This doesn’t exactly sound like a principled stand, does it:
Betty Lu Saltzman, a Democratic doyenne from Chicago’s lakefront liberal crowd, convened a small group of activists, including Ms. Katz, in her living room to organize a rally to protest the United States’ impending invasion of Iraq. It was late September 2002, and Mr. Obama was on the top of Ms. Saltzman’s list of desired speakers.
She first met him when he ran the black voter registration drive in the 1992 election, and was so impressed that she immediately took him under her wing, introducing him to wealthy donors and talking him up to friends like Mr. Axelrod. But with just a few days to go before the rally, Ms. Saltzman was having trouble reaching Mr. Obama. Finally, she said she left word with his wife.
But before Mr. Obama called her back, he dialed up some advice.
With his possible run for the United States Senate, he wanted to speak with Mr. Axelrod and others about the ramifications of broadcasting his reservations about a war the public was fast getting behind. An antiwar speech would play to his Chicago liberal base, and could help him in what was expected to be a hotly contested primary, they told him, but it also could hurt him in the general election.
“This was a call to assess just how risky was this,” said Pete Giangreco, who along with Mr. Axelrod described the conversation. When Mr. Obama tossed out the idea of calling it a “dumb war,” Mr. Giangreco said he cringed. “I remember thinking, ‘this puts us in the weak defense category, doesn’t it?’ ”
The rally was held on Oct. 2, 2002, in Federal Plaza before nearly 2,000 people. On the podium before speaking, Mr. Obama joked about the dated nature of crowd-pleasing protest songs like “Give Peace a Chance.” “ ‘Can’t they play something else?’ ” Ms. Saltzman recalled his saying.
The speech, friends say, was vintage Obama, a bold but nuanced message that has become the touchstone of his presidential campaign: While he said the Iraq war would lead to “an occupation of undetermined length with undetermined costs and undetermined consequences,” he was also careful to emphasize that there were times when military intervention was necessary.
“What’s fascinating about Barack is what he’s trying to do is reframe and change the discourse so you build support for liberal alternatives within the electorate,” said Will Burns, a former aide whom Mr. Obama also consulted on the speech. “He has an ability to frame stuff so it’s not an all or nothing proposition.”
Still, Mr. Obama’s refrain about supporting some wars perplexed some in the crowd.
An event organizer, Carl Davidson, recalled that a friend “nudged me and said, ‘Who does he think this speech is for? It’s not for this crowd.’ I thought, ‘This guy’s got bigger fish to fry.’ At the time, though, I was only thinking about the U.S. Senate.”
[…] 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.”
yep,
it’s terrible to have a leader that considers all the ramifications of a decision–including the political ramifications– and then makes the right decision as opposed to a leader that considers all the ramifications and then makes the safe, WRONG decision.
again, is this really the best you can do?
obama considers all sides, including political ramifications, and then makes the right choices, as opposed to hrc, who seems to only decide based on political winds and defaults to the wrong position?
do you really want to compare the war votes/positions of hrc and obama?
it’s a loser for you.
I guess you’re still in denial.
why does that make it not principled? on the contrary, it looks like obama was opposed to the war and wanted to speak out about it, but he was worried about whether it would harm his future political prospects. after discussing it with his consultant, he decided to speak out anyway, but to emphasize that he wasn’t opposed to all wars.
that doesn’t mean he wasn’t really opposed to the iraq invasion, or that he wasn’t taking a real risk in speaking out against it in 2002. it does mean that obama was worried about stuff beyond his feelings of the war, but that doesn’t make his feelings less genuine. nor does it take away from his courage in speaking out against the war at a time that people were regularly vilified for it.
Yeah, really. So Obama’s a politician. Shocker. Who knew?
* While [Obama] said the Iraq war would lead to “an occupation of undetermined length with undetermined costs and undetermined consequences,” he was also careful to emphasize that there were times when military intervention was necessary. *
So he got it exactly right in considering the consequences of the invasion, and actually spoke out against it when it was by no means politically safe to do so, particularly for one with national aspirations. As opposed to, y’know, actually VOTING FOR THE F***ING WAR. Just a sliiiight differencce there, no?
Macjazz wins the thread
If you want principles vote Green. If you want A. someone who can actually win and thus govern and B. someone who carefully considers all options before making the CORRECT choice then I suggest you vote Obama.
On the other hand, if the words President McCain suit you may I suggest you continue to denigrate the works of the only viable alternative? That’ll show us.
I’ll be glad when Hillary finally concedes and allows the final stages of grief for her campaign to be processed completely.
Until then if all you can do is grasp at straws and make believe the man who is beating her is somehow a lesser being … well have at it. Even though I don’t truly understand the need for this, I still hope it helps you bring closure somehow.
