Race, Patriotism, and Obama

Dan Larison presents an analysis, inspired in part by a thoughtful bloggingheads piece, on the racial issues implicated by Obama's church, pastor and speech.

Meanwhile, middle- and working-class white (and probably other) audiences heard this, remembered the anti-racist catechisms they had been taught for as long as they could remember and understood that the proper, approved reaction was to shake their heads and boo. McWhorter makes a similar observation. Now that anti-racism has captured the minds of so many of these people, now that the conditioning has had its intended effect, observers sympathetic to Obama are dismayed that Obama’s nuanced effort to explain (or, as the critics have it, explain away) racially-charged and potentially racialist rhetoric fell on deaf ears. Yet this shouldn’t surprise anyone–if the speech fell on deaf ears, it was the elites who deafened them years before with a single, simple imperative: “Don’t pay attention to race, except when we tell you to!”

I believe Larison misses the mark here, not so much because there aren't "elites" of the type he mentions, but because those "elites" don't have the ear of the "middle- and working-class white (and probably other) audiences" he describes. If it did, those audiences would have voted down anti-gay marriage, anti-domestic partnership ballot initiatives. They would have rejected ballot initiatives ending affirmative action. Etc. That audience is responding to other factors, discussed in the bloggingheads piece, not the least of which are their own concerns about job security and the future, and their own experiences with the effects of poverty.

Larison is correct that society has largely learned that it is not acceptable to make public, racist announcements, and that the response that our popular culture now dictates is to boo. He's even correct that this culture change has been a top-down phenomenon, driven by "elites" of various types. But I think that he's overlooking the fundamental reason why Rev. Wright's statements resonate in a bad way - and this is discussed in the bloggingheads piece - it's because people are not willing to accept blame for historic wrongs, nor are they willing to absorb a penalty (real or perceived) to correct those wrongs when they see similar problems within their own communities for which no similar remedy is offered.

Obama could address these issues in a post-racial way, and maybe he still will. If you were to ask them what causes patterns of poverty and crime within their communities, may may demonstrate and external locus of responsibility (i.e., "blame others") similar to that of Rev. Wright. But few are going to go into a diatribe about how they're being held back by their race, or by affirmative action, and even that group (perhaps especially that group) is not receptive to the notion that there is something special about race that necessitates race-based remedies to social ills.

What is perhaps more interesting is that the willing tools of the Republican attack machine aren't focusing on race. They're focusing on patriotism. This isn't a first - recall the earlier attacks to besmirch Obama's patriotism through comments made by his wife. Then it was the false claim that he didn't have his hand over his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance, and even that he wouldn't say the Pledge. And let's not forget the flag pin smear, which was even propagated by tools who don't even wear flag pins.

Perhaps it remains too hard, as suggested by Peggy Noonan, to attack Obama directly on issues of race? Noonan, as I read the piece, was trying to drive a wedge between the Obama's and working class whites - but she still chose to couch her attack in terms of patriotism ("Some of them were raised by a TV and a microwave and love our country anyway, every day.") In the present context, see, e.g., Gerson ("Obama's excellent and important speech on race in America did little to address his strange tolerance for the anti-Americanism of his spiritual mentor"); Kristol ("This doesn’t mean that Obama agrees with Wright’s thoroughgoing and conspiracy-heavy anti-Americanism"); Chris LaCivita (of Swift Boat fame), ("'You don’t have to say that he’s unpatriotic, you don’t question his patriotism,' he added. 'Because I guaran-damn-tee you that with that footage you don’t have to say it.'")

It's also interesting to me how Wright is deemed unpatriotic ("God damn America"), but a John Hagee ("America is under the curse of God" - i.e., we're damned) is not - they're both arguing that America deserves to be damned by God, but Hagee is adding that we are damned - should Wright have used the passive voice? Or how a conspiracy theory that blames the government for spreading AIDS or drugs is unacceptable, but a conspiracy theory blaming the government for the JFK assassination can be raised in pretty much any context (although you can expect to get disagreement and inspire some eyerolls). Or how other nutty theories about the spread of AIDS (e.g., Falwell's "AIDS is God's punishment", or Hagee's "AIDS began in African prisons, where thousands of men ... turned to perverted sex") do not trigger condemnation, apparently because they omit mention of the U.S. government. Or how conspiracy theories can swirl about the government's role in Waco, Ruby Ridge, and 9/11 even in the same circles that deem Wright's "our policies brought it on us" philosophy to be unacceptable. Or why it is acceptable to blame 9/11 on "the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way", while remaining in the warm embrace of the Republican Party. But sometimes we have to accept the world the way it is.

