Barack Obama, "The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream" (2006), page 118.
I ran across that quote after blogging about the book in the previous post. I'd searched my Kindle, not for anything about law — though I found the law quote interesting enough to make a new post — but because I'd searched the book for "solitude" — thinking I might find something apt for that other post — and I kept reading.
"Solitude" does appear in the book, once, as Obama is describing life as a senator in Washington, while his wife and daughters remain back home in Chicago:
At first, I tried to embrace my newfound solitude, forcing myself to remember the pleasures of bachelorhood — gathering take-out menus from every restaurant in the neighborhood, watching basketball or reading late into the night, hitting the gym for a midnight workout, leaving dishes in the sink and not making my bed. But it was no use; after thirteen years of marriage, I found myself to be fully domesticated, soft and helpless. My first morning in Washington, I realized I’d forgotten to buy a shower curtain and had to scrunch up against the shower wall in order to avoid flooding the bathroom floor. The next night, watching the game and having a beer, I fell asleep at halftime, and woke up on the couch two hours later with a bad crick in my neck. Take-out food didn’t taste so good anymore; the silence irked me.Fully domesticated, soft and helpless... scrunched up against the shower wall... crick in his neck... irked at silence....
Ah, those are just just words on a page... what do they mean?
Malleable, opaque... dependent on context and trust... just like a story or poem or promise to someone...
A promise to someone... what was that promise to everyone that Cornel West thought he heard, a promise to be — what? — progressive?!...
What were those words and what was that meaning?... subject to erosion, sometimes collapsing in the blink of an eye....
I looked up "promise" in "Audacity," and my Kindle search turned up not only every "promise" but every "compromise." I counted. "Promise" appears 19 times and "compromise" 33 times.
If I worked at FiveThirtyEight, I would churn out 38 paragraphs about what those numbers mean, like maybe it shows that Obama the candidate presented himself more as a pragmatic centrist (what I wanted) and less of left-leaning idealist (what Cornel West wanted).
पोस्ट्स
३३ टिप्पण्या:
Obama the candidate presented himself more as a pragmatic centrist (what I wanted) and less of left-leaning idealist (what Cornel West wanted)
Well that's Obama in a nutshell. No matter what you wanted you likely didn't get. On the other hand, no matter what you didn't want....
Here's one of the 33 iterations of "compromise" embedded in a quote that shows Obama radiating messages alternately to pragmatists like me and idealists like West:
"It may be the vision of the Founders that inspires us, but it was their realism, their practicality and flexibility and curiosity, that ensured the Union’s survival. I confess that there is a fundamental humility to this reading of the Constitution and our democratic process. It seems to champion compromise, modesty, and muddling through; to justify logrolling, deal-making, self-interest, pork barrels, paralysis, and inefficiency — all the sausage-making that no one wants to see and that editorialists throughout our history have often labeled as corrupt. And yet I think we make a mistake in assuming that democratic deliberation requires abandonment of our highest ideals, or of a commitment to the common good."
The document contains negative rights and must be obliterated so we can be not exceptional.
He's doing a great job, too!
Watch the left hand and follow the money.
Here I thought it was blood that ensured the Union's survival....
Shorter Obama:
Words mean what I say they do.
You got scammed, is all.
Obama is a hologram.
I don't recall Obama promising to be a progressive when he ran in '08--his big hook was to be a nonpartisan pragmatist who would work both sides of the aisle, rejecting the "bloodsport politics" promised by Hillary. Had he actually governed that way, I'd have been a supporter of his. Instead, his lack of experience led him to let his congressional leadership have the run of things, and that's how we got here.
The thing about that campaign was that McCain should have had the advantage on that theme--he was a guy with a long history of working across the aisle and bucking his own party's leadership. Had his campaign been competent, he would have drilled home his own extensive experience as a positive, and well as his own bipartisan cred (remember this was the same guy John Kerry wanted as his first pick for VP only four years earlier! It'd be ridiculous for the Dems to make McCain look like a right wing hack after that).
