McCain’s Indecision 2008: Reject religious intolerance or continue to pander?

It took him awhile but John McCain finally came out to denounce and reject the endorsement of controversial preacher and well known Catholic hater John Hagee. 

Hagee, whose antisemitism is cloaked in the “but I love the state of Israel” rhetoric that is typical of evangelicals, just got too hot for McCain to handle after the public heard his remarks equating the Holocaust with God’s shortcut to leading the Jews into Zion (BTW, if God wanted to return the Jews to Israel couldn’t he have done it in a slightly more direct way, say, by not allowing 2 of every 5 Jews to perish in the process?).

While pundits are comparing McCain’s “preacher problem” to that of Obama’s relationship with Reverend Jeremiah Wright, the comparison isn’t really apt: McCain has taken a principled stand against people like Hagee in the past whereas Obama chose not to reject his preacher until forced into a corner.  That leads to the question as to why McCain has continued to embrace — and seek out the endorsement of — outspoken, right wing conservative preachers that he wouldn’t be caught dead associating himself with 8 years ago. 

Here is what the more centrist John McCain said back in 2000:

“Neither party should be defined by pandering to the outer reaches of American politics and the agents of intolerance, whether they be Louis Farrakhan or Al Sharpton on the left or Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell on the right,” 

Bravo!  But, Johnny why were you led astray?  The pandering (his word, not ours) seems to have started in earnest a few years ago when McCain began his most recent run for President. 

(McCain and Jerry Falwell make nice in ‘06)

In May of 2006 he spoke at Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University.  And ever since, his campaign has been courting some of the more infamous “intolerance agents” of the extreme religious right, including Hagee and Ohio’s Rod Parsley, who has called upon Christians to wage a “war” against the “false religion” of Islam with the aim of destroying it. 

The answer to McCain’s getting religion as it were lies in the after effects of the simultaneous rise of the New Religious Right and the Reagan “revolution.”  Back in 1980 Reagan recognized an important voting block by making alliances with more activist religious leaders like Falwell (who was just starting the Moral Majority) and others on the religious fringe who could be counted on to get out the vote.  While George Bush senior was able to keep these newly powerful religious leaders at arm’s length to win the presidency back in ‘88, Bush II made them a centerpiece of his successful run for president in 2000.  This gave old guard bigots like James Dobson and Falwell unprecedented power in American politics and has helped them make inroads re: many of their pet issues including laws meant to restrict abortion and gay rights, and to promote “intelligent design,” and other means of breaking down the separation of Church and State.

But John McCain was never in that camp.  He was a Republican more along the lines of his conservative mentor and fellow Arizonian Barry Goldwater, who barely tolerated the religious wing of the New Right. In fact …

When Sandra Day O’Connor was nominated to the Supreme Court in 1981, some Religious Right leaders suspected she might be too moderate on abortion and other social concerns.  Moral Majority founder Jerry Falwell told the news media that “every good Christian should be concerned.”  Replied Goldwater, “Every good Christian should line up and kick Jerry Falwell’s ass.”

So what’s a guy to do now?  Although we are no big fan of the man’s policies and think a McCain presidency is the wrong direction for the country, we have a suggestion that could help McCain retain some of his integrity on the issue and prove himself a true leader of his morally corrupt party: make a historic speech, similar to Obama’s, that demonstrates his true thoughts about religion and denounces intolerence of any kind.  McCain needs to go over the heads of these “agents of intolerance” and speak directly to those who embrace the Word of God;  publicly reject their message of hate and prejudice; and scorn their influence on the politics of distrust and division.  Talk instead about Jesus’ message of love for your fellow man and how we all need to appeal to the better angels in our souls.

McCain has an opportunity to turn around almost 30 years of political pandering to the “outer reaches” of America’s religious sphere and redefine his party’s approach re: the role of religion in politics.  With the ascendance of newer, more tolerent voices on the right like Rev. Richard Cizik of the National Association of Evangelicals, this message can truly resonate among the country’s 65 million conservative Christians.  He can make history by removing the shackles forced on his party by men (and they are all white men) not worthy of mainstream public attention, let alone a voice in our national government. 

