RSS Feed for This PostCurrent Article

A Paucity of Hope (A “Mendacity of Hope”?)

In “Barack Obama’s nouvelle vague,” Salon’s Walter Shapiro interviews an Iowan who says, “‘[A]fter hearing Obama today, I’m in awe‘.” Shapiro himself says, “We know he’s a ‘hope monger’, but the rest of Obama’s unconventional message is elusive.” Most of Obama’s support comes from the very young, 40% from independents, and 5% from Republicans. (Taylor Marsh dissects this odd grouping here and here.)

I stopped being “in awe” of candidates a long time ago. I don’t want a symbol. I don’t think any candidate is above the fray, nor can be — and probably shouldn’t be. I’m left cold by “elusive” messages. I just want the one who does the work and knows her stuff. And, I’ll tell you, if I were for Obama, I’d be feeling very uncomfortable about reports like these:

Let’s see: Forty-five percent of Obama’s support comes from non-Democrats. And a bedrock Democratic group, labor, is royally pissed at Obama — as are (I’ve been told) the worker bees and leaders of Iowa’s Democratic party who are very worried about his use of GOP talking points on Social Security and more. Then we have more and more writers pointing out the “mendacity” (a polite word for “lie”) in Obama’s speeches and in his advertisements.

Have you heard any other Democratic candidate — any of them — pull a “Harry and Louise” GOP-like attack in a false, smear-laden ad defending his or her health care plan? I need to ask this: Do any of those awe-struck non-Democrats supporting him even know who Harry and Louise are, or why that history matters?

Real Democrats know better than to fall for those kinds of tactics. But those 40% independents and 5% Republicans who want to vote for Obama? How can we know about them? What have they bothered to learn? Or are they in a state of rapture, not worried about those Democratic bedrock constituencies and issues?

And where do I begin to tell you? I can’t quote from every one of those important reports above. But you can read them. And you must. Then you must tell others about what you’ve read. Before it’s too late.

I will quote from the New Republic piece — which is a must-read in its entirety — about that “delusional” Boston Globe endorsement of Obama, because I have read more about what the TNR author is referring to:

The Boston Globe, in an ideal specimen of the delusional style, ran an editorial that endorsed Obama because he is biracial and grew up in “multi-ethnic cultures”–adequate substitutes, by the editorial’s lights, for serious background and expertise in foreign affairs. Obama, according to the Globe, has engaged in “a search for identity” and taken “a roots pilgrimage to Kenya,” all of which supposedly displays a “level of introspection, honesty, and maturity” that the newspaper longs for in a president. “Obama’s story is America’s story,” the Globe intoned–a sentence that comes as close as any distinguished newspaper ever has to perfect emptiness.

Let us hold aside that the book the Globe relied on in discovering these singular Obamaesque virtues, Dreams From My Father, contains composite characters and other fictionalized elements–not exactly a portrait of sterling honesty or authenticity. What is especially delusional is the Globe’s confidence that its own projections about Obama’s character and personality, as well as the mystical conclusions it draws from his ethnicity, are serious grounds for endorsing any candidate for any office, much less the presidency. … (From “The Delusional Style in American Punditry.”)

When the TNR author referred to Obama’s book, Dreams From My Father, which “contains composite characters and other fictionalized elements–not exactly a portrait of sterling honesty or authenticity,” I recalled my recent reading of the very lengthy Chicago Tribune biography of Obama that pointed out many stories that Obama regularly recounts about his youth that — when Chicago Tribune reporters checked them out — simply weren’t true. In one story he tells often, Obama brags that he learned the Indonesian language rapidly and easily, but the Tribune reporters talked to his former teacher who remembers how much he struggled and how his schoolwork suffered because he couldn’t grasp the language. (I’m not faulting him for struggling with a new language, but it worries me that he brags about mastering it easily when that’s not what happened.) There are more similar instances in the Chicago Tribune bio series.

