Is Obama's Cynicism Enough?

The New Republic: A Different Kind Of Politician, The Senator Must Be More Ruthless To Succeed

(The New Republic)  This column was written by Noam Scheiber.

---

Barack Obama doesn't express anger like the rest of us. He becomes cold and distant, rather than hot and strident. He over-enunciates and clips the final word of each sentence. Such was his posture on April 29, when Obama held a press conference to denounce the latest rantings of his ex-pastor, Jeremiah Wright. To the reporters who follow him from stop to stop, Obama was "seething" and "clearly upset." But, to the folks watching at home, Obama may as well have been leading a seminar on contract arbitration. A mere 30 percent of voters thought Obama was genuinely outraged, according to one poll. Fifty-eight percent said he'd denounced Wright out of political calculation.

The irony, of course, is that the reason Obama found himself in this mess was that he hadn't been calculating enough. Had he repudiated Wright back in March, when the reverend first entered the public consciousness, it hardly would have mattered what manner of deranged musing Wright later conjured up. But Obama had refused to cut the cord, and Wright wrapped it around his windpipe. On "Meet the Press" that Sunday, Obama sounded like a man who'd endured a million "I told you so"s. "It's always good to pull the Band-Aid off quick," he conceded when asked what he'd learned.

After eight years of the Clintons and eight more of Karl Rove, there's no doubt Obama's queasiness on matters of political expediency holds a certain appeal. "The politically correct, in quotes, thing to do would be to throw the guy off the boat the first chance you had," says one Obama confidant. "No one doubts Hillary Clinton would have done that." He did not mean this as a compliment. On the other hand, there's clearly some amount of cynicism, calculation, and ruthlessness that's required of any successful candidate. Which makes it worth asking: How much of these qualities does Barack Obama possess - and is it enough?

In the Clinton campaign's telling, Obama is hardly the Bambi-like figure his supporters imagine. To the Clintonites, the only thing more galling than Team Obama's portrayal of Hillary as someone who will "say anything to get elected" is the rank hypocrisy of the exercise. On practically every conference call they host, Clinton communications director Howard Wolfson and his deputy, Phil Singer, marvel at the chutzpah of someone purporting to change politics while running such and such an ad or sending out such and such a mailer. That they say this in practically the same breath that they bash Obama as an out-of-touch elitist doesn't make it untrue.

Privately, even loyalists concede Obama is more than willing to be ruthless. They often do so with a tinge of pride and satisfaction. "Just ask that lady he bumped off the ballot," says one campaign official when I bring up Obama's alleged softness. "That lady" would be former Illinois state senator Alice Palmer. In 1995, Palmer decided to run for an open congressional seat and all but proclaimed Obama her heir apparent. But, after losing the primary, Palmer wanted to stick with her old job. Obama wouldn't budge. For good measure, he challenged the petitions she'd filed to run for reelection, alleging that many of her signatures were flawed. Palmer withdrew, and Obama eventually waltzed into office unopposed.

It wasn't an anomaly. While running for U.S. Senate eight years later, Obama's campaign prepared another hard-nosed challenge - this time against a woman named Joyce Washington. The Obama camp worried that Washington, an African American who had mounted a strong primary campaign for lieutenant governor two years earlier, would threaten his chances in a seven-candidate field. The campaign spent dozens of man-hours scrutinizing Washington's signatures before eventually deciding that the risks outweighed the benefits. "We figured he might take heat because he did it once before," recalls an aide involved. (The campaign denies that this happened.)

And yet, as ruthless as Obama has been at times, there are lines he's refused to cross. Back in 2003, Obama's pollster Paul Harstad discerned that running as "Barack" rather than "Barry" - the candidate's childhood name - could cost Obama precious votes. "There was a poll," recalls Harstad. "We were trying to figure out how much resistance there was to the name 'Barack Obama.' And there was some resistance." Harstad told Obama he could get away with one weird name, but two would be a stretch. "I very distinctly remember him saying on that call: 'I'm Barack Obama. I may have been raised Barry Obama, but I'm Barack Obama.' ... He wouldn't think of changing it."