The move may not win him the presidency, but it could make him a hero among the more forward-thinking members of his party for generations to come. 

 

 

Huckabee: You can take a guy out of the race but you can’t take race out of the guy

Mike Huckabee, we will miss you, you crazy fool …

Why oh why Mike? You already had a detailed script chock full of hot, steamy pandering for your gun loving, get-the-Government-off-of-my-back NRA audience. Why stoop so low with a badly improvised gun joke?

I guess you can take a guy out of the race but you can’t take race out of the guy

Interestingly, this is a man that was just recently defending Barack Obama every chance he got:

Here he is praising Obama as “Mr. Vertical”:

And, more praise re: Obama’s speech on race after the first Rev. Wright blow up:

Which leads us to the question: which is the real Huck?

If he wanted to look smart in front of this crowd, he might have chosen to quote someone a bit more erudite instead:

“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.  Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.”  Benjamin Franklin

McCain’s bright shiny future: Nostradamus on Acid?

In the wake of President Bush’s bizarre attempt to equate Barack Obama and Nazi appeaser Neville Chamberlain in front of the Israeli Knesset (did Obama give away Czechoslovakia — already?), comes another fantasist’s review of events.  This time it’s about the future rather than the past.  John McCain made a speech yesterday in Columbus, Ohio that contained some real whoppers about the state of the world in 2013, four years into a McCain presidency …

“By January 2013, America has welcomed home most of the servicemen and women who have sacrificed terribly so that America might be secure in her freedom.  The Iraq war has been won. Iraq is a functioning democracy, although still suffering from the lingering effects of decades of tyranny and centuries of sectarian tension. Violence still occurs, but it is spasmodic and much reduced.”

Here are some other predictions put forward by the Republican Nostradamus in that same speech (this is real, no kidding. Just say the word “check” after each as you go down the list)…

• Osama bin Laden - captured or killed
• Reduced influence of Taliban in Afghanistan
• Al Queda, though still alive, will have no “safe haven”
• The economy will be “fixed,” including several years of “robust economic growth”
• Improved U.S. public education system
• More accessible health care
• The “Southern border” will be secure and illegal immigrants will be arrested and deported

Through an inside source within the McCain camp, we at the PW were able to obtain a copy of some of the notes that were edited out of that speech.  Also, according to McCain, in the year 2013 …

• Upon his arrest, Osama bin Laden will own up to other “crimes against the United States,” including backing Rudy Guiliani’s failed 2008 and 2012 bids for president and 2011’s upteenth “Rocky” remake.  He takes no responsiblity for Chuck Norris, however.
• Having been reduced to a few guys with hand-me-down Disney T-shirts given to them by Halliburton workers, the Taliban will reform as a regional soccer team and compete in the World Cup
• McCain’s healthcare plan, which is heavily dependent on his “apple a day” prescription, will not only provide apple growers with windfall profits the oil companies would be jealous of, all leftover apples will be used as the keystone of McCain’s teacher incentive program in his wildly successful Education initiative
• McCain’s “chicken in every pot” economic plan will be a boon to both chicken farmers and marijuana growers alike
• Having secured the Southern border and arrested and deported all 5 million illegal immigrants, there will be huge demand for Canadian nannies, gardeners and Burrito makers resulting in the “10-day Taco War” with our neighbor to the North
• McCain will be so ecstatic about the successes of his administration, he will choose to voluntarily step down after his re-election, making his VP Mitt Romney president. Upon hearing of this miraculous transition, the angel Maroni will descend from the Heavens once again and prove to the world all of the articles of the Mormon faith are indeed true.  The nation’s capital will move from D.C. to Salt Lake City and Donny Osmond will be named Vice President.
• Oh, and the presidency of George W. Bush will be held up as a beacon for future presidents.  Plans for carving his face on Mount Rushmore have already begun.

Obama’s flag pin flip flop: pander or potent symbol?

(photo: appletreeblog.com)

Much is being made in recent days about Obama sporting the flag pin again after dismissals of its relationship to his true feelings of patriotism.  Although he’s wearing the pin, he’s still playing down its importance.  Here’s what he said this week …

“I haven’t been making such a big deal about it. Others have. Sometimes I wear it, sometimes I don’t,” Obama said. “We were talking with a group of veterans yesterday. Over the last several weeks people have been handing me flag pins. I thought it was appropriate.”