That was a year that voters were going to punish the GOP, so it would have still been an uphill battle, but McCain might have had a shot. Instead, a campaign season where he spent his time trying to strengthen his right flank, and picking a VP with as little experience as Obama (robbing McCain of one of his biggest advantages), sealed his doom. And here we are, six years later.
I imagine Obama's instincts are generally progressive, though who knows--much of that could just be posturing to keep his base happy. But this country wasn't going to get a hard core progressive agenda so long as the country's moderates didn't want it.
One could not read either book and claim, with a straight face, to be surprised by the President he became.
"If you like your plan, ....."
No shower curtain?
That's OK, take a bath.
Quite the problem solver he isn't.
The quoted section is well written, eloquent even. He definitely has a way with the written word.
Say what you will about Bill Ayres...
What reason is there to suppose that Obama could have had the insight, let alone the ability, to have written something like that.
Oh. I know. We saw the potential in his writings for the Harvard law review. LOL.
Obama's bachelorhood involved gathering take-out menus, watching basketball, and hitting the gym? And the take-out food didn't taste so good anymore?
The poor dear. Some of us spent our bachelorhoods avoiding take-out food, because we couldn't afford it, and didn't have gyms, because we couldn't afford them, and watching basketball, because the CBS/NBC/ABC trigomerate wasn't likely to show games much, and they sucked on our 13-inch black-and-white TVs anyway.
God, what a little piss-ant.
Some of us couldn't afford marijuana, either, legally, financially, or morally. "A little blow" was out of the question.
Does either of Obama's biographies point to a time when he wasn't living in Hawaii, traveling the world, going to Ivy League schools, editing Law Review without writing anything, or otherwise paying any actual dues?
I get why ghost writers exist. Certainly a US Senator shouldn't have time to be able to truly write a full book unaided. I just dislike the obfuscation. I wish public figures were more open about their use of ghost writers. And it's annoying to have to wonder how much of these passages are ideas that may have sprouted, fully formed from Obama's head, versus notions that were put to him and he responding "Yeah, I agree with that". One is tempted to believe that most modern politicians, especially Obama, are carefully crafted amalgams of ideas from a bunch of authors, campaign managers, and speech writers. The real person is an illusion, which may explain why so many people projected whatever they wanted onto Obama.
During his entire term to date, I cannot think of a single example of 'compromise' on any significant issue. Similarly, reading about Obummer seeking the 'grand bargain' in that jerkoff session between Frank and West felt as if I had landed in an alternate universe.
The sum and substance of Our Savior's presidency was uttered early by him in two words: I won.
-Krumhorn
Sounds like Obama and crack are getting what they want...
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/08/mike-brown-revenge-attack-us-marine-severely-injured-after-racially-motivated-beating/
picking a VP with as little experience as Obama (robbing McCain of one of his biggest advantages)
First, Palin had more executive experience than the other three put together (and even at this date she has more of a record of executive success than the rest of them combined). Second, to even attempt the argument that one VP candidate has as little experience as another Presidential candidate is a devastating critique of the Presidential candidate.
In the quoted passage, Obama seems to be saying that the correct interpretation of the Constitution can be found by "reading" it in a way that is realistic, practical, flexible and curious.
But what the hell does this mean? How do you read a sentence that prohibits a person from being elected president "more than twice" in a "flexible and curious" way?
And by the way, did candidate Obama ever tell us what he meant by "our highest ideals" or "the common good?
This passage shows the danger of taking rhetoric at face value.
"First, Palin had more executive experience than the other three put together (and even at this date she has more of a record of executive success than the rest of them combined). Second, to even attempt the argument that one VP candidate has as little experience as another Presidential candidate is a devastating critique of the Presidential candidate."
That doesn't change the fact that McCain had a strong argument against Obama--that Obama was a senator for all of four years, and had no real record, while McCain had been in the Senate for decades and had established a long record of getting legislation passed, and was very influential over that time. And the minute McCain picked someone who had only been governor for two years--and governor of a small population state no less--it robs him of that argument, because it says that it doesn't really matter how long your record of service is. Yes, she was just his VP candidate, but picking the VP candidate is the most important decision the presidential candidate makes in the entire campaign--it basically says that you've decided who, after you, is the best person to sit in the Oval Office. It hurts McCain's experience argument, even if you believe Sarah Palin would have been a much better president than Obama.
it basically says that you've decided who, after you, is the best person to sit in the Oval Office.
