I slogged through the NYT's long, long, looooong front-pager yesterday about Obama's rise through Chicago politics, and I found these passages remarkable:
Others see his deft movements as a politician’s shifting of positions and alliances for strategic advantage, leaving some disappointed and baffled about where he really stands.“He has a pattern of forming relationships with various communities and as he takes his next step up, kind of distancing himself from them and then positioning himself as the bridge,” said Ali Abunimah, a Palestinian-American author and co-founder of the online publication Electronic Intifada, who became acquainted with Mr. Obama in Chicago.
[snip]
On the campaign trail, Mr. Obama hewed closely to liberal orthodoxy, positions that have become controversial in the presidential race. A candidate questionnaire from one liberal group, for instance, detailed his views on hot-button issues like the death penalty (opposed) and a ban on handguns (in favor).
Today, Mr. Obama espouses more centrist views and says a campaign aide had incorrectly characterized his views on those issues — a shift that does not sit well with some in the group, the Independent Voters of Illinois Independent Precinct Organization.
“We certainly thought those were his positions,” said David Igasaki, the group’s chairman, who noted Mr. Obama had also interviewed with the group. “We understand that people change their views. But it sort of bothers me that he doesn’t acknowledge that. He tries to say that was never his view.”
[snip]
For years, the Obamas had been regular dinner guests at the Hyde Park home of Rashid Khalidi, a Middle East scholar at the University of Chicago and an adviser to the Palestinian delegation to the 1990s peace talks. Mr. Khalidi said the talk would often turn to the Middle East, and he talked with Mr. Obama about issues like living conditions in the occupied territories. In 2000, the Khalidis held a fund-raiser for Mr. Obama during his Congressional campaign. Both Mr. Khalidi and Mr. Abunimah, of the Electronic Intifada, said Mr. Obama had spoken at the fund-raiser and had called for the United States to adopt a more “evenhanded approach” to the Palestinian-Israel conflict.
Still, Mr. Khalidi said ascertaining Mr. Obama’s precise position was often difficult. “You may come away thinking, ‘Wow, he agrees with me,’ ” he said. “But later, when you get home and think about it, you are not sure.”
A.J. Wolf, a Hyde Park rabbi who is a friend of Mr. Obama’s and has often invited Mr. Khalidi to speak at his synagogue, said Mr. Obama had disappointed him by not being more assertive about the need for both Israel and the Palestinians to move toward peace. “He’s played all those notes right for the Israel lobby,” said Mr. Wolf, who is sometimes critical of Israel.
During the Senate campaign, Mr. Obama joined in a “Walk for Israel” rally along Lake Michigan on Israel Solidarity Day. The Crowns and other Jewish leaders raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for him. Several days before the primary in 2004, some of his Jewish supporters took offense that Mr. Obama had not taken the opportunity on a campaign questionnaire to denounce Yasir Arafat, the leader of the Palestine Liberation Organization, or to strongly support Israel’s building of a security fence.
But in a sign of how far Mr. Obama had come in his coalition-building, friends from the American Israel Political Action Committee, the national pro-Israel lobbying group, helped him rush out a response to smooth over the flap.
In an e-mail message, Mr. Obama blamed a staff member for the oversight, and expressed the hope that “none of this has raised any questions on your part regarding my fundamental commitment to Israel’s security.” Mr. Abunimah has written of running into the candidate around that time and has said that Mr. Obama told him: “I’m sorry I haven’t said more about Palestine right now, but we are in a tough primary race. I’m hoping that when things calm down I can be more upfront.”
The Obama camp has denied Mr. Abunimah’s account. Mr. Khalidi, who is now the director of the Middle East Institute at Columbia University, said, “I’m unhappy about the positions he’s taken, but I can’t say I’m terribly disappointed.” He added: “People think he’s a saint. He’s not. He’s a politician.”
Now, where have you heard before about a masterful Democratic politician who has the ability to leave people convinced that he agrees with them, only to take a different stand later, when it's in his political interest to do so? That's right: our old friend Slick Willie. Personally, I'm glad Obama moved rightward on the Israel question, but I think we'd all do well to reflect on Rashid Khalidi's counsel here, and ratchet down expectations.