Is this pandering or has Obama ventured into the reality-based thinking of presidential politics?  Not wearing the pin fits in nicely with Obama’s attempt to get beyond symbols and slogans and focus on real issues.  Here’s what he said in Oct ‘07 when first asked about wearing it:

“The truth is that right after 9/11, I had a pin. Shortly after 9/11, particularly because as we’re talking about the Iraq war, that became a substitute for, I think, true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security, I decided I won’t wear that pin on my chest. Instead I’m going to try to tell the American people what I believe what will make this country great and hopefully that will be a testimony to my patriotism.”

Coming from a politician - and one running for president no less — this is a dangerious statement. He didn’t forget to wear it; he was taking a principled stand against wearing it by telling the American people that a symbol is a ”substitute” rather than a true expression of his patriotism.  But as a man of faith, how could Obama be so blind to the importance of symbols?  

Symbols have been used since the ancients to bond a society behind a common cause and to motivate them for war against their enemies.  From the Celtic Cross, the Nazi Swastica (originally a Hindu and Buddhist symbol) and the Jewish Star of David, symbols are meant to instill both comfort and fear.  Even today, Israel is fighting for the recognition of the Red Star of David to be used by their international humanitarian agencies instead of the Red Cross or Red Cresent, which unlike the “Jewish star,” are religious symbols recognized under the articles of the Geneva Convention.  And remember Abbie Hoffman’s ironic use of the American flag shirt?  Man, did that piss a lot of people off in the 60s!

After the start of the Iraq War there were towns in the U.S. in which its citizens thought you were unpatriotic if you didn’t have a “Support our troops” bumper sticker or flag outside your door. Many would argue that putting a $2 sticker on your car isn’t true support.  But the symbol trumps logic.  And, Republicans are really good at taking advantage of (some might say pandering to people’s attachment to) symbols.  Let’s look at a short list of purely symbolic legislation that they’ve used to bludgeon well-meaning Democrats over the last few years:

-Voting to keep “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance” even though it was added much later, during the McCarthy-era anti-Commie panic
-A flag burning amendment to the Constitution
-Allowing the 10 Commandments to be featured in government buildings

The list goes on and on.  Obama was equating wearing the flag pin with those purely symbolic fights and he had a point:  what about affordable healthcare, ending the War, providing opportunities for the poor?  Weren’t gestures like flag pins and bumper stickers taking the discussion away from these more important issues?  Maybe, but he was missing the broader view of the potency of symbols.  Like his initial handling of the Reverand Wright issue, he was being extremely naive about the power of images to influence public opinion.

Before you can start convincing people to get behind you, first you’ve got to recognize the importance of the symbols they hold dear: God, flag (even when it’s teeny, tiny) and Country.  It is no coincidence that his failure to convince people of his dedication to these three are often the stated reasons for his lack of support among white working class voters (he has the “wrong” God/preacher, won’t salute the flag, and his wife disses the country).  After looking at his exit poll numbers this week, maybe Obama has finally gotten religion on the subject.

Now that he’s getting the importance of symbols maybe he can come up with a few of his own to convince people to get on his side when it comes time to debate John McCain on the real issues.  

Terry McAuliffe and Big Russ’ Mark Twain moment

File this one under “do your homework” before you stoop to pander:

After a rapid-fire logghorea in which Terry McAuliffe extolled the virtues of Hillary’s tenaciousness as a reason why she has to be the Democratic nominee, the campaign’s bloodhound tried to butter up host Tim Russert on “Meet the Press” with a nod to his dad:

“But it’s not impossible for Hillary Clinton to win,” said McAuliffe. “A lot of people have said that. Big Russ, if he were sitting here today — nothing’s impossible. Jack McAuliffe, if they were with us today, they’re probably both in heaven right now Tim, probably having a scotch, looking down saying, you know what: this fight goes on. It’s good for the Democratic Party. Millions of people coming out to vote, it’s exciting.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/11/mcauliffe-tells-russert-t_n_101189.html

Finally finding an opening, Russert jumped in to say ..
“Big Russ is in the Barcalounger still watching this. God bless him.”