Perhaps the focus on patriotism over race boils down to this: It's also a hard sell to argue to blue collar America that racism doesn't exist, even if many believe its effects are minor or are more than counter-balanced by "reverse discrimination", because they know better.

Lessons On How To Behave In Church

What do you do if your church leader makes comments with which you take issue? Do you sit through a sermon, and perhaps engage in a quiet discussion with your minister afterward? Ignore it? Charles Krauthammer tells us, that would be wrong.

So I guess we're supposed to follow the Krauthammer model?

About three years ago, I saw Krauthammer flip out in synagogue on Yom Kippur. The rabbi had offered some timid endorsement of peace — peace essentially on Israel's terms — but peace anyway. Krauthammer went nuts. He actually started bellowing at the rabbi, from his wheel chair in the aisle. People tried to "shush" him. It was, after all, the holiest day of the year. But Krauthammer kept howling until the rabbi apologized. The man is as arrogant as he is thuggish. Who screams at the rabbi at services? For advocating peace?

I don't dispute that there are valid questions about when and how to respond to outrageous statements by your minister, but I don't think Krauthammer has any room to lecture.

Michael Gerson's Open Hypocrisy

Let's take a look at some Gerson quotes from a Fox News interview by Megyn Kelly.

But the reality is that Wright is not a representative of the African-American community, he's an extremist. He's talked about AIDS being, you know, a plot by the American government to destroy people of color, you know, blamed America for 9/11. These things are not the mainstream of the African-American tradition. He's not a symbol of these things, he's an extremist.

Now let's take a look at some of the Republican ministers who, in Gerson's mind, are free to endorse and embrace Republican candidates - and who Republican candidates need not repudiate. On God punishing us for our sins:

• Pat Robertson: "I would warn Orlando that you're right in the way of some serious hurricanes, and I don't think I'd be waving those [gay pride] flags in God's face if I were you. This is not a message of hate - this is a message of redemption. But a condition like this will bring about the destruction of your nation. It'll bring about terrorist bombs. It'll bring earthquakes, tornadoes, and possibly a meteor."
• John Hagee: "All hurricanes are acts of God, because God controls the heavens. I believe that New Orleans had a level of sin that was offensive to God, and they are - were recipients of the judgment of God for that. The newspaper carried the story in our local area that was not carried nationally that there was to be a homosexual parade there on the Monday that the Katrina came. And the promise of that parade was that it was going to reach a level of sexuality never demonstrated before in any of the other Gay Pride parades. So I believe that the judgment of God is a very real thing."
• Jerry Falwell: "I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way -- all of them who have tried to secularize America - I point the finger in their face and say 'you helped this [9/11] happen.'"
• John Hagee: "As a nation, America is under the curse of God."

On AIDS:

• Jerry Falwell: "AIDS is not just God's punishment for homosexuals; it is God's punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals."
• John Hagee: "AIDS began in African prisons, where thousands of men, deprived of normal sex, turned to perverted sex. From the infection created by this perverted sex came the infection that birthed AIDS."

On natural disasters and terrorist acts, the distinction between Wright and the extremists Gerson deems acceptable appears to be that it is unacceptable to suggest that government policy is sinful and might inspire vengeful response, but it is acceptable to argue that God will smite people en masse because some of their neighbors engage in acts the minister (and probably Gerson) regard as sinful.

And for AIDS, it's not acceptable to say that the U.S. Government created AIDS, but it is acceptable to say that it was created by God as a plague on homosexuals and those who tolerate them. To me, you know, the former position sounds silly and ill-informed, and the latter sounds like... blasphemy. And it is apparently acceptable to assert that AIDS arose out of "perverted sex" in "African prisons", so Gerson appears to have no problem with ministers taking positions that are scientifically ludicrous and arguably racist... against Africans.