Three months ago I figured that I would support whoever won the nomination, in spite of the Clinton record of failing to deliver on campaign promises in the 90s.
However, I have been developing a real dislike of Hillary, partly because of the reminders of what happened in the 90s, and partly because of how she’s acting now.
This post, of course, does not come from the Clinton campaign. It really seems to come from the One Percent Campaign, the perennial party of whatever name that points out during each election that none of the candidates other than their own are perfect. Which turns out to be your basic explanation of why the One Percent Campaign never gets more than one percent of the vote.
The post challenges us to think about what constitutes principle. I don’t know much about Hillary’s principles. I’ve read about pardons and Hillary’s brothers, but it seems that in some respects Hillary has 8 years of experience as a sort of shadow-president, and in other cases she was totally uninvolved.
Well, if that is principles, I can’t imagine too many candidates don’t have ‘em.
Er, is this the new kind of politics I’ve heard so much about?
I love the “wins the thread” concept.
Sort of like a bunch of home invaders playing “win the remote” round the TV, ya know? Not hard to play, especially when you don’t have to clean up after yourself. Mom will do that…
No Lambert, it’s the same old politics. You know, the kind where your preferred flawed-centrist losses the nomination to a different flawed-centrist thus allowing you the opportunity to scream betrayal from the rooftops.
I’ve got two words for you “President McCain.”
You’ve got two choices. keep slamming the only alternative we have thus greatly increasing the chances of our having to utter those two obscene words for the next four years or growing the f**k up and accepting the tragedy that is your preferred flawed centrist running an incompetent campaign and loosing and then getting on with the business of ensuring the f**cking madman doesn’t get his finger on the button.
If not for the fact that people like you are so damned intent on succeeding and giving us ALL four more years of this madness I wouldn’t give a shit. Unfortunately your temper tantrums threaten to take us all down so I’m forced to pay attention to the likes of you.
i’ve considered obama an independence party impostor trying to hijack the dem brand for a while now. but it crystallized for me today when i read the following comment by chancellor over at talkleft:
I think the time has come to boycott the Clinton bloggers.
Nancy - Talkleft (formally one of my most used bookmarks, now deleted from my favorites) has turned into an Obama hate fest just as bad as the Clinton hate fests on pro Obama sites. I have stopped reading any of them. The rant you copied and pasted is typical of the foolish crap that has driven me from these sites. Trying to link Obama’s campaign and supporters with “neo-Libertarians” is tin foil hat territory, big time. It is reminiscent of right wingers screeching about nefarious plots by feminists.
Would you like to know what is causing Obama problems in many areas? Here’s the results of interviewing Democrats at a recent Clinton rally in WV. I hope that even people this ignorant can be better informed before November, but unfortunately that depends in large part on whether the MSM plays along with the disinformation campaigns being waged or if instead they decide to actually educate the public on the facts.
“Most people questioned said they mistrusted Mr Obama because of doubts about his patriotism and “values”, stemming from his cosmopolitan background, his exotic name and the controversy surrounding “anti-American” sermons by Jeremiah Wright, his former pastor. Several people said they believed he was a Muslim – an unfounded rumour that has circulated on the internet for months – despite the contradiction with his 20-year membership of Mr Wright’s church in Chicago. Others mentioned his refusal to wear a Stars and Stripes badge and controversial remarks by his wife, Michelle, who described America as “mean” and implied that she had never been proud of the US until her husband ran for president.”
Yeah, Obama wants to “write off the South” … which is why he’s already talking about running a “50 state strategy” (a la Howard Dean - which seemed to turn out ok last time around, congressionally …). Of course he’s derided in some quarters for running a “48 state strategy” in the primaries ^_^ … but any way you slice it, his approach does not constitute “writing off the South”. That “Neo-Libertarian” stuff really is tinfoil hat territory (besides, I thought he was a radical Christian/Muslim - a brand new demographic!)
Face it, Susie. Obama doesn’t want your vote, or mine either.
so don’t vote for him votermom, and then you can feel really good when President McCain stacks the SCOTUS.
Or vote for Nader, there’s a real winner for you.
Susie, that’s not me at 17. I should be flattered, I got my own troll impersonator. FOAD, pig.
I mean at 16 — what’s with the numbers changing? Susie is not Rita Skeeter.
Oh, that was our little friend Whippingpost pretending to be you. He’s gone now.
Thanks!
memyself, #13, do you have a link for the quote? Thanx.
jawbone - I saw that at Financial Times:
http://us.ft.com/ftgateway/superpage.ft?news_id=fto051120081526533438&page=2
Yup - Financial Times … quoted by several blogs, but that’s the original.