Then there’s a truly fine diary by Jedreport today at Daily Kos: “Obama goes Harry and Louise: The audio.” It’s another must-read in full, but here’s just a bit of it:

… Krugman’s post was about a friend who had heard an ad by Obama attacking Edwards and Hillary on their universal health care plans. At the time, there was considerable skepticism amongst Kossacks that any such ad existed, and if it did exist, whether it actually evoked the conservative “fear big government” theme of the Harry and Louise commercials from 1994.

Well, Ben Smith at politico.com has obtained an audio recording of the radio ad and I can report to you that unfortunately Krugman and his friend were right. Although the ad is partially a defense of Obama’s plan, it does savage Hillary and Edwards on universal health care — specifically mandates — and it even evokes the style, and more importantly, the theme, of the Harry and Louise ads.

Jedreport then quotes from Krugman’s post last week:

Obama goes Harry and Louise

A friend sends me this:

Have you seen or heard about the radio ad that Obama is running in Iowa about health care?

It has a man and a woman talking, with the man leading off saying that health care mandates “force those who cannot afford health care insurance to buy it, punishing those who don’t fall in line.”

This is what I’ve been complaining about. I was willing to cut Obama slack on the lack of mandates in his plan, even though the economics says they’re necessary; I figured that in practice, if elected, he’d end up doing the right thing.*

I started ramping up the criticism when he started attacking his opponents from the right, making the lack of mandates a principle rather than a compromise — because that was poisoning the well, making it much harder for any future Democratic president to implement a plan that will work.

Jedreports provides a YouTube of the ad, and part of the transcript:

MALE: Here’s the big difference on health care: Senators Edwards and Clinton favor mandates, which the Daily Iowan says would “force those who could not afford health insurance to buy it, punishing those who don’t fall in line.”

FEMALE: Barack Obama believes the solution isn’t making it illegal not to have health care, it’s making it affordable.

The kicker? Jedreport points out that “The Daily Iowan is the newspaper of the University of Iowa.” He adds, “I knew Obama had a lot of support from college kids, but now he’s quoting them on health care policy?

JedReport also corrects misleading or false information in the ad.

But I’m just floored that Obama would quote a student newspaper as an authoritative source on health care. Well, I guess that’s how far his ad people had to look after an internationally renowned economist and New York Times columnist like Paul Krugman has reluctantly had to expose the problems with Obama’s health plan.

I ASK YOU AGAIN: Do any of those young people, those 40% independents, and those 5% Republicans who support Obama — do any of them know who Harry and Louise are, or why that history matters?

Real Democrats remember. Remember it well.

Don’t give me “hope.” Don’t leave me in “awe.” If your health care plan sucks, improve it! If your plan leaves out 15,000,000 people, say that you’re taking steps to correct it. But don’t attempt to smear your opponents’ plans when both John Edwards’ and Hillary Clinton’s plans are vastly better than yours.

I’ll stick with the REAL Democrats who’ll be voting in these primaries. The majority of them are behind the other candidates.

Trackback URL

RSS Feed for This Post39 Comments »

Comment by Masslib | 2008-01-01 21:32:20

“Have you heard any other Democratic candidate — any of them — pull a “Harry and Louise” GOP-like attack in a false-smear-laden ad defending his inadequate health care plan?” This says it all. Further, he hid his smoking. That was the first thing I read about him that sort of told me(as a former smoker) Honest Abe, he ain’t.

Comment by shoephone | 2008-01-01 22:13:30

Considering all the vitriol you’ve spewed against Obama over at Taylor’s site, it’s pretty stunning to find out that your tipping point was that “he hid his smoking”.

If that wasn’t so ridiculous it would be laughable.

 
 

Comment by peg | 2008-01-01 22:00:13

if Sen Clinton is the dem nominee, i will become a ONE issue voter: the Supreme Court / a woman’s right to choose — that’s it (and i was a huge Gen Clark supporter–i wanted him to become our next president).

i am not in favor of her corporate leanings
i have had enough of Bush, Clinton, Bush…

but Sen Clinton is better than ANY of the republican candidates

my 2 cents — FWIW (not much, really)

Comment by SusanUnPC | 2008-01-01 22:25:17

Peg, it’s a very sharp summary. I always begin my thinking about the presidency with the Supreme Court. Especially now, with such a delicate balance, and several rather old jurists. (Did a story on that a few months ago or so — and I listed their ages.)