Well, uh, I guess I would say that somebody who believes the United States government is guilty of genocide is not a fierce critic. He's a dangerous man.

A dangerous man....

• Pat Robertson (to Joel Mowbray): "I read your book. When you get through, you say, "If I could just get a nuclear device inside Foggy Bottom, I think that's the answer." I mean, you get through this, and you say, "We've got to blow that thing up."
• Pat Robertson: "Just like what Nazi Germany did to the Jews, so liberal America is now doing to the evangelical Christians. It's no different. It is the same thing. It is happening all over again. It is the Democratic Congress, the liberal-based media and the homosexuals who want to destroy the Christians. Wholesale abuse and discrimination and the worst bigotry directed toward any group in America today. More terrible than anything suffered by any minority in history."

So it's acceptable to speak of committing a terrorist act to blow up the State Department, or to suggest that the U.S. Government is engaged in a worse genocide than the Holocaust, but... I'm having trouble finding even a farcical point of distinction.

Um, and this is a, I think a genuine problem going forward. It undermines Obama's appeal to conservatives. It undermines his appeal to Jews because of this relationship with, of his Pastor's with Farrakan.

Ah yes, lest we forget the warm feelings emanating toward Jews from Gerson's acceptable extremists (and one who is considered not so extremist)....

• John Hagee: "No one could see the horror of the Holocaust coming, but the force and fear of Hitler's Nazis drove the Jewish people back to the only home God ever intended for the Jews to have - Israel."
• Jerry Falwell: "The Jews are returning to their land of unbelief. They are spiritually blind and desperately in need of their Messiah and Savior."
• Billy Graham: " I go and I keep friends with [Abe] Rosenthal at the New York Times and people of that sort, you know. And all -- I mean, not all the Jews, but a lot of the Jews are great friends of mine, they swarm around me and are friendly to me because they know that I'm friendly with Israel. But they don't know how I really feel about what they are doing to this country. And I have no power, no way to handle them, but I would stand up if under proper circumstances."
• John Hagee: "How utterly repulsive, insulting, and heartbreaking to God for His chosen people to credit idols with bringing blessings He had showered upon the chosen people. Their own rebellion had birthed the seed of anti-Semitism that would arise and bring destruction to them for centuries to come.... it rises from the judgment of God upon his rebellious chosen people."

I know I'm supposed to buy into the notion that ministers who believe in the "End of Days", and support a vision whereby all of the world's Jews move to Israel where they ultimately either convert to Christianity or perish in the sea of fire, are somehow Jew-friendly. But....

And it really does undermine his basic message that words of healing matter. Because these are words of hatred that he has been, you know, associated with now.

In excusing every Republican affiliation with religious extremism, Gerson makes plain that he has no genuine problem with mere "words of hatred". His goal here is not to merely depict Wright's statements as "words of hatred", but as "words of hatred" from a "scary black man". Gerson knows that to achieve his goals, that last part is all that matters.

Running An Effective Smear Campaign

With factions of the Republican Party giddy with the idea of smearing Barack Obama on race issues, I thought I should remind them how to run an effective smear campaign.

"It's Different When We Do It"

"Michael Gerson is not a man who is stupid - but he chose to walk with a man who is."

No, wait, I got that first part wrong.

The better analogy is this: What if a Republican presidential candidate spent years in the pew of a theonomist church - a fanatical fragment of Protestantism that teaches the modern political validity of ancient Hebrew law?

No, that wouldn't be it, because we know the church Obama attended. Perhaps Gerson has never heard of the United Church of Christ?

I realize why Gerson wants to distinguish this from McCain's embrace of Hagee (or Huckabee's attendance of Hagee's services), or the various other ways Republican candidates and Presidents have sucked up to offensive religious extremists. Why he wants to argue, "They were only making kissy-face with the leaders, not attending their services. They were lying about their religious convictions to get votes - and it's morally superior to lie about your belief in extreme religious doctrine than it is to attend a church where the minister sometimes says hateful things, even though you disagree with the minister." As with Gerson's defense of infidelity, we're entering the theater of the absurd.

When Gerson tries to argue that Republicans should be excused excused for lying about their religious beliefs in order to suck up to religious extremists, he also states,

Yes, but they didn't financially support his ministry and sit directly under his teaching for decades.