We may not be looking at the Audacity of Hope as much as we are looking at the Audacity of Hope, Arkansas.
(Speaking of which, here's my newspaper column from Sunday, in which I note that the promise that Obama would deliver us all from the Sturm und Drang of the Baby Boom generation is evaporating as we learn more about how he's absorbed their political views, and repackaged them in a stylistically less confrontational way.)

Add to Newsvine
Add to StumbleUpon
The whole idea of getting "beyond" politics or ideology or partisanship, or putting certain issues "beyond" them, needs to be viewed with extreme caution. In the 1950s, for instance, both parties followed the precept that "politics stops at the water's edge"/bipartisan foreign policy, and all that. What that really meant was that democracy stopped at the water's edge, and that our foreign policy was totally disconnected from the will of the people.
As EJ Dionne points out, Americans hate politics. But he misses the point that one of the reasons for that hatred is American ignorance of the only alternatives to politics--violence (actual or threatened) and bribery: rule by the strongest or rule by the richest.
I like Obama--he was the state senator from our neighborhood for some years and did a pretty good job--but I still think a lot of the money and energy behind him comes from undercover Republicans desperate to derail Hillary by any means necessary.
"I like Obama--he was the state senator from our neighborhood for some years and did a pretty good job--but I still think a lot of the money and energy behind him comes from undercover Republicans desperate to derail Hillary by any means necessary."
Which is why Hillary is enjoying the support of folks like Rupert Murdoch (FOX/GOP News) and Richard Mellon Scaife
www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=62144
Two simple questions for you, Marian:
1) What are you smoking?
2) Where can I get some?
RJohnson, people just love to hate Hillary. I wouldn't be at all surprised if there were some concerted effort to ensure she doesn't get into office.
Ever get emails forwarded by Hillary-haters? I've received LOTS more of them than I have for those making fun of "W", though in my opinion, "W" have offered way more opportunties to poke fun than has Hillary.
Maybe the real "conspiracy" is to ensure no Democrat gets into office no matter what. If Hillary does not become the candidate, then we have Obama, meaning, we could well be stuck with McCain. So many Americans are still entrenched in ignorance and racism, it's sad. See:
Racism alarms Obama's backers
Which is why Hillary is enjoying the support of folks like Rupert Murdoch (FOX/GOP News) and Richard Mellon Scaife
Because they know they've lost that battle. And now it's about making sure their obituaries don't sum up to "vain and wealthy-born male chauvinists who tried to shape society in their own image and to their selfinterests but failed and died scorned, unable to change or make amends."
You haven't looked into who the hardcore Obama supporters are. Outside of not terribly ideological support of black people, it's basically the Southern and Midwestern centrist-conservative wing of the Party and Party establishment. And a bunch of average white people, a lot of whom think themselves very smart/informed and look down on the nether politics of the past 30 years or so as dirty and pointless- who bought into an Our Turn slogan and a purity approach in various ways.
It's pretty much the centrist coalition that got Jimmy Carter into office, including Jimmy Carter himself. That turned out to have the limitations of centrism.
While the new pastor at Trinity United Church of Christ can only cause headaches for Barack Obama, it looks like John Hagee and William Donahue have buried the hatchet:
Pastor apologizes for anti-Catholic remarks
May 13 01:12 PM US/Eastern
WASHINGTON (AP) - John Hagee, an influential televangelist who endorsed John McCain, is apologizing to Catholics for referring to the Roman Catholic Church as "the great whore" and calling it "the apostate church."
Hagee's support for McCain has drawn criticism from some Catholic leaders. McCain has said he does not agree with some of Hagee's past comments.
In a letter to William Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Civil and Religious Rights, Hagee wrote: "Out of a desire to advance a greater unity among Catholics and Evangelicals in promoting the common good, I want to express my deep regret for any comments that Catholics have found hurtful."
Donohue, one of Hagee's critics, said, "To me, it's basically over." He planned to meet with Hagee.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.