It’s one issue that could get me to vote for the Democratic nominee, no matter who it is. I just pray that we get a highly experienced president who can be on the go the day after the election.

 

Comment by Shirin | 2008-01-01 22:36:00

Peg, what about her hawkish leanings? What about her declaration that she will increase the size and the budget of the military?

Or is foreign policy not an important issue for you?

Comment by bama_barrron | 2008-01-02 10:13:23

shirin … excuse me here and try to remember i am an edwards supporter… your characterization of hillary’s position regarding iraq and military spending is slightly unfair. i have heard her say on a couple occasions that upon day one of being sworn in she would direct the pentagon to develop a plan to withdraw from iraq.

yea, she has said an increase might be in order for the defense budget; but, this does not automatically mean these funds would be used for another illegal and immoral invasion. much of these funds will go to wounded of this war and repairing and replacing material that is always going to be needed.

shirin … i understand your dislike of hillary at least i think i do … you would oppose any woman running for president. given that, i still must urge you to be more balanced in your comments regarding hillary’s positions. otherwise you become even more of a parody of yourself.

Comment by Shirin | 2008-01-02 10:27:20

shirin … i understand your dislike of hillary at least i think i do … you would oppose any woman running for president.

I am curious. Please tell me your basis for this understanding. Specifically on what basis do you understand that I would oppose any woman running for president?

Comment by bama_barrron | 2008-01-03 02:35:56

since you ask shirin let me give you a quick answer. i came to this conclusion by reading your posts over the last month and a half. on more then a few occasions, your comments “about” and “to” women have been demeaning in tone.

Comment by Shirin | 2008-01-03 03:08:50

That is very, very interesting, but please be more specific, and provide examples if you can. I am particularly interested in examples of comments of mine that have been demeaning about women, but would also welcome examples of demeaning comments to women if the demeaning aspect has to do with the gender of the person I was addressing.

 
 
 

Comment by Nellie | 2008-01-02 12:07:17

Hi,

Why would Hillary even need to direct the Pentagon to create a withdrawal Plan?

From all my reading here and at Pat Lang’s site, plus following what the military says, the Drafting and updating of withdrwal plans are Standard Operating Procedure on an ongoing basis!

Again - what on earth would that comment mean?

Comment by bama_barrron | 2008-01-03 02:39:19

nellie quite simply … there is a world of difference from generalized plans to a specific plan ordered by the commander in chief. believe me … they are very different in nature and content.

vote edwards!

 
 

Comment by Shirin | 2008-01-03 03:55:38

While I wait for your specific examples of my demeaning women, let me point out some realities about Hillary Clinton in regards to Iraq.

She has stated that the United States should continue indefinitely its “military as well as political mission” in that country.

She consistently blames the Iraqis for the U.S. “inability” to withdraw American troops.

She has a consistent history of support for invading, occupying, and continuing the occupation of Iraq.

She has a consistent history of enthusiastic support for military action as a tool of foreign policy.

She consistently and enthusiastically supports Israel, overlooking its violations of international law in the Occupied Palestinian Territories and the Golan Heights, as well as its war crimes, and crimes against humanity.

She whole-heartedly supported Israel’s violations of Lebanon’s sovereignty, and its unspeakable 33 day spree of crimes against humanity in Lebanon in July, 2006.

She encouraged her husband’s eight years of genocidal actions against the Iraqi people - a policy that effectively soften up Iraq for George Bush’s destructive assaults on that country.

Shall I go on, or have you received the picture?

 
 
 
 

Comment by HumanityCritic | 2008-01-01 22:06:31

That’s kind of why I support Obama, because the most that his detractors can muster are semantic arguments at best. When Hillary’s operatives smear the guy for being “muslim” or a drug dealer, that’s cool. But when he states the difference between his health-care plan and the other candidates’ plans, its a right-wing talking point? *sigh* Come on. None of the links you provided should make Obama “uncomfortable” at all, most of them are just clumsy hit pieces.