Can he truly believe that religious extremists embraced by Republican politicians do not profit from the association? That the open embrace of their theology and person doesn't augment their fame, their power, their authority, and ultimately their fortune? That Bob Jones University only wants Presidents and politicians to speak on its premises because it thinks it has the nicest auditorium in the country? That Hagee and similar religious leaders have no self-interest in injecting themselves into national politics?

How charmingly naive.

And It's All Up To The Media Now....

With the mainstream media (encouraged by the Obama campaign) having set the bar, Barack Obama has given his "make or break" speech distancing himself from Rev. Wright. Does it matter what he said? Only to a degree. What really matters now is whether or not the mainstream media deems him to have passed the test.

If he is deemed to have "passed", as it seems unlikely that Pastor Wright has said anything more inflammatory than what has already been dredged out of his decades of sermons, the presentation of more quotes becomes "more of the same" - an attempt to reopen a closed issue.

If he is deemed not to have "passed", this will continue to hound him as a candidate. It will be used to taint him as "the other", somebody "not like us" who "can't be trusted" with the presidency. (Some tar will stick - some will now think of him as "the other" no matter what else happens in this campaign.)

But doesn't it seem a bit odd that the determination of whether this will remain news, or whether it will be treated as a dead issue, falls upon whatever consensus is quickly formed by the mainstream media?

Pay No Attention To The Race-Baiter Behind The Curtain

Robert Novak writes,

In such a prolonged contest, Obama will enjoy overwhelming African American support. The question is whether the Clinton campaign can resist pointing this out in an effort to mobilize white backing. It certainly has not resisted so far, demonstrated by feckless Gerry Ferraro's mimicking what she heard from Bill and Hillary.

As Novak suggests, why would Clinton need to point that out when they have people like Gerry Ferraro Robert Novak making the argument for them?

Bush Speechwriters United....

... Against Obama.

Michael Gerson attempts to attack Barack Obama's record on the Iraq war, but first a blatantly false assertion about McCain:

John McCain's nomination was ensured by the success of the surge he had consistently advocated, against intense opposition.

Daniel Larison responds:

This is ludicrous. McCain was the frontrunner in the spring of 2007, long before anyone could have reasonably claimed that the “surge” had done anything (not that many pundits didn’t make outlandish claims), and there was in any case never any doubt in the Republican rank-and-file that the “surge” was the right thing to do. On the contrary, if McCain’s nomination was ever assured it was assured by the collapse of his only real national rival, Mitt Romney, under the waves of the Huckaboom, whose beginning had literally nothing to do with the war in Iraq.

Gerson attempts to depict Obama as inconsistent on Iraq, lifting his analysis out of an essay by fellow Bush Speechwriter Peter Wehner. The phases appear to be:

1. The 2002 speech, opposing the Iraq war;
2. A post-war period, from 2003 to 2006, in which he argued that it would be irresponsible to withdraw, and that we had an obligation to try to stabilize Iraq;
3. Starting in late 2006, argument for phased withdrawal, and skepticism about "the surge";
4. An apparent present mindset that his Iraq policy as President will be shaped by the facts on the ground.

Gerson, of course, is all for the idea that Obama should base his opinions on the realities of the situation in Iraq, not campaign promises. But this obviously undercuts his suggestion of inconsistency between pre-war opposition to invasion, and post-war support for an effort to make the invasion and occupation work. Did Gerson somehow miss that the facts on the ground changed considerably between the time Obama opposed a theoretical war, and the time he was hoping to get the best outcome out of an actual war? Of course not. Gerson's attacks on Obama are consistently short on honesty.

Not only is there no inconsistency between points one and two, Obama remains correct to have opposed the war, and once Bush started the war he was correct to press for the best outcome. Had his position during the post-war period been a demand for immediate withdrawal at any cost, it would have been ridiculous. And this, of course, further highlights Gerson's mendacity - Gerson would be savaging that stance, as well. (The difference being, had Obama taken such a ridiculous position, Gerson could have presented an honest impeachment.)