Obama has tended to shun similar stunts when they relate to race. The run-up to South Carolina was rife with talk that post-racial Obama was morphing into a decidedly pre-post-racial candidate. To reverse the slide, blogger Mickey Kaus suggested he give a speech embracing class- rather than race-based affirmative action, something Obama had flirted with in the past. Kaus had a point: The atmospherics would have been irresistible to ambivalent whites. I pushed a milder form of the idea on my own blog. Not long after, I got a response from an Obama adviser: Never gonna happen. Urging Sister Souljah politicking on him was the surest way to provoke a scowl.

The affirmative-action-speech-that-wasn't points to a broader m.o.: The more a gesture looks like a direct response to political circumstances, the less keen Obama is. Take the recent gas-tax debate. It's not that Obama would never contemplate pandering, even on an issue economists regard as bogus. In 2000, he voted for a similar measure in the Illinois state Senate. It's the particular form of pander that so overtly responds to a throbbing political need--courting working-class voters in North Carolina and Indiana, in this case--that he resists. Pete Giangreco, a senior Obama strategist, recalls a similar situation last summer. At the time, Obama had stalled out in the polls, and a number of candidates were outflanking him on the war. Major donors and Iowa supporters were pressing him to call for an immediate and complete withdrawal. Some aides wondered where Obama's votes would come from if he stuck to his more cautious position. "There was definitely a conversation - maybe we should do this, roll the dice, be more aggressive," recalls Giangreco. "But it got shut down" by Obama.

For Obama, these decisions typically boil down to three considerations. First, such pandering genuinely offends his sensibilities. Obama was pretty much untempted amid all the prodding on the war, says Giangreco. "It constantly came up. He was simply not going to change his position." The second, related consideration is that Obama believes this sort of crassness is simply unnecessary for someone of his rhetorical gifts. He has a serene confidence that he can win over people on both sides of an issue, whereas a lesser pol must slavishly follow majority opinion. "He is so good at having it both ways, so damn good," says one former aide. "It's standard Barack procedure."

Finally, there's the matter of the meta-narrative Obama has constructed. Simply put, it's hard to sell yourself as a non-politician while behaving in obviously political ways. "He has gone out of his way to communicate that he is going about this differently," says Mike Feldman, a former aide to Al Gore. "I'm sure there are times when he has to alter his tactics to be consistent with that promise." This can sound more cynical than it is. Deciding to market yourself as a "different kind of politician" imposes real constraints. No one would voluntarily accept those constraints unless they were comfortable abiding by them.

The logic of all three considerations plainly converged during the Wright fiasco. Back in March, breaking with Wright struck Obama as a cheap political move, even if, in retrospect, it was the prudent course. "[L]ife's messy sometimes, and ... things don't proceed in textbook Political 101 fashion," he reflected to Tim Russert. In any case, Obama figured he could solve the problem with his trademark speechifying. "That speech had it both ways: Keep Wright, make everybody happy," says the former aide. But, even if he'd opted for the high-percentage play, it wouldn't necessarily have worked. The fact that unloading on Wright was a political no-brainer made it risky for the guy who transcends politics.

Few will fault Obama's instincts after his May 6 triumph. The college-educated voters Wright did his best to scare off came home to Obama in the end. Still, it's hard not to feel as though the whole Obama project is an absurdly delicate ecosystem, in which a slight shift in the mix of politics and principle could lead to mass extinction. Given the disinformation campaign the GOP is surely plotting, there may be times this fall when a cheap stunt is exactly what the moment demands.

[alee25]

Obama is a shrewd politician who honed his skills in Chicago, the capital of dirty politics. As can be seen from the article, the only things that Obama seems to stand firm on is his race and everything related to it. He knows he needs his racial identity to win the democratic nomination. There is much that is not known about Obama''s connections to Rezko/Auchi and Ayers/Dohrn that the MSM has not even come close to get to the bottom of.
The whole Obama ship will sink before November, like the Titanic - thanks to the media and the liberals.

[noloyalisti]

Remember that Obama is a half-white moderate. He just happens to have more brains that the entire GOP put together. I am tired of idiots who blast the liberals who were our founding fathers. What part of America do they hate, maybe our freedom?!.

Just because the republicans want a fascist leader who tells them what to think and what to do, doesn''t mean they should subject the rest of us to their nightmare.

Knucklehead alee25 must be watching Fox Views and listening to the radical right wing mainstained media.

So according to this article, Obama panders but not too much, speechifies to have it both ways AND transcends politics but only for appearance. Any hugely successful leader can be charactered this way.

This is the worst kind of cynicism that leaves not room for good deeds done for their own merits.

[crewmember1]

Yes, let us not loose sight we are talking about a politician - we need the hustler, we just want them hustling for our causes. Nonetheless, its the nature of the best. I thought it was a beautiful finesse announcing Edwards'' break to Obama at news hour yesterday within an hour''s notice, when Clinton had lined up 2 or 3 interviews to talk about her victory. Effective and classy. Makes me smile.

[sharncedar]

The president has very little constitutional power actually - other than the "new" power asserted by Bush and Clinton of starting arbitrary wars. That''s why Bush is traveling around now, he really doesn''t have anything to do. He started his war, and then he really has had almost nothing else to do in the last 7 years.

Obama isn''t going to save anybody, lucky for us he will also have little real power.

[karela33]

The author of this peace surely has enough cynicism to be president of any junkyard in the country. I have seen Obama use strategy, but I haven''t seen any meanness. By your premise, he''s too nice. And if he''s not too nice then he''s no good. The old darned if you do and darned if you don''t. Maybe what we could really use is a president who values integrity. One who knows and values himself and is therefore capable of valuing others. One who thinks honesty is something that''s important. I wouldn''t trust the author of this peace to feed my cat let alone run my country.

[dmgenet]

And so the BS starts. Pseudo-psychology and pure dog & pony show from the right wing nuts of politics. Can he lead, Can he make critical decisions, does he include ideas from all sides and can he speak intelligently? Bush, from what we can tell, did none of these.

[o_nolan1]

Taking the high road has left Barack vulnerable to opponents who wait patiently in the wings for him to make a fumble. He is being judged differently than the other candidates. Barack needs to abandon this perception before the campaign with McCain begins. Obama has been able to take this approach because of his political inexperience nationally but this will soon run thin when things heat up heading towards November. Barack can play the game and still stick to the principles that everyone admires about him.

[paris1969]

his May 6th triump was a win in a predominately black-democrat state ... what about his 4-1 loss in West Virginia? I guess the New Republic doesn''t know about WV ... also, his personality is similar to many people who are addicted to cigarettes.

[ranger1948]

The faster obama''s ship sinks th better. This country has enough problems now without him.

[oldone60]

From the level of leftist shrieks on these boards it appears they are starting to realize how deeply flawed is the candidate with whom they stuck themselves.

Obama is a hard-left/socialist with a racist, America-hating whack-a-mole as a - now former - (really??) mentor and a set of unrepentant former terrorists as friends.

Barack Obama - Hamas wants him as President.

[irliberal]

GO OBAMA! GO HILLARY! WOOHOO!!!! May the best democrat win! :)

[agog2]

Barack Obama Lovers
You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time. By Abraham Lincoln. Barack Obama is trying to fool all of the people all of the time. However in November Mr. Obama will find out he%u2019s not fooling all of the people. He will never be elected President.

[sparks224]

agog2,
You voted for W.
I don''''t think anyone cares about your opinion.

[agog2]

sparks224

I don''t think they do in the hood eather...

[truthyness]

I''''m sure White Male Sexist love Obama right now.

Maybe Uncle Tom...er, Barack, will bend over for them too.

[paigeinpa]

his May 6th triump was a win in a predominately black-democrat state ... what about his 4-1 loss in West Virginia?-
Posted by paris1969

What about Obama''s TRIUMPH in Utah, Colorado, Kansas...ect?? loads of black people in those places..and WV?..who the heck cares at this point..although there are some folks in WV that have plenty of sense...many just don''t...backwards,backwards, backwards.

Obama/Webb 08

[andylance1]

Is this opinion piece written by Noam Scheiber or Noam Chomsky? Is Obama Cynical Enough or is Obama Ruthless enough?

All he offers is an empty platitude of change. Nobody knows what he is or who he is, is he Barry or Barack?

Many people also worry about his patriotism? Is he an appeaser or a Quizling?

[mar9465]

I am abhored at how racist this country is. I thought we were better than that. I
am white and 73 years old and a supporter!

[ranger1948]

mar9465
It is not racist to not support a candidate you do not trust. There have been too many unanswered questions about oboma and his past and even present associations. This is an important decision to elect a president and we cannot afford another mistake.

[truthyness]

Howard Dean is doing everything he can to get Obama in the White House. One would think his
job depended on it. (snicker)

[truthyness]

Howard Dean is doing everything he can to get Obama in the White House. One would think his
job depended on it. (snicker)

[truthyness]

Hillary is gaining momentum and Obama is losing his.

Do you really think the Super Delegates will send a candidate to the National Election who is losing
momentum???

[mbcsmith]

Howard Dean is doing everything he can to get Obama in the White House. One would think his
job depended on it. (snicker)



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by truthyness at 07:06 AM : May 16, 2008


EEEEEEEYYYAAAAAAAHHH. How can you not believe the a$$hole.

[mbcsmith]

I am abhored at how racist this country is. I thought we were better than that. I
am white and 73 years old and a supporter!



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by mar9465 at 03:12 AM : May 16, 2008


Racist? If you were black, 90% of your brothers would vote with you. Not for any racist reasons, of course.

[mbcsmith]

Obama ruthless? He wants the president of the United States to unconditionally meet with the leader of a state sponsor of terrorism, who kills our troops and is building a nuclear program in defiance of the world. That''s just stupid.

[rjudy3]

Is''nt it a shame the way the media is kissiing Obama''s ***? Obama shows his inexperiance everyday in everyway. The man IS a PHONY. I see now what his strategy is for the fall. Get out the white-guilt vote. Make a vote for McCain a vote for racist. Him and his ignorant wife will play on this til Nov 3.
Im still going to write-in Hillary. Democrats lose another presidential election because of the take-over fom the far-left of our party. Republicans will eat Obama''s lunch, watch and see.

[guysdigdirt]

Any person who,
-as senator votes against making English the official language og the U.S.,
-Refuses to wear the american flag as a pin,
-refuses to put his hand on his heart during the national anthem and
-dedicates his book to a hate mongering religious mentor who he has followed for 20 years.

Should not be even a senator, let alone be able to run for President of the United States.

[balto_babs]

mbcsmith -
You''re are just stupid. Obama NEVER said he would "unconditionally" meet with the leaders of Iran. You''ve been listening way too much Rush Limbaugh et al. We have learned in Iraq that we cannot force other countries or cultures into agreeing with our views. Obama agrees with Robert Gates (Bush''s Secretary of State that negoiation is the only way to a lasting peace).

[dmgenet]

"What is it with CBS and these ''''New Republic'''' articles? How about some balance and print something from the Huffington Post once in awhile....

Posted by Terikrause at 08:52 AM : May 16, 2008"

One way I like to think about it, is it is nice to see what the radicals are thinking this week. If our politicians had all taken Mein Kampf (Hitler''s blueprint) more seriously we might have avoided a bloody conflict in Europe.

Listen to and read all sides. That is another way to keep your enemies close to you.

[jcmtyler]

Hillary is gaining momentum and Obama is losing his.

Do you really think the Super Delegates will send a candidate to the National Election who is losing
momentum???

Posted by truthyness at 07:53 AM : May 16, 2008
------------------------

How exactly do you define momentum? Are you just looking at election returns from the last week or could you maybe consider something a bit longer term, like say the entire primary race? The last time I checked, a President''s term in office lasts 4 years, so do you really believe that post should be held by somebody who is currently benefitting from a perceived momentum shift? And what happens if Obama wins Oregon, does that swing things back in his direction? Based on your argument we should just elect whoever wins the last primary.

I think the superdelegates will vote their conscience. For those that are themselves elected, whether that''s driven by the popular vote totals of their constituency or not is entirely up to them and the role they feel a politician should play (e.g. a representative or a leader). For the superdelegates who are not elected, which is actually a sizeable number, it''s anybody''s ballgame.

Regards,

jcmtyler

[jcmtyler]

Hillary is gaining momentum and Obama is losing his.

Do you really think the Super Delegates will send a candidate to the National Election who is losing
momentum???

Posted by truthyness at 07:53 AM : May 16, 2008
------------------------

How exactly do you define momentum? Are you just looking at election returns from the last week or could you maybe consider something a bit longer term, like say the entire primary race? The last time I checked, a President''s term in office lasts 4 years, so do you really believe that post should be held by somebody who is currently benefitting from a perceived momentum shift? And what happens if Obama wins Oregon, does that swing things back in his direction? Based on your argument we should just elect whoever wins the last primary.

I think the superdelegates will vote their conscience. For those that are themselves elected, whether that''s driven by the popular vote totals of their constituency or not is entirely up to them and the role they feel a politician should play (e.g. a representative or a leader). For the superdelegates who are not elected, which is actually a sizeable number, it''s anybody''s ballgame.

Regards,

jcmtyler

[jcmtyler]

Hillary is gaining momentum and Obama is losing his.

Do you really think the Super Delegates will send a candidate to the National Election who is losing
momentum???

Posted by truthyness at 07:53 AM : May 16, 2008
------------------------

How exactly do you define momentum? Are you just looking at election returns from the last week or could you maybe consider something a bit longer term, like say the entire primary race? The last time I checked, a President''s term in office lasts 4 years, so do you really believe that post should be held by somebody who is currently benefitting from a perceived momentum shift? And what happens if Obama wins Oregon, does that swing things back in his direction? Based on your argument we should just elect whoever wins the last primary.

I think the superdelegates will vote their conscience. For those that are themselves elected, whether that''s driven by the popular vote totals of their constituency or not is entirely up to them and the role they feel a politician should play (e.g. a representative or a leader). For the superdelegates who are not elected, which is actually a sizeable number, it''s anybody''s ballgame.

Regards,

jcmtyler

[jcmtyler]

Hillary is gaining momentum and Obama is losing his.

Do you really think the Super Delegates will send a candidate to the National Election who is losing
momentum???

Posted by truthyness at 07:53 AM : May 16, 2008
------------------------

How exactly do you define momentum? Are you just looking at election returns from the last week or could you maybe consider something a bit longer term, like say the entire primary race? The last time I checked, a President''s term in office lasts 4 years, so do you really believe that post should be held by somebody who is currently benefitting from a perceived momentum shift? And what happens if Obama wins Oregon, does that swing things back in his direction? Based on your argument we should just elect whoever wins the last primary.

I think the superdelegates will vote their conscience. For those that are themselves elected, whether that''s driven by the popular vote totals of their constituency or not is entirely up to them and the role they feel a politician should play (e.g. a representative or a leader). For the superdelegates who are not elected, which is actually a sizeable number, it''s anybody''s ballgame.

Regards,

jcmtyler

[jcmtyler]

Hillary is gaining momentum and Obama is losing his.

Do you really think the Super Delegates will send a candidate to the National Election who is losing
momentum???

Posted by truthyness at 07:53 AM : May 16, 2008
------------------------

How exactly do you define momentum? Are you just looking at election returns from the last week or could you maybe consider something a bit longer term, like say the entire primary race? The last time I checked, a President''s term in office lasts 4 years, so do you really believe that post should be held by somebody who is currently benefitting from a perceived momentum shift? And what happens if Obama wins Oregon, does that swing things back in his direction? Based on your argument we should just elect whoever wins the last primary.

I think the superdelegates will vote their conscience. For those that are themselves elected, whether that''s driven by the popular vote totals of their constituency or not is entirely up to them and the role they feel a politician should play (e.g. a representative or a leader). For the superdelegates who are not elected, which is actually a sizeable number, it''s anybody''s ballgame.

Regards,

jcmtyler

[jcmtyler]

Hillary is gaining momentum and Obama is losing his.

Do you really think the Super Delegates will send a candidate to the National Election who is losing
momentum???

Posted by truthyness at 07:53 AM : May 16, 2008
------------------------

How exactly do you define momentum? Are you just looking at election returns from the last week or could you maybe consider something a bit longer term, like say the entire primary race? The last time I checked, a President''s term in office lasts 4 years, so do you really believe that post should be held by somebody who is currently benefitting from a perceived momentum shift? And what happens if Obama wins Oregon, does that swing things back in his direction? Based on your argument we should just elect whoever wins the last primary.

I think the superdelegates will vote their conscience. For those that are themselves elected, whether that''s driven by the popular vote totals of their constituency or not is entirely up to them and the role they feel a politician should play (e.g. a representative or a leader). For the superdelegates who are not elected, which is actually a sizeable number, it''s anybody''s ballgame.

Regards,

jcmtyler

[jcmtyler]

Sheesh, sorry about the multiple posts. I hit Publish and got "the publish button has been disabled ...", but no other indication that my comment was actually published, so I hit the button again, got the same message, and so on...

Regretfully,

jcmtyler

[jcmtyler]

All he offers is an empty platitude of change. Nobody knows what he is or who he is, is he Barry or Barack?

Many people also worry about his patriotism? Is he an appeaser or a Quizling?

Posted by andylance1 at 02:58 AM : May 16, 2008
------------------------

Have you ever visited his website or read either of his books? Have you ever watched any interviews with him to see how he responds to direct questions as opposed to reading a prepared speech? If you did any of that with even a remotely open mind, then I think you would be able to answer all of your questions about who or what he is.

Is he Barry or Barack? He went by Barry when he was a kid because he felt embarrased by the way people reacted to his name. As he got older and more confident he was able to revert to his given name (Barack). His full name is Barack Hussein Obama, and he generally goes by simply: Barack Obama.

Many people also worry about his patriotism? What exactly are you worried about, that he will be a poor representative of the USA? Do you think Bush has been good? Are you worried that Obama will do something while in office that is bad for this country? Again I could point to many things that Bush has done, but you also should remember that there are a number of ways that a harmful president can be kept in check, including congressional overrides of a President''s veto and approval of a President''s judicial appointments, and of course impeachment.

Regards,

jcmtyler

[truthyness]

I can prove that the Republicans are making fools out of the Blacks.

The stuff that Obama admitted to in the two books he

wrote is enough to lose him the election. But has

anyone heard anything about either of these writings

by a major National Television Station????

NO! Because they are setting on it until Hillary is

out of the picture and Obama will lose the Presidency

by the largest margine yet. And anyone who can''t

see that and continues to believe otherwise after

reading those two books is being FOOLISH!!!!

[truthyness]

I can prove that the Republicans are making fools out of the Blacks.

The stuff that Obama admitted to in the two books he

wrote is enough to lose him the election. But has

anyone heard anything about either of these writings

by a major National Television Station????

NO! Because they are setting on it until Hillary is

out of the picture and Obama will lose the Presidency

by the largest margine yet. And anyone who can''t

see that and continues to believe otherwise after

reading those two books is being FOOLISH!!!!

[truthyness]

I can prove that the Republicans are making fools out of the Blacks.

The stuff that Obama admitted to in the two books he

wrote is enough to lose him the election. But has

anyone heard anything about either of these writings

by a major National Television Station????

NO! Because they are setting on it until Hillary is

out of the picture and Obama will lose the Presidency

by the largest margine yet. And anyone who can''t

see that and continues to believe otherwise after

reading those two books is being FOOLISH!!!!

[truthyness]

I can prove that the Republicans are making fools out of the Blacks.

The stuff that Obama admitted to in the two books he

wrote is enough to lose him the election. But has

anyone heard anything about either of these writings

by a major National Television Station????

NO! Because they are setting on it until Hillary is

out of the picture and Obama will lose the Presidency

by the largest margine yet. And anyone who can''t

see that and continues to believe otherwise after

reading those two books is being FOOLISH!!!!