Comment by Cujo359 | 2008-01-02 03:00:15

If you think that the only arguments have been semantic ones, then you haven’t been listening. Susan’s own points are far from “semantic”. They involve basic issues of not telling the truth.

Social Security isn’t running out of money. If he doesn’t know that, he’s a damn fool.

He has written a very misleading autobiography. The Cohen/WaPo article might be a bit harsh because in the past they’ve fired journalists for such practices. He’s also undoubtedly been told by his staff, if they’re not a bunch of sycophants, that newspapers have debunked some of his stories. Why does he continue to tell them?

I’m still waiting for an explanation of the Rezko deal, where civil rights attorney Obama was involved in a land deal with a slum lord. You’d think a lawyer would understand the concept of “conflict of interest”.

None of this is semantics. It’s foolishness on Obama’s part at best, and mendacity at worst. Either way, that’s not what I want in a President.

 

Comment by Shirin | 2008-01-02 03:10:00

How 21st century American that being a Muslim is considered a smear, and how revealing that this is apparently being used as a campaign tactic.

PS Barak Obama is not and has never been a Muslim. His father, although he was raised to be a Muslim, was an avowed atheist by the time he met Barak’s mother, and Barak apparently was an atheist also until he got born again or whatever, and joined a rather odd-ball African-centric Christian denomination.

 
 

Comment by Masslib | 2008-01-01 22:28:02

shoephone, I have not spewed vitriol at anyone. I found it bizarre behavior. I never trust anyone who doesn’t let you see their warts. Gee, I’m entitled to an opinion.

Comment by shoephone | 2008-01-01 22:42:01

Of course, everyone is entitled to an opinion. I just think that getting turned off to candidate for something as common as smoking cigarettes is silly. I’m a former smoker as well, and I could care less if Obama or any of the other candidates smokes.

As for their warts: all candidates have them, and it’s pretty certain that we will not find out about all of them until much further down the road.

Anyway, I’m a strong Edwards supporter who will still vote for whoever the Democratic nominee turns out to be.

Comment by SusanUnPC | 2008-01-02 00:17:54

Good luck on Thursday, Shoephone. Edwards is a strong second choice for me. I can easily visualize him in the Oval and he seems highly able to grasp big picture concepts as well as details. And he’d garner strong advisers, I’m very confident. He has a toughness too that I find appealing, and which I don’t see in Obama.

Comment by shoephone | 2008-01-02 01:35:44

I’m hoping Edwards makes a good showing, Susan. If not, I think it’s pretty much over for him. And I’ve honestly never found anything attractive about Obama — too much playing to the cameras.

It’s really too bad Dodd didn’t get more traction or that Richardson wasn’t better on the stump. But we’ve got what we’ve got and ours are still a hundred times better than anything the GOP has to offer!

Comment by Shirin | 2008-01-02 02:21:54

What turned me permanently away from Obama was that “major foreign policy speech” he made several months ago in which he made a lot of hawkish statements combined with the most offensively patronizing bull**** about the real reason “they hate us” and what to do about it. It is only because they are only hearing bad things about us from our enemies, and don’t hear enough good things about us from………….US! Of course, it has nothing to with their direct experience of “us”, or their very realistic assessment of how “our” policies and practices affect their lives and the lives of others whom they care about. Therefore, says Obama, it is all about P.R. We can bomb and invade them as much as we like and they will still love us as long as they hear good things about us from…………US! and his plans are incredibly silly and presumptuous, and terribly, terribly, terribly patronizing and ignorant.

And then came his remarks about how he would attack Pakistan, and I thought “My god! He is a worse hawk than Hillary, and stupid on top of it.”

 

Comment by Shirin | 2008-01-02 02:35:09

When it comes to foreign policy, I don’t see a significant enough difference between Hillary and Obama, and the Republicans. Hillary and Obama are both very much into militarism and other means of imposing the United States’ will on other countries. Both of them intend to keep a significant troop presence in Iraq for the foreseeable future - i.e. they will make sure Bush’s permanent bases are not wasted. Both Hillary and Obama have announced their intention of increasing the size and budget of the military, which can only mean they intend to increase, not decrease, the United States’ military presence abroad.