He is alive!  Praise the Lord.  Maybe McAuliffe thought that by resurrecting Big Russ he could also resurrect HRC’s chances.  But, just like his report of Big Russ’ death, just about everything coming from the Clinton camp has been, in Twain’s words, “greatly exaggerated.” Aside from the gaff, ironically McAuliffe is demonstrating why Hillary should not get the nomination: every week the campaign comes up with a new reason for her to be the chosen one.   

The only consistent thing about her campaign is the inconsistancy of the message.  

We’ve seen Hillary change her core values and shift her message to suit each race (Gas Tax, free trade/NAFTA, elitism vs. populism, reaching out to African Americans/Whites).   Sorry Terry, but this time Hillary is not like Big Russ with a hope and dream.  She was the anointed who lost her bearings (no age bias intended) and ran a sloppy campaign.  She represents the establishment at a moment when the American people are clamoring for change.

As we’ve said here before, Hillary has every right to continue campaigning through the final primaries.  She’s worked hard and the remaining states deserve a chance to cast their vote.  But her campaign is so desparate to win us over they keep digging deeper for reasons for her continuted presence. 

Here is a recommendation for Terry: instead of pushing your candidate so hard, keep the “talking points” related to the rights of the voters and the democratic process.   Stay in the race because your supporters want you to stay.  Give something back for a change.

Unlike Mike Love’s lament in the Beach Boys’ “Surfin’ USA,” we can wait for June.

McCain’s curious choice for running mate: “fascist nerd”

It was nice to see John McCain relax a little last night on Jon Stewart’s “Daily Show” after his pander-drenched town hall meeting in Michigan in which he hit some major themes that are red meat to religious conservatives (jailing sexual predators, apppointing constructivist judges).   Jon threw the senator some tough questions, including one about McCain denouncing a particular “spiritual advisor” that he has been associated with - namely President George Bush.  He managed to duck that one.  In fact, McCain generally handled the questions with good humor, including one about choosing HIllary for the Republican ticket in November (which makes a lot of sense when you consider the spin coming out of the Clinton camp these days about Hillary’s appeal to “Reagan Democrats”).

 http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=167939&title=senator-john-mccain-pt.-2

The one unintended gaff came when McCain said he was going to announce his running mate: Dwight Schrute, the sycophantic nut job on “The Office” played by Rainn Wilson.   Obviously someone from McCain’s camp thought it would be “cool” to mention a well known TV character that would resonate with ”The Daily Show’s” demographic.  

Schrute, described by his creator Wilson as a “fascist nerd”, is a curious choice.  I know we shouldn’t read too much into this but shouldn’t McCain do a little vetting before choosing a fictional character that has some of the most despicable personality traits and political views found within his own party?   His choice was an insightful bookend to the town hall meeting he moderated earlier in the day.    

At Oakland University, McCain voiced his opposition to human trafficking and child pornography (tough issues to be get behind!) and emphasized his preference for appointing justices in the mold of Alito and Roberts - strict law and order policies that would appeal to the rules-obsessed Schrute.

Come to think of it, maybe it wasn’t a staffer who encouraged McCain to mention Schrute.  Maybe McCain was inspired by one of Dwight’s many rants, including this one that might give a clue as to McCain’s true feelings about Hillary:

“Women are like wolves. If you want a wolf, you have to trap it. You have to snare it and then you have to tame it. Keep it happy, care for it, feed it. Lovingly. The way that an animal deserves to be loved. And my animal deserves a lot of loving.”

Or maybe, it was this speech from Dwight that McCain thought might pertain to a certain Vietnam war hero …

A hero kills people, people that wish him harm. A hero is part human and part supernatural. A hero is born out of a childhood trauma, or out of a disaster, that must be avenged.

