I thought I had Barack Obama figured out. I thought he was no more liberal than Hillary Clinton but far more likely to bridge the divides in this nation. But, if that’s what I am seeing, why are America’s leftists seeing something entirely different? A day after Obama gets the MoveOn.org arch-liberal seal of approval, there’s this Christopher Hayes piece in The Nation, encouraging the left to rally behind Obama.
As a moderate independent, some of these endorsements bother me, too — more so the MoveOn support than The Nation. Certainly seeing the hard-left swing-in behind a candidate I like gives me pause, in exactly the same way support for a Republican from the hard-right would. (Given the hysteria in the right blogosphere about McCain, though, this seems unlikely to become a problem.)
With the Democratic nomination race down to two candidates, people and organizations affiliated with that party have to either ride one of the remaining horses, or remain in the stands. But if Hillary Clinton wins the nomination for the Democrats, many — perhaps most — of the support behind Obama will shift to her, regardless of where they’re declaring their loyalties now. That’s what partisan politics is all about, after all. Brethren together and all that…
Still — I understand his concern, and although I already wrote my assessment of Obama and the hard-left, these endorsements are not going to serve him well in the general election if he gets there.
More people than Alan Stewart Carl are going to judge him by the company he keeps.
Added: From Steve Benen’s Carpetbagger Report, writing about whether the ‘Obamacans’ are real:
I’d just add one thing, though. I’ve heard some Obama detractors on the left argue, “See? He’s drawing support from the right? Therefore, he must be bad and Dems shouldn’t nominate him.”
This axe swings both ways, folks.
I think you have to look at actual policy positions (not that you hear much about them during a campaign) and frankly, describing either Clinton or Obama as “hard left” seems kind of nuts. Clinton has been an incredibly business-friendly Senator (one of the reasons she’s been successful there) and what’s held up as her big “socialist” idea, health care, is by any leftist terms incredibly timid – it leaves the entire for-profit health insurance apparatus (and the incredibly expensive for-profit bureacracy that comes with it) intact. (I don’t think any of this is necessarily a bad thing; it makes her someone who is pretty in tune with what the public wants.)
Look, the Nation’s going to endorse someone, and it’s obvious tha Clinton and Obama are their choices. Just iike very conserative groups and publications are going to endorse somebody, and it’ll be McCain or Romney – both of whom are conservative, but generally not extremely conservative.
Given that most people don’t even know much about substantive policy positions fo candidates, I doubt that these endorsements are going to mean much to anyone beyond the specific audiences they address.
Obama may seem tough to figure out but not really. He’s a candidate that says nothing, stands for nothing and will do nothing.
Ah roux — How nice to see you haven’t changed in all these many months. You’re nothing if not consistent.