“The proof in the pudding”
Published by Quin July 14th, 2008 in Affirmative Action, Obamarama, Reproductive RightsEverybody is allowed to change their opinions over time. Even politicians. But many of Obama’s progressive apologists make the claim that we shouldn’t be so bothered by all of the rightward-leaning things Obama says, because he’s REALLY a lefty– he’s just playing the game the way that anyone would have to in order to win. Really, the argument goes, if we want to get a sense for the “real” Obama, we should look at what he was like before he decided to run for president.
Well alrighty then. Freedom Rider has dug up an intriguing statement that Obama made in 2001, giving his opinion about of the kinds of nominees that Bush was submitting for various high positions. (Because I was too lazy to take them out, all emphases are hers.)
‘The proof in the pudding is looking at the treatment of the other Bush nominees,’ Obama said. ‘I mean for the most part, I for example do not agree with a missile defense system, but I don’t think that soon-to-be-Secretary Rumsfeld is in any way out of the mainstream of American political life. And I would argue that the same would be true for the vast majority of the Bush nominees, and I give him credit for that.’
‘So I don’t want to be pegged as being far left simply because I find certain aspects in John Ashcroft’s record to be divisive or offensive,’ Obama continued. ‘I think it’s legitimate for me to raise that. As I said before, if he brought before us a nominee who didn’t agree with me on affirmative action and yet said that, you know, I do think that and showed a history for showing regard and concern for racial justice, if he came before us and said I oppose a woman’s right to choose, or I oppose abortion, I find it religiously offensive, and yet I do respect, for example, the notion that we shouldn’t be solving these things with violence, historically, if that had been what was said, then I don’t think I would object. And I think that’s a fair position to take.’
Now granted, this was in the context of a statement which was meant to be critical of John Ashcroft– but don’t you righties worry, at least he did love him some Rummy.
This is not just Obama being a uniter-not-a-divider. First he says he’s willing to give up fighting on affirmative action as long as his opponents say “some of my best friends are black”. Then he says he’s willing to give up fighting on abortion as long as the opponents give lip service to being against shooting abortion doctors.
Then, just as now, Obama was willing to sell out both black people and women, just to fully ensure that nobody can commit the cardinal sin of mistaking him for somebody on the left. It just looks like he’s moving center now only because he was always center to begin with– he just had a reason to hide it back when he wasn’t the only remaining Democratic candidate.
And remember, folks, “moving center” is really just code for “moving right”.
just because somebody isn’t old, white and male on the outside doesn’t mean they aren’t old, white and male on the inside.
My husband makes that argument about Obama all the time and it infuriates me to no end.
I don’t hate the man and I will vote for him in the fall because he’s certainly better than the alternative, but don’t go acting like he’s all progressive and liberal and will save us from the conservatives. He’s a political animal, just like the rest of them, and he’ll sell his soul to the devil if that’s what he thinks it’ll take to get and stay elected. He just gives a good speech and is better at hiding his politician-ness (for lack of a better word) than most.
It’s one of the reasons I liked Kucinich so much. I may not agree with everything the man stands for, but he has principles and he seems to stick to them. It’s also why I liked Hilary. I know what issues she’ll sell out on and what she won’t. And she doesn’t pretend that she’s above it all, either.
I wasn’t a fan of Obama’s in the primaries, but, after he won, I was still okay for voting for him. I even donated money to his campaign, thinking he was actually going to be okay. Imagine my surprise when after winning the primaries, he completely turned his back on the left and made us out to be a bunch of radical left wing hippies. You know, cause only radical revolutionaries care about the fourth amendment. I think the democrats got suckered in to this one, everybody excited about how amazing it would be to have a non-white president, how well he spoke, how we echoed our concerns. Its always exciting when there is someone new to vote for, but, at least with people who have been out there for a while, you know where they are coming from. I think Obama just side swiped the democratic party, and I think the MSM played a large part in that.
Another question I have, why do both parties try so hard to win the far right of the Republican party (those fetus loving, Christ-crazy, gun toting, bomb anyone in an oil rich country constituents) and make them out to have serious concerns and a relevant say in politics.? Meanwhile, people on the left who believe in basic civil rights for everyone, civil liberty protection, and protection of our planet, are made out to be radical, left wing hippies who must be avoided at all costs?
Because these goals of the left don’t support the status quo, who (by definition) don’t want their comfortable perches shaken up by anything. The right wing can easily be manipulated in a way which serves rich and powerful bastards everywhere.
Actually, so can the left– the secret is just to never give them what they want in the first place. Just promise that changes will occur “once the Democrats win this next election”. Then, if you win, just say “the next election is far too important to endanger by making these changes. We’ll wait just a bit longer and do it once the Democrats win this next election.” Rinse, repeat ad infinitum.
This whole Obama thing for me is like publicly supporting your politician husband after he’s been caught cavorting with some 20-year-old–I understand women who do it, but I always knew I’d never be able to. Til Obama, when I did it, til, er, my politician husband there started cracking jokes about said cavorting, which I thought really was a little too much even for the loyal wife to have to publicly smile and stroke over. But then, civic duty does call and I agree with whoever up there said John McCain will lead us into World War III with the Middle East. I don’t agree from a philosophical perspective that being “anti-war” is “more” important than being feminist, but there’s gotta be a working infrastructure with live people of both genders to enable me to even strive for gender equality, eh?
Not so confident Obama won’t lead us into World War III either. He certainly has made no bones about the fact that he thinks it’s America’s duty to continue military adventurism.
On the anti-war vs feminism front, I certainly don’t think they need to be at odds with each other. But, it’s worth acknowledging that it’s kind of hard to support gender equality for someone who you’ve killed. Or even for whom you’re just creating a constantly life-threatening environment. War zones, even well after they’re no longer “war zones”, are where rights for women go to die.
Or, when you said “there’s gotta be a working infrastructure with live people of both genders to enable me to even strive for gender equality”, were you speaking strictly from the point of view of American citizens?