Hillary: why don’t people trust me? Some clues on “This Week”

 If you watched Hillary’s performance on “This Week with George Stephanoplous” today you may have caught her continued insistance re: three key themes she’s been pressing this week:

1. She will stop or slow the movement of manufacturing jobs out of the U.S.
2. The gas tax holiday will provide “billions” of savings to truckers and not affect the funding of needed transportation projects by creating a “wind fall tax” on the oil companies
3. She continues to have the lead in the popular vote over Barack Obama, if you count Michigan and Florida.

Sounds good - as any pandering should.  Let’s take a look at these claims one at a time:

1. Stop the movement of U.S. manufacturing jobs overseas: she wants to take away tax incentives for companies moving those jobs overseas and offer more incentives to those who keep jobs here in the U.S., all of which sounds reasonable.  But these simple fixes aren’t going to solve the problem.  Companies are moving those jobs overseas so they can continue to compete in a global market, not to mention to keep their costs down in this era of supercapitalism that requires that they offer “Walmart” pricing of most consumer goods.  What George failed to ask her in a follow-up question is this: if we “force” companies to keep manufacturing jobs here, do we run the risk of putting them out of business?  The net affect would be less jobs in the U.S. and more foreign-based companies to fill that product/service niche.  

It’s easy to blame “greedy” executives for the continued salary gap between those at the top and the eroding wages of the average worker.  The solutions to these problems are a lot more complex and require a serious debate, starting with the question of corporate influence in Washington. But you won’t hear about that in Indiana or North Carolina, at least not from this candidate who gets much of her support from the same lobbyists that are part of the problem.

2. Wind fall profits tax on oil companies - does Hillary think that this oil-friendly adminstration will pass a bill that forces oil companies to give up their profits?  Most experts don’t think so.  And speaking of experts, when asked on the show to name one economist who agrees with her that the gas tax holiday is a good idea, she couldn’t name one, saying instead that “we’ve seen a tremendous amount of … elite opinion behind policies that haven’t worked well for the middle class and hard working Americans.”   She is equating independent economic analysis from respected experts (including some of her current and past supporters) with the past eight years of Bush policy in one stroke.  Gee, I wonder if those same hard working Americans she is pandering to would rather go to a well meaning amateur next time they require some major heart of brain surgery instead of hiring an “elitist” doctor perform the job.

3. The lead in the popular vote: as most people know by now this is a strange fiction dreamed up by her high paid consultants to spin her 2nd place showing in the race against Obama.  It’s kind of sad that she would think the superdelegates that foolish. 

At one point in the interview, Stephanopolous asked her why a majority of voters distrust her, according to a recent poll.  Rather than focusing on current events she instead emphasized her two senate victories in NY state as proof of the electorate’s confidence in her trustworthiness.  We at the PW were glad to support her in those races, but something’s changed in her character since her realization that voters weren’t going to just hand her this nomination on a shiny blue Democratic platter.  Or maybe this is the real HIllary and she was just trying on a new persona for NY voters.

Her past supporters and the rest of the country should expect more.

 

Gas Tax Holiday is Vapor: c’mon Hillary you know better

That’s the line being repeated by economists and other experts (those elitists!) this week.  We know that McCain already has questionable economic policy credentials and we covered his good politics/bad policy decision in a previous post.  But Hillary should know better. 

This gas tax holiday idea is a blatant pander to voters.  Now that the Democrats are divided on the issue, it’s on Barack Obama’s shoulders to explain why it’s a stupid idea.

The irony of this crazy “holiday” is that most voters are up in arms about the oil companies making record profits (Exxon Mobil up 17% this quarter).   Yet ..

Some economists say that suspending the tax will only promote greater consumption and drive prices up — sending more money to oil producers, not consumers.

That’s right.  Repealing the tax will just further line the pockets of oil companies and take money away from much needed infrastructure projects, despite what Hillary says.  And, it won’t do anything to help the long term issue of rising gas prices.

