Obama Adoration V. Hillary Reality

A reader sent this email chain. I read it with interest and some joy. It is between a the "submitter to L.R." and a reasonably well known writer. I have no way of verifying the validity of this - I tend to take it at face value. But this isn't journalism and I protect the innocent and the guilty alike. I post it here with identifying markers deleted.

It is an essay really on the difference between Hillary supporters and Obama supporters in 2008. And the near impossibility of BHO's fans to address anything of substance.

I am fed up with the "Obama is so smart" meme - which, like all else about him, never gets examined. He's not as smart the Clinton, I doubt very much if he's smarter than LBJ or Carter. Certainly, he's not anywhere near Jefferson - to name a few DEM Presidents. Where did this meme come from? The same hole that spit out "Bush is strong" ad nauseam in 2000.

Finally: though not stated here - any honest American man will admit that sexism had a big role in shaping 2008. Fear of women in power is the subtext for much of the Hillary bashing that went on in print and on TV.

Take what you like and leave the rest.

Onward:

John: Here is the exchange between me and ______. I hope you find it interesting. I find it fascinating because _______ is an amazingly smart and level headed person so his reaction surprises me.

Just to let you know, not that you would question me, but every thing I've said about my interaction with Obama is completely true. In fact, I know Obama even more than I describe below since I am very good (as in best) friends with one of his major fundraisers and with a person who worked directly for his state campaigns in IL so have been in small meetings with Obama through those relationships. I used to have a high level political appointment in the Clinton administration which is why I have good friends and former colleagues who worked in both the Obama and Clinton campaigns. And, I worked for six years for XXXX so those dinner fundraisers are true to life (and were plentiful). I also happen to have been able to get to know Hillary somewhat as a person. Again, she's made her share of mistakes, but their personalities, work ethic and level of integrity could not be more different. I still remain shocked at the choices that were made last year.

Email #1:

Person XXX:

I have read your columns over the years with great interest. I haven't agreed with you on everything, but I'm certainly aligned with your basic outlook. However, I can't disagree with you more on your assessment about our current president. You and others whose writing I find compelling - like the writer of the _______ blog - have seemed (pardon the strained metaphor) to have a fog (or maybe it's rose colored glasses) over your usually clear eyed vision when assessing Barack Obama.

(I also think you are way too critical of Bill Clinton. He certainly had his faults, but not everything bad in life can be laid at his door. And, he isn't as venal as I think you believe him to be. As intelligent as he is, he is also a product of his time, his upbringing and his personality. You do ignore the fact that his Vice President did try to - albeit far from boldly enough - begin to build an infrastucture and education of the public that might lead away from insane oil dependence and toward a more sustainable way of life. And, I think you forgive Bush II his real agency in creating the morass we are in today. Granted he didn't start the country on its road to oil addiction, but he plunged us off a cliff with lunatic wars, outrageous deficit spending and an enabling of a regulatory scheme that encouraged rampant mortgage fraud and abuse. He was much more than just a "caretaker." He actively and enthusiastically helped loot the treasure of this country for 8 years. However, at this point these disagreements are almost quibbles, given they are moot.)

My concern is your opinion of Obama. At a very fundamental level, I have no idea on what you base your belief that Obama is "basically honest and intelligent." Knowing the man as I do, including the people he surrounds himself with (and no -I'm not talking about just his spiritual counselors but those people who have nurtured his political career and on whom he relies for advice), I have found him to be a rather deceitful person who, certainly, is smart enough but whose vaunted intelligence is vastly overrated - his judgment even more so. First, to address the claims I've heard so many make that he must be intelligent in light of his graduating from HLS. Believe me - having attended an Ivy League law school myself - I know that such attendance is not a proxy for intelligence. Nor is becoming president of the law review when it is a popularity vote as opposed to merit-based based on assessment of scholarship. (I also am only a few years younger than Obama and am African-American,=2 0so I fully understand that the bar for entering a top law school is higher for people of color - that doesn't make all of us geniuses just by the mere fact that we were there.) Moreover, I haven't found his writing (which has only been about himself) or his post-graduate career to be anything that would lend me to think more highly of his intelligence. Certainly his ability to mimic the cadence and tone of the most compelling African-American speakers of the past while reading remarks written for him by others (and even those heavily lifted from previous speeches by other people), doesn't impress me as indicative of great intellectual ability by itself.

More importantly, I've had the opportunity to meet and talk with Obama in small, intimate settings and gain a better sense of the man than anyone can based on t.v. interviews and his ubiquitous speechifying. (I was for many years active in the Democratic party. I also worked for some years for an investment bank which was a major backer of Obama from the time he ran for the Senate. And, he was eager to spend lots of time with the top bankers of Wall St in small dinner settings in glorious NY penthouses. I was often invited along simply because I was one of the few blacks at my bank they could invite to "color" these dinners.)