So now the "inconsistency" is reduced to skepticism of "the surge", and the suggestion that the time has come for the Iraqi government to shoulder the burden of running the country. Or, if you believe that the Iraqi government will remain incapable of assuming actual governance and responsibility for security in the next twelve to thirty months, that the time has come for us to cut our losses. With all due respect to Gerson, if he truly believed that "the surge" was working he wouldn't be trying to disown the Bush Administration's benchmarks of its success, or exaggerating its successes.

It is a perfectly legitimate reaction to the present situation to observe that it is not apparent that Iraqi factions will even try to resolve their differences as long as the occupation remains in force, and to ask, "Why shouldn't we cut our losses?" The easy thing to do is what Gerson and his ilk have done from day one - prop up the official Bush Administration line that up is down, left is right, and the best way to overcome past failures is to keep on doing exactly the same thing.

Oh, you say, but "the surge" was something different. Even accepting that argument, that the failures of the prior years of strategy had become so patent that there were some real changes in our approach to the occupation on the ground, the surge has failed by the Bush Administration's benchmarks, and apparently also in the assessment of General Petaeus. And here's where the circle closes - the brilliant strategy of the man Gerson wants to push into the White House? "We'll keep doing exactly the same thing, whether for a hundred years or even a thousand years." That, Gerson would have us believe, is the better Iraq war policy.

I know I tease Gerson here, by suggesting that he is a world-class idiot, but there's another possibility. He's capitalizing on his position with the Washington Post to inject Republican smears into mainstream discourse. If they don't stick, those feeding him the lines he is to pitch can shrug and say, "It's only Gerson." And if the smears stick, more credible right-wingers can run with them.

Is It About Race, Or About Getting Noticed

It's tough to be a white man who wants to run for President. To be taken seriously you need an impressive résumé. Unless you're wealthy. Or your dad was President (and you're a wealthy heir). Or you're really wealthy. Or you're filthy stinkin' rich. Or your name is Kennedy. Or to have played the President on the teevee. There's also something about "being in the right place at the right time" - something that could never happen to a white guy.

So let's look at the remark that got Geraldine Ferraro into so much trouble.

"I think what America feels about a woman becoming president takes a very secondary place to Obama's campaign - to a kind of campaign that it would be hard for anyone to run against," she said. "For one thing, you have the press, which has been uniquely hard on her. It's been a very sexist media. Some just don't like her. The others have gotten caught up in the Obama campaign.

"If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position," she continued. "And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept." Ferraro does not buy the notion of Obama as the great reconciler.

"I was reading an article that said young Republicans are out there campaigning for Obama because they believe he's going to be able to put an end to partisanship," Ferraro said, clearly annoyed. "Dear God! Anyone that has worked in the Congress knows that for over 200 years this country has had partisanship - that's the way our country is."

Ferraro is sticking to her words, while the Clinton campaign "disagrees". Maureen Dowd (of all people) provides some additional context:

Geraldine Ferraro, who helped Walter Mondale lose 49 states in 1984, was clearly stung at what she considered Obama’s easy rise to celebrity and electoral success. Last Friday, Ms. Ferraro, who is on Hillary’s national finance committee, told The Daily Breeze, a small newspaper in Torrance, Calif.: “If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color), he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept.”

Obama acknowledged when he arrived in the Senate that he got more attention, his big book deal and his celebrity, because he is not white. He was only the third black senator elected since Reconstruction.

But as he campaigned here Tuesday, he was outraged at Ferraro’s comments. “They are divisive,” he said. “I think anybody who understands the history of this country knows they are patently absurd.”

Here's the deal. Getting noticed, for the most part, isn't enough to get you taken seriously. The insulting part of Ferraro's comment is not so much that Obama's race helped him get noticed; it's the implication that it's the only reason he was noticed, and that it's the only reason he remains a serious contender in the race. Beyond that, as Josh Marshall asks, "Can anyone seriously claim that it's an asset to be an African-American in a US presidential race?"

The same can be asked of gender - look at the media coverage of Clinton. And I suspect that Ferraro is correct that were Obama a female of any race, with all else being equal, he would not have been taken seriously as a Presidential contender. Within the right context, being African American or being female can help you "get noticed", but it's no free pass.

Putting political beliefs aside for the moment, were he to have tried to run as a Democrat this time around how many days do you think G.W. Bush's campaign would have lasted? Both Clinton and Obama are far superior candidates as compared to our sitting President. Stripped of his family name and fortune, a candidate as mediocre as Bush wouldn't have lasted a day.