Hil’s other ideas sound great (pander, pander) but don’t have legs:
-Additional tax on oil company profits. There is no way business leaders and the Congress will accept extra taxes for a particular industry. If oil companies, why not porn companies (bad moral values)? Why not McDonalds (too dangerous: they make food that causes obesity, resulting in higher medical bills)?  Why not Jewish or Black-owned businesses (too Jewish, too hip)?
-Challenging OPEC : this is laughable. It’s like asking Saddam to give up his OMDs (oops!). On Bush’s recent trip to the Mideast he was kissing the rings of Saudi princes to no avail — and his Daddy is an employee!  OPEC is a monopoly because they don’t have to abide by the rules of our economy.  But they do have to abide by the rules of the market.  If demand is too great they can’t lower prices.  They wouldn’t be able to keep up production.
-Price of oil won’t be based on the market “speculators”: okay, why not end speculative markets for corn, beef and other commodities?  Because that’s how commodities markets work.  Speculators read the market supply and demand and the price is adjusted accordingly.  The Enron analogy is a red herring used by Clinton to scare voters.  And, any government “watch dog” she may install will come from within the industry, making any true oversight benign.  C’mon.
-Throwing a bone to truckers - her numbers on the $ savings for truckers are dependent on the price not going up as a result of increased demand.  Very misleading. 

Can this please stop. Now. Can’t anyone admit that it’s about demand, stupid? The $4 (maybe $5 this summer) gallon of gas is going to be here for awhile, so get used to it.

When will a leader step up and tell it like it is?  Certainly not our current president: Bush’s response to $4/gallon?  “Oh, yeah? That’s interesting. I hadn’t heard that,” Bush said at a news conference just a few days ago.  When asked about it again this week he repeatedly claimed that he didn’t have a “magic wand” to make prices go down but would surely use if he did (although his first wish might be more along the lines of getting his low approval numbers up). We as consumers have to start changing our habits.  And, yes, it’s going to be painful. 

And our leaders have to stop pandering on this issue.  That’s what true leadership means.  It’s easy to make false promises.  It’s tougher to get people behind a policy that may hurt in the short term but will reap rewards down the line. Europeans, who have been paying $6-7 per gallon for years, took the hit early on out of necessity and it’s helped them be a lot more efficient.

Our government needs a realistic energy policy that has not been created in back rooms by the oil oligopoly (Bush, Cheney and their cronies).  Provide more incentives and additional investment in non-agribusiness (i.e., non corn-based) fuel alternatives.  And, people and their elected leaders have to insist on stricter fuel efficiency standards for auto makers - at the risk of losing some votes in Michigan. 

I’m chipping in: this summer I’m rolling down the windows of my Jeep rather than use the AC.  It’s a start.

For more gas saving tips: http://autotechrepair.suite101.com/article.cfm/how_to_improve_gas_mileage

Tell Congress to get some backbone re mileage standards: https://secure.consumersunion.org/site/Advocacy?JServSessionIdr007=k4mc5gs4u6.app44a&cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=1499
(make sure to edit the personlized message by changing $3 to $4 in the part about gas prices.  Could be $5 by the time most people get around to sending it)

 

Et tu, Reverand? Wright is so wrong it hurts

Just when Obama thought he could chillax with his strong lead in North Carolina and focus on Indiana voters for a few days, his favorite pastor hits all the news outlits with crazy talk about HIV government conspiracies, embracing racist/antisemite Louis Farrakhan and otherwise contradicting everything that Obama has been saying in his campaign about bringing people together. 
Today Obama finally came out to denounce Wright’s narcisistic comments in the strongest terms.  Besides articulating his “outrage” and disappointment and generally separating himself from the Reverand’s remarks, what struck us here at the PW was perhaps the most emotionally raw part of his response …

“Obviously, whatever relationship I had with Reverend Wright has changed,” Obama said. “I don’t think he showed much concern for me, more importantly I don’t think he showed much concern for what we’re trying to do in this campaign.”

“He didn’t show concern for me.” These weren’t the words and emotions of a pol who was disappointed in a former colleague or supporter.  This was a son expressing his pain and disappointment in his father. Remember, the young Barry was only 2 when his Dad skipped out of his life to study at Harvard.  Wright , a Howard University educated professor of theology, obviously represented an important father figure to him. 

Reports from those who were present at the press conference mention the intense sadness of the guy as he was grilled about Wright’s comments.  Sure, his campaign is taking a hit.  But I think that Obama is truly saddened at having to make an irrevocable break with a guy he truly loved and respected.