My first encounter with him was at the 2004 Democratic Convention when he was being lauded as being one of the next wave of leaders of the party.&n bsp; I, too, was extraordinarily impressed and borderline euphoric then, after hearing his convention speech. He initially struck me as well as a charismatic, brilliant young man, who might just be the chance we were looking for to inject new ways of thinking into our polity. But, when talking with him after the convention speech, I came away thinking he did not have any truly out-of-the-box ideas about the best direction for the country or even how to cure the doldrums of the Democratic party. Time enough, however, I felt then for him to learn, reflect and chart better courses.

Over the next months I then was able to talk with him and hear him talk in various fundraising venues - which is where he spent most of his short time in the Senate before hitting the presidential campaign trail. (The first time post-convention was at George Soros' house). I came away each time a little more uneasy, particularly when it became clear he was going to run for President. He skims the surface of issues and problems. In fact, his remarks, when not prepared come across as vapid. He repeats, like rote, tired democratic tropes. (And frankly many Republican ones. He truly does admire Reagan and not just because Reagan won elections). He seems to have spent little to no time in deep introspection about any particular area of policy. He spent very little time at his actual job in the Senate or doing any substantive work - which was similar to his time in the IL State Senate. (What was little remarked upon when he ran for US Senate or POTUS was what a mess the Chicago district he represented was left when he advanced to the US Senate during a period when even poor districts in the country got at least somewhat better.) He certainly - for someone whose father (like mine) is African and who (as did I) lived overseas for a time - seems to at bottom be relatively incurious about geopolitics. And, he would get a glazed look in his eyes and look about for someone else to move on to when I raised questions about how he would address the looming US financial crisis I could see on the horizon.

All in all, I found him to be a completely conventional politician - interested in his own advancement - with no particular personal vision for the future of this country or the world. And, all this without even the small saving grace of being a policy wonk like either Clinton, Gore or even Biden, etc. This was why his entire campaign rested on the ephemera of "hope and change" which could mean anything one wanted it to mean, along with a list of plagarized policy "positions" taken from other democratic primary candidates. From what I've learned about him, I do not believe he has deep guiding principles and certainly no specific political philosophy or forward-thinking vision for how to right our ship. That is why his actions to date - and I believe this will continue=2 0- have been disappointingly although, to me, not suprisingly conventional and, frankly, in large part a continuation of Bush's policies if not a recreation of Clinton's.

Even more disturbingly, having followed the primary campaign closely and having good friends in both his campaign and Hillary Clinton's, I can also say how shocked I became at the really dishonest tactics he used, from race-baiting to caucus fraud to paying cyber stalkers to terrorize pro-Clinton writers and website owners. But, given the stunts he pulled in IL in the early days of his career that I came to discover in doing due diligence before deciding on my own vote, this really probably shouldn't have shocked me as much as they did.

The one thing that did amaze me, as his campaign unfolded and there were more and more danger signs about his character or lack of it that came to light for anyone who wanted to really look, was why so many people who I respect as clear eyed thinkers, not given at all to buying into conventional wisdom couldn't see this man as he really is. He's not evil and I can't say that he's outright corrupt, but he's not honest. (For goodness sake, the man broke virtually every important promise he made during the primary campaign as soon as it was over, and he's busy continuing this trend now that he's president. Call me crazy, but that doesn't strike me as someone who is "basically honest."). I also do not believe h e has any type of handle on how to effectively govern, particularly not in these times.

He is telling some unpleasant truths now about where the economy is headed, but not because he wants to try to pull America's collective head out of the sand and lead us to a sustainable way of life. He's lowering expectations out of a well-honed instinct for political survival and while he still can plausibly claim that the mess is not his fault. His actions, however, show that he - and to be fair to him, probably just like anyone else who would have been elected, including certainly McCain - is bent on finding whatever veins he can that haven't yet collapsed to shoot up the addict a few more times. He's desperate to have us stay out of detox and rehab, because that would be very painful until we are clean and conventional politicians do not traffic in pain.

I apologize for the long email, and I realize you have no reason to believe that I had the opportunity to interact with Obama up close and personal (although I swear that it is true and my assessment of him is based on research about his background and work as well as personal interaction with him). But, I felt the need to share with you now as I think you are going to become more and more disillusioned with him as the years drag on. Most urgently, I feel that it is vital that we have no illusions about who Obama is. If, indeed, there is civil unrest in this country as we spiral downwards, I do not trust him to safeguard civil liberties and the remnants of democracy we still have, and I think it is going to be very valuable to have eyes wide open about where he might take the country.

