I think those are great points to consider. I also think that the honeymoon process for Obama is over. Now, it's a test of resiliency to some degree.
I disagree pretty strongly with the Nation article. But I do see where one could deduct it as constructive criticism. The good news is that we do have a lot of time to do what we should---remain diligent.
I don't know if you happened to see the 60 Minutes interview Sunday but there are a number of conservatives who told me in confidence that they were impressed with Obama's honesty which is going to be something difficult to attach.
Perhaps by itself, this wouldn't mean too much. But given Hillary's recent comments (or lack of comments about the War in Iraq) it's becoming increasingly clear that Obama's lack of experience might be trumped by one with extensive political influence and experience.
Much has recently been made in the blogosphere about Barack Obama trying to have his cake and eat it too -- "squaring quite a few circles", as the Nation put it.
According to the Nation, a fine example of this behavior is Obama's citation of men like Martin Luther King Jr. and Abraham Lincoln as exemplars of leaders who forged a new national unity.
On the contrary, as many have pointed out, despite their current street cred both Lincoln and King were viewed as highly polarizing during their times.
Allow me to take a slightly different perspective. The importance of Obama citing Lincoln, King, et al. in his announcement speech is not so much the truth of how polarizing they were at the time, but how they're understood today -- by "understood", of course, we're euphemistically talking about a rewriting of history to make it much cleaner and Made-for-TV than it actually was. As the saying goes, 'close enough for government work'.
The point is not that Lincoln and King united the country at their respective times -- the point is that history bore them out as such titanic, morally powerful figures that the only comforting recourse for our nation is to Disney-ify our past and imagine that we must have all been united behind them at the time.
We do this with every period of history - Witness Mel Gibson in The Patriot as the rich plantation owner who just so happens to only employ free blacks.
It's a comfort to think that had we been born then (with our 21st century values and socialization intact, it is unconsciously assumed), surely we would have been on the side of all that's good and right. After all, we're Good People.
My standard for Obama, should he become president, is thus more lenient than the Nation article that Josh approvingly quotes.
He doesn't have to be a uniter today - his "on the one hand, on the other hand" act will be nigh-impossible to successfully keep up should he actually win the presidency and be tasked with governing. But if history is any guide, as long as his leadership is of a high enough caliber, as a nation we'll be moved to collectively re-write him into a uniter after the fact.
Please remember that Campus Progress' terms of use do not allow promoting or endorsing any particular political party or candidate for office. Posts or comments that do this will be deleted.
!
I disagree pretty strongly with the Nation article. But I do see where one could deduct it as constructive criticism. The good news is that we do have a lot of time to do what we should---remain diligent.
I don't know if you happened to see the 60 Minutes interview Sunday but there are a number of conservatives who told me in confidence that they were impressed with Obama's honesty which is going to be something difficult to attach.
Perhaps by itself, this wouldn't mean too much. But given Hillary's recent comments (or lack of comments about the War in Iraq) it's becoming increasingly clear that Obama's lack of experience might be trumped by one with extensive political influence and experience.