-
Recent reports that Barack Obama is, in fact, a politician, and therefore fully capable of calculation, compromise and confessional performance art, neither alarmed nor crept up on me; throughout the primary season, every time I heard someone moan that that poor pie-in-the-sky Obambi was just too darn naïve to run with the big dogs, the extra set of eyeballs I keep on the inside of my head would twirl around in their sockets and I'd think, People, the man is from Chicago! Who is it again who's being naïve? Sorry, but to best Hillary Clinton while (mostly) making it look like you aren't resorting to politics as usual? Anyone who can do that has got some moves, that's all.
Now, though, he's taken flexibility too far, by selling out on offshore drilling. While campaigning in Florida yesterday, Obama told the Palm Beach Post that he would be willing to open Florida's coast for more drilling as part of a "comprehensive energy policy that can bring down gas prices.'' And what's even worse than the shift itself -- yes, sometimes compromise is necessary -- is the ridiculous claim that it will bring gas prices down. It's never necessary to say something you know isn't true.
As he says, the Gang of 10 compromise put together by five Democrats and five Republicans in the Senate would do a lot of good things, like "repeal tax breaks for oil companies so that we can invest billions in fuel-efficient cars, help our automakers re-tool, and make a genuine commitment to renewable sources of energy like wind power, solar power, and the next generation of clean, affordable biofuels.''
So, as he now sees it, "if, in order to get that passed, we have to compromise in terms of a careful, well thought-out drilling strategy that was carefully circumscribed to avoid significant environmental damage - I don't want to be so rigid that we can't get something done." Gosh, no, that would be bad. If only I could remember the last time the Democrats in Congress did any such thing, maybe I'd know just how bad. And of course, he's just undercut those Democrats who were trying to hang in there.
So what's the difference between Obama's loss of nerve and McCain's earlier switch on the same issue? In May, McCain knew offshore drilling was a step in the wrong direction, but by June, he'd seen the polling and seen the light. Now, he thinks offshore drilling is crucial.
There is no mystery about why Obama has now changed his mind, too, although his position seems to be that offshore drilling is still a bad idea, but we should do it anyway: A national poll taken last week showed that 57 percent of voters favor offshore drilling because 56 percent think gas prices would fall as a result. Only they wouldn't, and both candidates know it.
In the same interview with the Florida paper - on the day Chevron became just the latest oil company to report a record profit for the quarter -- Obama said: "I think it's important for the American people to understand we're not going to drill our way out of this problem," he said. "It's also important to recognize if you start drilling now you won't see a drop of oil for ten years, which means its not going to have a significant impact on short-term prices. Every expert agrees on that." (They also agree that if we haven't gotten serious about cutting CO2 emissions long before then, then the heartbreak of realizing that Obama has served us a baloney sandwich will be the least of our worries.)
Only, by even sorta orta backing new drilling, he is sending exactly the opposite message to the public, maintaining the fiction that there is no urgency to changing our ways, and that we can go right on consuming energy same as always. How again is this "change you can believe in"? I get that the McCain commercials blaming Obama for high gas prices are hurting him, but especially given how ludicrous this notion is, how about responding with facts? I know it's easier to assure people you'll bring gas prices down than to explain why nobody will, or should, but he's not even going to try?
His excuse might be the worst part: "The Republicans and the oil companies have been really beating the drums on drilling," Obama said in the interview. Which might give voters the impression that anyone who beats the drums loud enough and long enough will get this same "Alright already!'' response out of him. And it might give those young voters he is counting on the idea that he's not only not as different as they thought...but maybe, just not different enough.
-
A couple of years ago, my son remarked that President Bush seemed to think every day was Opposites Day, which would explain how he always wound up listening to the wrong people and giving the best ideas the boot. That's how I feel now, listening to Hillary's down-is-up take on why Obama can't win in November. And I am so invigorated by—which on Opposites Day means weary of—hearing her describe his greatest strength as his biggest liability.
No question he's made mistakes. But his fatal flaw, according to her, is that he is not as skilled as she in answering Republican attacks (with more of the same). Watch her gleefully practice on her fellow Democrat, with Republican-style ads evoking such GOP golden oldies as the red phone, Pearl Harbor, and, OMG, Khrushchev? I never expected her to be leading the proverbial Million Mom March, but doesn't it bother any of these old-school feminists to see her painting her rival as the girl in this race—yes, as if that were a bad thing—just as every Republican since Richard Nixon has done to every Democrat since Adlai Stevenson? No doubt the former Goldwater Girl will never be outdone on the mushroom-cloud front. But at what point does one turn into what one fears? If I wanted Karl Rove for president, I would have voted for him the first time.
To me, Obama's appeal is rooted in his view that we have more in common than we might realize—and can't afford to go on tearing each other to shreds in this polarized, cartoon world where if your views are two degrees north or south of mine, then U R evil and must die. It was his refusal to play the same old zero-sum game that got him where he is today—ahead by every measure and, barring the kind of collapse that won't happen unless he betrays his own best instincts, on his way to becoming the nominee.
So, why can't Obama close the deal? In a way, it's his strength in November that is his highest hurdle now. I always thought he would have a harder time winning the nomination than the general, because the Clintons have defined and dominated the Democratic Party for a long, long time. And it's the very same "Let's stand on common ground, together'' appeal—which will win him the support of independents and Republicans in the fall—that makes him so suspect to Democrats who don't want to stand anywhere with those people; they want payback for the Bush years. And while that's understandable, it's not a way to win. Even Bill Clinton, with all his superior political skills and peekaboo triangulating and solemn vows not to act like a real Democrat, would not have won without Ross Perot in the mix. We can't get there on our own —which, again, is Obama's message.
Another reason he can't close the deal: We are never satisfied! Republicans settle for the good-enough candidate, go on about their lives, and show up on Election Day, but not us. I took my children to an Obama rally where people were screaming and swooning and speaking in tongues they were so excited—and on the way home, my daughter sniffs and says she wonders if he's focused enough on global warming. And what can I do but swell with pride? My baby really is a Democrat.
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?