American imperialism is alive and well in the Democratic party.

Comment by shoephone | 2008-01-02 02:56:25

Well, Edwards is definitely moving further away from their position on keeping troops in Iraq:

In the interview on Sunday, Mr. Edwards said that he decided on his current plan for a rapid and near-total withdrawal of American troops because of the failure of Iraqi leaders to achieve a political accommodation over the past four years. Eight to 10 brigades, which is likely to be the bulk of the American combat force by the time the next president takes office, would immediately be withdrawn.

“I absolutely believe this to my soul: we are there propping up their bad behavior,” he said. “I mean really, how many American lives and how much American taxpayer money are we going to continue to expend waiting for these political leaders to do something? Because that is precisely what we are doing.”

Such a troop withdrawal, he said, might jolt Iraqi leaders into taking action to overcome their sectarian differences. During the 10 months or so while American troops were being withdrawn, Mr. Edwards added, he would also mount an intensive effort to encourage Iraq’s leaders to engage in political reconciliation and solicit the cooperation of Iran and Syria, who he argued might be more willing to help once they understood that American troops were on their way out.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/02/us/politics/02edwards.html

Comment by Shirin | 2008-01-02 03:02:36

I am not impressed at all. First, “near total” withdrawal is not acceptable. Second, how dare he blame the Iraqis for the failure of the American imperialist project there?

Propping up their bad behaviour indeed! It is American bad behaviour that is at the root of all of it.

I take back my comment that Edwards is marginally better than Hillary and Obama. He is cut from the same cloth, just a slightly different pattern, but still a terrible design.

 

Comment by Shirin | 2008-01-02 03:17:00

PS There is no evidence that I know of that Syria has has any involvement in the Iraq disaster. As for Iran, come on! The very make-believe-bordering-on-puppet government the U.S. helped put into place, and has been sponsoring and propping up also represents Iran’s main involvement in Iraq.

And to think I was almost prepared to consider supporting Edwards!

 

Comment by Cee | 2008-01-02 08:53:52

Edwards also said that lobbyists for foreign governments and others won’t be part of his administration.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Comment by Masslib | 2008-01-01 23:10:15

OMG, it’s not that at all. It’s the hiding it. It wasn’t the end all be all for me. I gave Obama plenty of time. That didn’t sit well with me because he’s running a very image driven campaign, and it seemed false. But, I gave him plenty of time to win me over with substance. I initially thought I would support him. I just didn’t find the substance on the issues that matter to me, ending the wat, universal healthcare, etc… But, that hiding the habit I found a bit off putting. That’s all.

 

Comment by 1950democrat | 2008-01-01 23:34:50

Quoting a student newspaper? Well, so was the Law Review he edited.

 

Comment by 1950democrat | 2008-01-01 23:38:15

As for Hillary being more hawkish than Obama … I’ve seen him quoted as holding some very hawkish positions — tho most of those quotes show up in Pakistan sites. Certainly she (and Bush) called him down on his talk in July 07 about invading Pakistan, and taking US troops out of Iraq to move them to “the right battlefield in Pakistan and Afganistan.”

Comment by Shirin | 2008-01-02 00:23:11

I, for one, am not sure that Hillary is actually more hawkish than Obama. They look pretty close in that regard. I actually suspect that had Obama been in the Senate at the time of the vote to authorize invading Iraq, he would have voted for it. They both have said they would increase the size and budget of the military, which is unnecessary if they do not plan to keep lots of troops in Iraq while putting lots of troops into other countries - in other words, they both seem to have similar imperialistic agendas. And they both have made it pretty clear that getting out of Iraq is not on the agenda for the foreseeable future.

And that’s why I won’t vote for either of them.