God bless him.  Although the speech was mostly about holding on to his political viability and doing damage control (something the Clintons can surely appreciate), he managed to show some genuine emotion.  This drama would have been more interesting if it were first played out during the general election, with its fascinating mixture of race, family, and religion played against the values held by the opposing party.  But, with months to go before the Dems choose a candidate this is going to hurt Obama with super delegates and open up new questions about his judgement, which is fair game.

At least maybe some of those 13% of the country who still think Obama is a Muslim will realize that he had a Christian pastor, even if the guy is a flake. 

 

Barack Obama: the man who fell to earth?

Much of the news chatter after the Pennsylvania primary has been focused on what Newsweek is calling Obama’s “Bubba Gap.”

(Superman or Clark?)

If you can forgive the magazine the ridiculous cover art showing arugula and a beer, the article does make an important point about the difficulty Obama is having in playing by the old rules and tactics that he promised to rise above.  Look, this campaign, which started out being about “hope” and “change” versus “experience” has now become about bowling scores, 60s radicals, flag pins, angry preachers, elitisim, and imaginary snipers at the airport.  With these two dems having essentially identical positions on the real issues, it was inevitable that the 24 hour news cycle would focus on personality and ”character.”

A particular passage in the Newsweek article drew interest …

 Obama might win (center-right columnist David) Brooks back if he returned to his high-mindedness and stopped pandering. But winning over the great mass of American voters is tricky. Obama has stood for change, and when it comes to changing politics, many Americans are with him. But change, more broadly imagined, is threatening to a lot of people, and not just high-school dropouts who own guns and live in rust-belt states.

What pundits have been discounting re: Obama is that besides his soaring rhetoric and high mindedness, a lot of people see him as a human being.  Despite his cool intellectualism, he has a calm, steady presence that people respond to.  He doesn’t have to fake it, it’s real.  The writers of the Newsweek piece (Thomas, Bailey and Wolffe) got it right: when Obama panders he loses.  What they didn’t point out is that when Hillary panders she wins - sometimes big — as the Penn primary has proven.  That’s because the Clintons’ strength has always been their Zelig-like desire to please us, even at the cost of losing their own identity.  People inside the party who really know Hillary have been disappointed in her win-at-any-cost tactics.  That’s because she’s continually losing herself in her quest for the gold ring. 

She’s becoming more Gollum-like with each primary contest, with her ridiculous pronouncements aimed at (”my precious“) super delegates about how only the “big” states she’s won count and the others don’t (sorry Virginia, Maryland, et. al).  Last week she actually started to count the Michigan and Florida delegates in her own popular vote tally, forgetting that those contests didn’t count (and Obama wasn’t on the ballot in Michigan), and discounting all the caucus votes where Obama won big.

Obama is in a tough spot: he’s got to soar and be grounded at the same time.  He’s got to be Superman and Clark Kent rolled into one; even the man of steel got to have it both ways by splitting into two.  When the Reverend Wright thing came to a boil, he had a chance to pander to whites but chose to make a historic speech about race instead.  But lately, he and his staff have lost their focus by trying to be all things to all people. 

BTW, a wag of the finger at Hillary for continuing to repeat the line “if my preacher said that I would leave that church” while Wright makes his media rounds this week to resurrect his damaged reputation.   The Wellesley and Yale Law grad knows full well that you would no sooner walk out on the church that nurtured you and provided you with a community than you would walk out of the country club that helped get you that job on Wall Street, or the Synagogue membership that helped you land that movie deal.  That’s the reality of old school social networking.

We may be biased about this (ahem) but Obama has got to go back to keeping it real and define himself in a way that is closer to his true character and history.  Obama is still a blank for a lot a lot of voters and that leads to others defining him (Newsweek quotes a poll saying that 13% think he is a Muslim, a point that Hillary does little to dispel: “as far as I know,” she winks when asked about his status as a good Christian).  

Barack, forget the pandering.  Let the Clintons do it and have your staff and the rest of the pundits cry foul.  While you’re in Indiana don’t pretend to be an Indy racing expert.  Play some hoops instead, talk about your dreams for our future and we’ll all be okay.