that are the legacy of a jerry-rigged health care system. And we won't have the broad political support, or the effective strategies, required to lift large numbers of our fellow citizens out of numbing poverty.
He then goes on to invoke a line we have heard many times since about "disagreeing without being disagreeable" and closes with an invitation to continued dialogue:
In that spirit, let me end by saying I don't pretend to have all the answers to the challenges we face, and I look forward to periodic conversations with all of you in the months and years to come. I trust that you will continue to let me and other Democrats know when you believe we are screwing up. And I, in turn, will always try and show you the respect and candor one owes his friends and allies.
That generated a lot of commentary. Some of it was pretty harsh. His subsequently posted response, although brief, is telling.
I completely agree that the Democrats need to present and fight for a clearly stated set of core convictions, and that we have not done so as effectively as we need to over the past several election cycles. We can insist on being principled about the ends we are trying to achieve (e.g. educational opportunity and basic health care for all Americans, honest and accountable government, etc.), without sacrificing our commitment to open debate, intellectual honesty, and civility. I think its the right thing to do and I also think it will help us win. I also agree that it is the job of Democratic elected officials to help shape public opinion, and not just respond passively to opinion thats been aggressively shaped by the Republicans PR machinery. I am simply suggesting, based on my experience, that people will respond to a powerfully progressive agenda when its couched in optimism, pragmatism and our shared American ideals. Finally, some of you wondered whether I wrote the post myself. I did.[emph. added]
Take a moment and consider this: How many times in his life do you think he has been asked "did you write that yourself?" This was an essay from a United States senator who graduated from Harvard Law School. Why would anyone be surprised that he writes his own stuff? Gee... I wonder... To add insult to injury consider this: That was three years ago -- before he wrote The Audacity of Hope yet people still asked him that question as recently as last month after his More Perfect Union speech in Philadelphia! Think about how you would feel if you were in his shoes. The fact that he continues to respond in a manner consistent with everything he has ever written or said speaks volumes about his character. I realize that for some, the nagging question of whether he is too good to be true or not will always remain. The truth is you can scour Obama's words and actions from here to the end of time and they will never serve as portals to his soul. Fortunately, that is not necessary. We are not seeking to canonize a saint. We are seeking to hire a chief executive we reasonably believe will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of his ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.