 
 

Comment by TeakWoodKite | 2008-01-02 00:40:01

Real Democrats remember. Remember it well. What ‘it’?. The Alamo? There’s a lot of political snake oil being peddled out on main street. If Iowa’ns are still undecided come Thursday then it goes to New Hampshire There is a large storm rolling through the west coast this thursday /friday and it looks to be over New Hampshire early next week. Snow storms doesn’t help turn out. Plow shares.
Is it fair to cut the delegates out of the process?
Myself and others at NQ have expressed the opinion that the “race” will be over by the time the first several states (2?) Is that democracy? And why is it that we don’t make who goes first based on the percentage of people who voted (best turnout)by state from the last election?

 

Comment by DCDemocrat | 2008-01-02 05:05:32

My big thing about Obama has been, hope? Hope for what? Where’s the beef?

 

Comment by Cee | 2008-01-02 08:45:39

I heard Obama respond to a question regarding voter fraud yesterday. He said he wants to whup the other candidates so bad they can’t steal a thing. He also said that unlike Kerry and Gore, he would fight tooth and nail for the voters.

We need a street fighter and I’m starting to hope that he does win.

 

Comment by Cee | 2008-01-02 09:45:12

And

Kucinich Urges Supporters to Back Obama on Second Iowa Ballot

DES MOINES, Iowa, Jan. 1 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Democratic
Presidential candidate and Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich opened the New
Year by publicly asking his Iowa supporters to vote for him in the caucuses
this Thursday, and suggesting that if he did not make the 15% threshold,
their second ballot should be for Senator Barack Obama. “This is obviously
an ‘Iowa- only’ recommendation, as Sen. Obama and I are competing in the
New Hampshire primary next Tuesday where I want to be the first choice of
New Hampshire voters.

“I hope Iowans will caucus for me as their first choice this Thursday,
because of my singular positions on the war, on health care, and trade.
This is an opportunity for people to stand up for themselves. But in those
caucus locations where my support doesn’t reach the necessary threshold, I
strongly encourage all of my supporters to make Barack Obama their second
choice. Sen. Obama and I have one thing in common: Change.”

 

Comment by bob h | 2008-01-02 11:01:02

If Obama wins Iowa by pumping up Independent turnout through attacks on Democratic constituencies and parroting Republican talkingpoints, it seems he opens himself up to effective attack by Clinton and Edwards later.

In any event, these raggedy-ass little states should not be determinative, and my guess is that we come out of them with things totally ambiguous.

Comment by Cee | 2008-01-02 12:47:44

Talking points? Please. Let’s deal with tactics.

Clinton lost me by climbing in the gutter to raise a question about Obama selling drugs.

Don’t bother trying to tell me that this wasn’t a strategy.

I also don’t want to hear about experience. We see the results of all of the experience. One disaster after another.

 
 

Comment by cbear | 2008-01-02 14:04:22

While I agree with many of the points and criticisms you and Larry have raised regarding Obama…referencing ANYTHING written by that mendacious prick Richard Cohen is NOT supportive of your opinions.

 

Pingback by Obama vs. The Democratic Party : NO QUARTER | 2008-01-02 14:30:13

[...] Al Gore and John Kerry, (2) attacking John Edwards‘ affiliation with trial attorneys, and (3) spreading lies about Edwards’ and Clinton’s health plans while embellishing the truth about his own [...]

 

Comment by Ron Cowin | 2008-01-02 20:47:12

There was only one President that was above the fray, and he is on the dollar bill. That didn’t stop the Jeffersonians from attacking him as senile and under the control of Al Hamilton (during his second term). Personally, I am not ready to drink the Kool-Aid and join hands and sing Kumbaya with the likes of Bush, Cheney and Rove. Or any Fox neocons.

 

Pingback by From FactCheck.org: Obama’s “creative” clippings : NO QUARTER | 2008-01-03 12:56:45

[...] misleading radio ad that Obama is running in Iowa. Elizabeth Edwards tells it like it is! In “A Paucity of Hope (A ‘Mendacity of Hope’?),” I [...]

 

RSS Feed for This PostPost a Comment

Name (required)
E-mail (required - never shown publicly)
URI
Your Comment (smaller size | larger size)
noq-adbutton1.gif