No, it says what votes you feel you need to bring in.
There is simply no way Obama thought Biden was the best person to sit in the oval office.
Presidents don't die in office anymore. They have the best medical care available.
He doesn't say he missed his family. He says it was inconvenient and irksome without them.
It also does not sound real or like his voice. Very strange.
after thirteen years of marriage, I found myself to be fully domesticated, soft and helpless
He wants the US to be a reflection of himself
picking a VP with as little experience as Obama (robbing McCain of one of his biggest advantages), sealed his doom. McCain was dead in the water until Palin joined him. He was just another Republican old guy. Huge crowds showed for Palin. He had a chance until he threw her under the bus and refused to call out Obama.
The genius of Obama wasn't that he lied well, but that he lied so openly and so often and so personably on the stump.
Everyone knew he was lying, but everyone also assumed he was lying to the other side. The fact that voting for him meant you were a good person (not a racist) sealed the deal for a lot of people who should have seen through the scam.
He was (and is) literally the narcissists' narcissist. He was (and is) the President our country deserves in our time.
-it robs him of that argument, because it says that it doesn't really matter how long your record of service is
It doesn't rob him of anything, because A) McCain still has decades more experience than Obama and the relevant comparison is nominee to nominee - Presidents and Vice Presidents are not interchangeable - and B) it demonstrates that the value of experience is in the time it affords to accomplish things, so that McCain (who accomplished things over many years in the Senate) is complimented by Palin (who accomplished things quickly as governor) while Obama (who accomplished nothing in the Senate in a few years) is only handicapped by Biden (who accomplished nothing in the Senate since the mid-70s).
picking the VP candidate is the most important decision the presidential candidate makes in the entire campaign
Anyone who believes that must have ruled Obama out for that reason alone. Joe Biden was an unethical simpleton before his near-fatal brain damage 30 years ago.
McCain was doomed to lose, no matter who he picked for VP. Blaming Palin is just silly.
Obama ran against Bush - that was his program. And if the crash hadn't happened, if Detroit hadn't gone bankrupt,if ISIS hadn't replaced Al Quaeda, his programs wouldn't seem so stupid. But when things changed, the man just could not handle it. He isn't being flexible and curious about the causes of the crash, or of Detroit's bankruptcy, or of the rise of ISIS. It's different and it's dangerous and he's scared and he's phoning it in and even Democrats know it.
"Huge crowds showed for Palin. He had a chance until he threw her under the bus and refused to call out Obama."
The Democrats and the news media did an excellent job of trashing her. She had a good record if short but then there was Obama with no record.
The press and Nicole Wallace, among other RINOs, did a great hit job on Palin. She and Todd wanted to go to Michigan and were turned down by the McCain crowd.
I don't think anything was going to work for McCain when the housing bubble collapsed. Still, the news media drove a stake through the heart of Palin with the nuisance suits in Alaska. Nice job, guys.
It was no mystery that the Democratic candidate won in 2008 -- that was inevitable, whether the candidate was Obama, Hillary! Joe Biden, or whoever. And whether the Republican nominee was McCain or Romney or Guliani, he was going to lose. I was surprised by the 2012 result, but Hell I'm surprised by lots of things.
Obama was NEVER a pragmatic centrist, even though he played one on TV. You only had to look at his record. The usually wise Althouse blew that one, but she had a lot of company (and she was fooled only the once, so give her credit for that).
The stars are alined for the Republican candidate in 2016, but if the Republicans don't do well in this Fall's elections, that will be a very bad omen. Here in NC a liberal (but not extremely so) Democrat, Kay Hagan, is defending her seat. This ought to be a pick-up for the Repubs. But the Dems have been running TV ads constantly against the Republican candidate (Thom Tillis, the Speaker of the [State} House) since BEFORE the primaries; I've seen no Tillis ads until the last couple of weeks, and only a few of them. I guess the Democrats who criticized the Citizens United decision on the ground that it allowed the big money to buy elections decided to buy one here.
