See U in Unity and Other Thoughts on the General To Date

Wish I could make it up to little Unity NH tomorrow for the Hill-Bama love fest but couldn’t get my ticket for the “corny express” in time so will have to watch the highlight reels.  Anyone going?  

That said, doesn’t unity feel good.  And what a coincidence that in this aptly named battleground-state town, Hillary and Obama each got 107 votes.  How swell that is.  I mean just think where they’d hold the event if they hadn’t tied there.  But of course nothing in life comes free, especially not unity (kind of like weddings).  In this case, there is a $10 million buck price tag attached in the form of a little lady’s campaign credit card bills.  But, Obama figures he opted out of the public finance system so what’s some spare change from his minions to help out a former and once-again friend.  I mean of course the debt was generated raising doubts about his values and experience and providing sound bites for the GOP well after the nomination fight was effectively over – but who cares at this point, we’re all friends now.  

I for one though can’t see coughing up some of my limited campaign cash to pay off Hill’s debt – but I imagine all her most fervent supporters here at BMG are opening up their wallets right now.  But wait, maybe you don’t have to.  I figure Bill C. could clear that expense in about 10 days – 10 speeches a day for as many days to as many shoddy special interests as he can find.  Seems he’s had no problem doing that in the recent past.

But beyond unity, other interesting developments are worth noting about the general so far.  For one, the right-wing has finally divined that Obama really wants to win this thing – and they are attacking him for it…not for his policy positions…but for wanting to win.  Watching Lindsey Graham on the sadly Russertless (and rudderless) “Meet the Press” this Sunday was comical.  Graham kept saying Obama cares only about winning, which if anything makes Obama sound like a winner for one and two, that is exactly what people expect a politician to do, even one who proclaims to want to change our politics.  A politician who does what it takes to win is not exactly a unique phenomenom.  The GOP has found a very lame argument that won’t stick.

Just as lame as the “The Two Obamas” crap coming from David Brooks and Co.  Before, they pilloried Obama as just a smooth-talking, strange-named elitist.  But now, since he bailed out of the finance pledge, he still has the funny name but is also a ruthless, calculating Chicago machine-pol who will do anything and say anything to win.  I figure the fact that the right can’t settle on a way to attack this guy means they haven’t figured out what works.  They’ll keep casting for a bite but Obama is a slippery target and clearly won’t be easily pegged.  

I just cannot see them getting any mileage out of finance reform jag.  Name a major candidate who has.  McCain won the GOP nomination despite his advocacy for reform not because of it.  Campaign finance reform rates somewhere below high-speed rail on the list of public priorities.  The public already expects pols to raise tons of money from sketchy sources.  Calling out Obama on this is no more effective than crying wolf.  The public has heard it and accepts it as the way it is.  Sad but true.  And McCain’s own ins-outs with the finance system during the primaries, where he opted in to secure a loan, but then never used public money because he became the frontrunner, are a perfect riposte.

Of course Obama is calculating.  He does want to win.  He has tacked to the center since the primaries wrapped up – on Israel/Iran, on FISA, in doing what Dukakis didn’t on the death penalty (in response to the Supreme Court 5-4 ruling against the death penalty for child rapists).  He’s pissed off us progressives to protect his right flank and take potential controversies off the table.  Nothing new here though.

The great politicians have all married the ability to inspire with an aptitude to go for the political jugular and recognize the wider public mood.  When you read books about FDR and Lincoln you see how they negotiated their way through the diverse constituencies that made up their coalitions, often pissing off one wing or the other depending on the issue, changing their minds about direction and leaving the impression with warring factions that they were one of them, all the while maintaining wiggle room to shift tact.  Obama has been railed against as too willing to compromise by some on the left and as too lefty by moderates.  That tells me he must be doing something right.

And here are examples from history to make the point:  Lincoln abhorred slavery and sympathized with the abolitionist wing of his young Republican Party.  And yet when early in the war his flamboyant Western General Charles Fremont ordered slaves in Missouri emancipated by military dictat, Lincoln countermanded the decree because it would have pushed Kentucky and other border states into confederate hands and hurt the war effort.  He took huge flack within his own cabinet and across the North, but he kept Kentucky in the Union and this helped ensure Union control in the West.  Hard call that.  But then when Lincoln enacted his own Emancipation Proclamation he was criticized for it by more conservative pols and former supporters in the Northern Democratic Party.

FDR was pulled in many directions by factions in his Administration as well – particularly between big government planners and small government tinkerers.  The early New Deal was focused on trying to craft a fully planned economy.  When that failed, FDR junked it and fell in with the Brandeisian/Wilsonian-wing of the party who believed competition and fiscal stimulus – not govt control – was the answer.  FDR adopted too very different positions all within his first term.

I guess to wrap this whole rant up.  Unity is a good thing but it don’t come cheap.  Obama has to pay that debt to Hillary to ensure it, while also doing things that give him an advantage in the race as a whole, like bailing out of the public finance system.  He needs to expand our Party and keep in Hillary supporters but also appeal to independents who may not share our progressive views on a host of issues.  A bigger tent will no doubt be more unruly and means finding common ground from across a wider territory.  

But we need it and Obama is going for it.  He’s running a 50-state campaign, where he will play in States he won’t win so he can help down ballot candidates with organization and turnout.  Why?  Because he doesn’t just want to win himself, he wants a robust and lasting Democratic majority to address the big challenges we face – the three he has identified:  a new direction in Iraq and the war(s); a new energy policy to address climate change and dependence; and universal health care.  That is the prize he is shooting for and I’m willing to give the guy some rope to win this thing.  If we/he can achieve something on those big issues -it will have been well worth tolerating the campaign calculations Obama is making now.  Unity feels good but victory will feel even better.

Please share widely!

0

0