Sincerely,
XXXX


Response:

He repeats, like rote, tired democratic tropes.

XXX--
Anyone in the public arena ends up speaking in tropes, because one is bombarded with the same questions incessantly. By necessity you develop a refined rhetoric.
Maybe his "glazed look" was simple fatigue. I know how I get on the road (and I'm not in politics, where you really have to be nice to people).
FDR was viewed as a completely conventional politician (and mentally mediocre, too) in the period around his first election v ictory. History made him a hero. He was mostly style and poise and acted contrary to his patrician roots.
Events have a way of shaping personalities in power. My feeling about Obama is that he has plenty of... let's call it 'capacity.'
If nothing else, he has already shown admirable poise under pressure.
It should be clear from my blog that I am simply giving the guy a chance. I'm not jumping up and down saying he's 'the saviour.' Only that he appears capable and poised. And that people expect a lot from him.
Somehow i suspect you are a disappointed Hillary Clinton booster.

XXX
XXXXXXXXX


Response:

Dear XXX:

Sigh - I didn't deflect the question so much as I tried to argue - as I have to others - that it doesn't and shouldn't matter to the validity of my critique of Obama who I supported in the primaries . But, since we apparently fail to agree, I also see no reason not to be transparent. Unlike those who "actively" supported Obama, I am not going to end up embarrased by my analysis of the candidates or my choice. I voted for Hillary in the blank blank election. I did donate to her primary campaign, although not at the maximum limit, even though I could. I did not stalk pro-Obama blogs to send out wild accusations about the man or insult him and/or berate his supporters. I did not cover myself, house or car with pro-Hillary paraphenalia as did so many Obama supporters in XX and elsewhere. I did not ignore Hillary's faults or completely dismiss where I disagreed with her or sing praises of her that boarded on worship. Where she said she would pursue a certain policy or program, I took at her word and didn't try to twist it to mean something that I would like and evaluated how that would change or not change my support. And, where she said something that was gobbledygook (which did happen, although not often), I didn't excuse her; I said so and added that to my evaluation. In short, I treated her as a not-perfect, but smart, competent, highly capable individual with a track record of work, means of handling adversity, executive abilities and&nbs p;stated and followed-up on principles and ideology that I could evaluate. So, I don't know whether I would be considered an "active Hillary supporter" or not.

I began the primaries supporting Edwards initially but then, even before he dropped out, decided I would most likely not vote for him as I became less and less sure that he would stick it through or win the general. I then settled on Hillary as the much better candidate from any angle than Obama. What you are purposefully (it seems to me) ignoring is that I supported Hillary because I had already evaluated Obama by the time he announced his candidacy and found him wanting because I knew him more than many others did. In reviewing the two of them, I decided Hillary was far preferable. In this, I am not alone. I have numerous current and former friends and colleagues who worked with Obama in IL who refused to support his candidacy either, but would only say that in private given that so many were in the throes of Obama worship last year. See also Alice Palmer whose neck Obama stepped on to gain his IL senate seat. She supported Hillary too because between Hillary and Obama, Palmer could trust Hillary. Frankly, to really know Barack is not to love him. And, that has nothing more to do with Hillary Clinton than does my distaste for certain bankers I used to work with who I also find to be dishonest and not as intelligent as they think they are.

XXXXXXX



Response:

It's really discouraging (to my opinion of the state of public debate) when people take detailed and substantive criticism of Obama and dismiss it as "just disappointed over Hillary,"

Hey XXXX--
It was just a conjecture, not a dismissal or an accusation. I answered your letter pretty comprehensively -- given the volume of mail I get. You even managed to deflect the question: were you or were you not an active Hillary supporter??



XXX
XXXXXXXXXX

Response:

XXXXXX:

It's really discouraging (to my opinion of the state of public debate) when people take detailed and substantive criticism of Obama and dismiss it as "just disappointed over Hillary," who this is not in any way, shape or form about. Not that I should have to even state this, but I'm not disappointed over Hillary. I am disappointed in another massively missed opportunity to have a real leader with vision and core principles and real courage at the helm the next 4 years.

I'm actually bemused as I'm not even sure what the logic chain is in your accusation about Hillary since of course if one had supported Hillary and thought Obama was supremely unqualified for the role he now holds, of course, you would be disappointed. I have no idea how that disappointment in being once again saddled with someone not up to the task of the Presidency invalidates the ability to accurately asses Obama's qualities; however, but to Obama supporters somehow it seems to. It's very odd, (particularly in the weird obsession with Hillary who I mentioned only in passing, along with a list of other past presidential candidates) and it reveals more about the lack of nuanced reflection on the part of Obama supporters about his character and record than it does about the person critiquing him. And, it does neither the citizenry nor the health of the country (such as it is) any good to dismiss critique of his actions so cavalierly.

I'm sorry, but those who aspire to the Presidency do not get to be given "a chance." They don't get 3 strikes or a couple of screw-ups before we really give them the business. This is not an Outward Bound course for wayward youth. If we needed to rely on Obama's "capacity," whatever that means, as a blind leap of faith, the ramifications of such a leap should have been discussed more honestly and intelligently while people had a chance to make an informed decision among the choices we had. It would be amusing to me if not so tragic, that during his campaign we were regaled with laudatory tales about Obama's sterling judgment which was supposed to make him "ready on day one." Now, what we hear is yelling from the left that we need to "give him a chance" and we're harshing his mellow as well as that of his followers by pointing out that he's clearly far from ready and frankly seems to be already not up to the task. In fact, the bar has been set so low for him (or maybe we're just used20to this after Bush II) that the mere fact he'll say "I screwed up" in public is supposed to somehow illustrate his immense qualifications for the job.

Well, I didn't sign up to "give the president a chance," and the fact that we are being asked to is another direct contradiction to an Obama promise. And, as a voter, a taxpayer and one of the people who is his employer, he's going to have to face the hard work and hard knocks that come with this job without excuses. He asked for it so here it comes.

And, no - not everyone in the public arena "ends up speaking in tropes." I know quite a few very talented individuals who can carry on intelligent, nuanced conversations with a keen grasp and intellectual curiosity about a broad range of subjects in very different venues with very different audiences. They also happen to be great managers too. That's another canard that lets Obama off the hook for being much less than his hype. Plus, as I tried to point out, a number of the venues I was in with him - 10 to 15 people at a meeting or a dinner - were not ones where you would expect someone to give you not much more than a stump speech in response to hard, policy questions. Not people who were aiming for the Presidency, at least. And, he was certainly fairly animated when talking about his "life" and "his story which could only have happened in the U.S." (tell that to all my relatives and friends in the UK and Germany who are biracial with one African parent) and how he went into politics "for his girls future" and when asking us to reach deep in our pockets to help him succeed. It was only when he was pressed to delve deeply into significant policy issues that he became uninterested, bored and fidgety.

No - any support I might or might not have had for any other democratic primary candidate (being very close to senior Hillary advisors when she was in the Senate, I s aid often that I didn't think she should run at all because she would be eviscerated by the press and I thought there was a good chance she wouldn't win the primary) has 1000% nothing to do with my alarm about how unprepared for the monumental task before him is Obama. The fact that I would have to even preface my opinion about him by proclaiming this shows how deep into denial and unwilling to have a healthy skepticism about Obama his supporters have become.

XXXXX

Response:


Hey, XXXXX,
You're imputing all kinds of motives to me. Unfairly !
Lookit, in 1933 a lot of people thoughtFranklin Roosevelt was too dim and too much a glad-handing, lightweight patrician pol to be an effective president. Now there's divergent opinion about whether any of his programs either prolonged or ameliorated the Great Depression, but he certainly restored a sense of legitimacy in national leadership that Hoover and the GOP had lost. I've said more than once that t he best Mr. O can do (IMO) is to give Americans some moral support as they endure hardship. That's obviously not solving all the nation's (or the world's) problems, but it could go a long way to avoiding real strife.


XXXXX

Repsonse:



XXXX:

I really don't mean to impute bad motives to you at all. I just am striving to have discussions about Obama with his supporters that are based solely on his record, character and activities - without the distraction of imputing an ulterior motive to those who question him. I certainly hope fervently that you are right, and I will be proved wrong about Obama. If you are right, we all win (or at least are better off than the alternative). If I am right, the consequences are almost too scary to imagine. I completely understand your reference to FDR and you are certainly right about how FDR was viewed when he first gained office and that he rose to the task before him. This is not the first time I have heard similar comparisons between Obama and FDR. What keeps me up at night with that comparison is that FDR did not really fully restore faith in the economy or the authority of the presidency until the US joined WWII. And, I recollect now how much FDR agitated for us to join the war long before we actually did. Was that solely because the cause was just - which it undoubtedly was? Or, was it also because the FDR administration was becoming desparate for anything to jolt the economic system? I sincerely don't know. But, I very much worry whether Obama might find a similar solution irresistable because the type of untold misery of WWII certainly isn't worth undergoing in order to reestablish flat screen tvs in every room like a chicken in every pot. And, unlike in the 30's where the population was relatively fit and more regimented - our citizenry isn't morally, physically or psychically equipped for a universal draft and rationing. This is before we even get to the nuclear weapons everyone is armed with today.

So, if the best we can hope for is that Obama turns out to be similar to FDR, I'm not sure whether that's a comfort or not. But, I take your point.

XXXXXX