I still think McCain had a shot at winning, if only he'd kept his head when the financial crisis hit.
For everyone claiming that Palin was far more qualified than Obama (or Biden) you're missing my point. What I'm saying is that McCain would have had a better shot against Obama had he picked a running mate with significant experience (say, Condi Rice, or even Tim Pawlenty). Whatever you think of the merits of Sarah Palin--and that's another discussion--you can't deny that she had only taken office as governor at the beginning of 2007. Yes, Obama never had executive experience at all, so her nearly two years as governor is at least something--but remember, Obama already had that weakness (and he picked a moron for his own VP). My point is that McCain could have exploited that weakness, by picking someone more experienced and spending his campaign discussing how amid all of America's crises it was important to have people who knew how to get things done.
Granted, Obama's big argument was that Washington experience is what got us in that mess (and of course he partly undercut his argument by picking Biden, though Biden was in the "out" party so they could still pull off the "new blood" argument). But most voters were scared that year, not knowing how bad the collapse would be--so why would they want to go with someone untested like Obama? That's the point McCain could have made, and between his own lackluster campaign and picking a VP who had just barely taken office as governor--added to the fact that he was in his 70s at the time, so it wasn't unlikely she would finish his term--worked against him politically.
I realize you still voted for him, and think Palin was way more qualified than Obama, and think she "energized" the right that year. But unless you were considering voting Democrat or staying home entirely, it didn't really make a difference.
As for the media being unfair to Palin that year, when have they ever given the GOP an easy ride? They were especially easy on Obama--every mistake was treated as a sign of his hidden genius--but the GOP has always had to swim upcurrent with the media. That said, Palin didn't make things easier on herself by not prepping for interviews and giving them plenty of gaffes to work with. And calling it "gotcha journalism" when Katie Couric asks you what newspapers you read--holy softball!--just makes you sound like a whiner. These are the things voters remember. For all the criticism Bush got, he generally came across well briefed.
I have gone back and re-read my comments from 07-08. Putting aside that so many people are going to vote by party no matter what, people who voted for Obama (like me) were voting for Obama - not policies or plans, but him. It was pretty obvious that he was not going to be a "governor." He saw himself as a "calmer" - and throwing bankers into jail and closing GITMO is anything but calming, regardless of what you think of the merits of such actions. Back in 08, I wrote a very long post about Obama and the whole Jeremiah Wright business - Obama's goal is Obama, not policy. Obama went to that church because that's where you went if you were black and powerful / wealthy in Chicago and wanted to burnish your black cred. Not to completely rehash that whole episode, but it was not about belief, it was about doing what needed to be done to get where he wanted to go.
Even during the ACA process, he did not DO anything -- he outsourced the whole thing to Congress. Because healthcare was a big issue during the primaries, he had to do something about it. That's one of the reasons why the law is such a dog's dinner -- he just wanted to have something pass without having do a whole lot of heavy lifting. That's why he the goal posts kept getting moved to the right - not because he was afraid, but because he could not be bothered - "just pass something we can call reform..."
Look at the scores of articles about Obama's lack of relationships on The Hill -- even amongst D's. He is a singularity. As I said so many years ago, he reminds me of me - the belief that being smart and calm can overcome inexperience and a lack of plan. At my worst, I am just trying to survive and if I can persuade and let you know that I am acting in good faith that somehow, magically, things will work out, or at the very least, I will get what I want unscathed. I think the Hillary interview in The Atlantic referencing the Obama mantra "Don't do stupid s#1*!" is a perfect example of that. The man is not really that interested in governing, especially after Nov 2010 - he just wants to put this ship into port unscathed.
He really was a blank screen that people projected their desires upon. All pols are to a certain extent, but he, more than anyone in recent memory encouraged this. Again, he is a survivor - saying what needs to be said to get to where he needs to be. When all you believe in is you, and your talents are unable to be unbundled from your persona, then you feel like you don't really need to do much more than "be."
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा