Selling Out vs. Selling Success

In the brilliant 1998 film Bulworth, Warren Beatty's character Senator Jay Bulworth begins to do something politicians rarely do: tell the truth 100% of the time. Bulworth's first appearance in which he tells the truth occurs at a black church in LA.

Angry black woman: Are you sayin' the Democratic Party don't care about the African-American community?

Bullworth: Isn't that OBVIOUS? You got half your kids are out of work and the other half are in jail. Do you see ANY Democrat doing anything about it? Certainly not me! So what're you gonna do, vote Republican? Come on! Come on, you're not gonna vote Republican! Let's call a spade a spade!
[Loud, angry booing]

To a much lesser degree (and in a more politically correct way!), Barack Obama is starting to tell the truth. Only, he is now telling the truth Democrats don't want to hear; namely, he is telling them that, in order to win, he is going to do things they don't want him to do. Some purist Democrats are crying foul and threatening to stay home or vote for his opponent. But, like Bulworth before him, Obama knows this is hogwash.

Take, for example, the letter's page in today's New York Times. Among a group of angry letters concerning Obama's recent tack to the center (or right?), two stick out:

Re "New and Not Improved" (editorial, July 4):

There is something very important that Barack Obama and his advisers need to understand. Senator Obama could lose the election this fall if he squanders the support of people like us, who have high hopes for him and send modest and frequent donations to his campaign.

We realize that in today’s world, we may never see a real "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington"-type candidate. But if the choice in November is between two different takes on same old, same old, there is a strong possibility that we may just not vote.

Mel Minthorn
Gail Minthorn

or this one......

To the Editor:

Your excellent editorial was not strong enough. Barack Obama is in a process of betraying those who voted for him in the primary.

The Democrats have no one in leadership who genuinely leans to the left. Mr. Obama has been a little left of center on some issues, thus making him the only candidate that a good leftist could even consider.

We believed him when he talked about change. But he is showing himself not to be a man of integrity, but an opportunist, like the rest. Too bad. Hope springs eternal — but not in 2008.

Andrew P. Connolly

Somewhere, Bulworth is laughing. I don't know the Minthorns, obviously. But if I had to use their letter as a clue, I would guess they are a middle-to-upper class white family from suburban Connecticut. They, like others in their class, are probably pretty well educated and were proud Obama voters on Super Tuesday. As they said, they have made frequent donations to his campaign - a fact that is perhaps most important of all. The Minthorns are Obama's base; small donors who give often. If the Minthorns have been as invested in the Obama campaign for this long as they seem to be, there is no way they are jumping ship now. And come election day, I'd be willing to bet the Minthorns cast their ballots for the Democrat regardless of what happens with FISA.

Or take Mr. Connolly. Again, I don't know him personally but I'd be willing to guess he is younger (perhaps mid-20s). The key here is his use of the word "we," for my generation (and his) tends to view Obama through the prism of ownership - Barack Obama belongs to us as Eugene McCarthy and Bobby Kennedy belonged to you. He is let down by Obama, for sure. But, like the Minthorns, will he stay home? Probably not.

But perhaps the most important letter amongst the group is the one written by Karen Pettengill of Greenfield, MA. It reads:

To the Editor:

I’m getting very frustrated with the media response to Barack Obama. I don’t agree with him on everything, not by a long shot. He’s not changing his stripes. He’s just saying what he’s said all along.

He is not an extreme liberal, but a moderate liberal, and always has been.

I disagree with his position on gay marriage, the border fence, the death penalty, gun control and his vote on the FISA bill.

I still support him enthusiastically because he is far and away the most intelligent, reasonable, far-seeing candidate we have had in a long time.

Yes, the ultraprogressive blogs are hammering him now — and believe me, I’ve let them know how I feel, too. But opinions on individual policies are one thing. Condemning him for straight talk is another.

He has not changed: the stars in your eyes have dimmed enough to see his real views.

Judging by the issues she cares about (gay marriage, the border fence, gun control), Karen is a reliable, liberal Democratic voter. She is not the elusive, middle-class white woman living in the Midwest that Obama so desperately seeks. But she is a liberal from Massachusetts who has come to terms with the nature of Obama's post-primary campaign. She and her candidate disagree on some pretty big issues but, nevertheless, she can see through all that and recognize his beauty as a candidate.

The move to the center is as old as the Earth itself. Seeing as how Obama is looking to link himself to JFK by delivering his nomination speech outdoors, it is perhaps fair to look at JFK himself. In 1957, as he geared up for the 1960 campaign, Kennedy outraged the progressive wing of the party by taking the low road on the Civil Rights Act of 1957.

Anger towards JFK sprung from his support of the infamous "jury trial amendment" to the law. This provision ensured that juries were used in civil rights cases despite the fact that juries would be comprised of mostly white people. According to one biography, Kennedy was torn between ambition and the right course.

"Southern governors wired Kennedy urgent requests to voter for the amendment; one of them added, unsubtly, 'Still hearing good things about you and your future.' All factions were watching the Senator with a steely eye."

Kennedy eventually backed the compromise legislation of the bill but had been able to appease both the southern wing of the party with his support of the jury trial amendment and come out on top by voting for the compromise bill that opened the door for later civil rights legislation.

Like JFK before him, Obama currently faces a tough legislative situation admist a presidential campaign. This dilemma should serve as ample evidence why no sitting US Senator has been elected President since you know who in 1960.

The reason for Obama's position on FISA is pretty simple: Democrats are perpetually viewed as weak on national security. John McCain, despite our thoughts, is viewed as strong on national security. The right position for him to take on this blog may be the wrong position for him to take in certain sections of this country where the word "terrorist threat" is a coversation ender, not a conversation starter. He can oppose the immunity and end up supporting the bill. He can do the appeasing and still come out on top. Sound familiar?

Bob Herbert, Times columnist, wrote today:

Only an idiot would think or hope that a politician going through the crucible of a presidential campaign could hold fast to every position, steer clear of the stumbling blocks of nuance and never make a mistake. But Barack Obama went out of his way to create the impression that he was a new kind of political leader — more honest, less cynical and less relentlessly calculating than most.

There comes a time when any student of politics must realize that no one is perfect. Does Obama's position on FISA make his story less inspirational? Does his position on Supreme Court ruilings make you forget the incredible feeling you felt when you first heard his speech in 2004? Does the fact that he is giving serious thought to the Iraq quagmire make you forget how lucky the US would be to have a president willing to ask himself and our generals the tough questions needed to solve that disaster and prevent our exit from being a tragedy? If so, then you can forgive him for his tactical, not ideological, shift.

It is in this time we must remember that momentary lapses of character cannot define a leader. FDR interned the Japanese. RFK wiretapped MLK. Lincoln, sadly, was not always an abolitionist. No human, political or otherwise, is perfect all the time.

Accept Barack Obama for who he is: a man trying to become the President of the United States. Call a spade a spade.