Obama On The Attack

David Brooks believes that if Obama goes on the attack, his campaign will disappear in a puff of smoke.

In short, a candidate should never betray the core theory of his campaign, or head down a road that leads to that betrayal. Barack Obama doesn’t have an impressive record of experience or a unique policy profile. New politics is all he’s got. He loses that, and he loses everything. Every day that he looks conventional is a bad day for him.

Let's see.... On the one hand, we have hardcore Barack Obama supporters, who often seem to be out for Hillary Clinton's blood. On the other hand, we have those of us who never thought of Barack Obama as something special or transcendent. Which of us will be turned off if Obama "goes negative" on Clinton or McCain, particularly if he does so in a dignified manner? (There's no need for swiftboating, "Willie Horton" ads, or similar abrogations of honor and honesty.)

Senator Clinton says that she has a longer history of service in the Senate than I do. She says that Senator McCain has a longer history in the Senate than I do. I don't dispute their distinguished careers as Washington insiders. Yet Senator Clinton claims this means she and Senator McCain have "a lifetime of experience" that they will bring to their campaigns. Take a look at their votes, their foreign policy decisions. Having a long record of bad judgment on key issues of national security and defense is not a qualification to be President.

Here's my challenge to Senator Clinton. Identify the foreign policy decisions where we've disagreed, the Senate votes where we were on opposite sides, and explain why in every case my judgment proved to be better.

Would that approach be so offensive? (It works on McCain, as well.)

The Clinton Tax Returns

There's a silly back-and-forth right now over Hillary Clinton's refusal to release her tax returns before April 15th. If it were just this year's tax return, that might be reasonable, but of course it's not.

The reasonable inference is that Clinton has something to hide. If it would hurt her in the primaries against Obama, it will hurt her in a general election against McCain. Come on, Senator Clinton - Rip off the Band-Aid and get it over with.

An Imaginary Obama's Imaginary First 100 Days

It's Michael Gerson, so I can't tell up front if he is being mendacious or if he truly is "that stupid".

But John McCain could. As a thought experiment, consider the foreign policy achievements of Obama's first 100 days in office.

Redeeming his inaugural pledge to "pay any price, bear any burden, fly any distance to meet with our enemies," Obama's first major international meeting is with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran. National security adviser Samantha Power does her best to talk tough on human rights in preparation for the meeting. But, as Henry Kissinger once said, "When talks become their own objective, they are at the mercy of the party most prepared to break them off." Having made Iranian talks "without precondition" his major foreign policy goal, Obama is left with little leverage to extract concessions, and little choice but to move forward.

And it goes on like that, but gets even sillier. In other words, we get an imbecilic caricature of a theoretical "first 100 days", that nobody with any sense or an honest bone in his body would propound. How typical of Gerson.

In Gerson's imaginary scenario, as there has been zero progress (none, nada, zilch) in the war between now and his Inauguration, Obama announces a phased withdrawal of forces.

But the next day, The Post reports stunned disbelief among the troops. A high-ranking officer observes, "The surest way to break the morale of the military is to undo its achievements and humiliate it on the verge of success."

Gerson, of course, imagines us "on the verge of success" in Iraq - he has no plan for us to get past the "verge" and actually achieve success, but he imagines that any change of course will take us away from the "verge" we've supposedly been on since 2003. It's a fundamentally dishonest argument presented by people, like Gerson, who have no idea what they are talking about, have no actual plan for success, and have no honest response to the question, "Why shouldn't we cut our losses." As is his wont, he ignores the many military leaders who have cautioned us that our continued deployment in Iraq is degrading the armed forces. Who cares about that or their ability to defend the nation, after all, if maintaining troop levels will help the Republican Party save face?

Gerson concludes,

Obama's 100-day agenda would be designed, in part, to improve America's global image. But there is something worse than being unpopular in the world - and that is being a pleading, panting joke.

Well, it's hard to argue with that. And who would know better than Gerson?

McCain Probably Would Prefer Obama, But....

Stanley Fish analyzes the presidential race and concludes, "I would bet that if McCain were pulling a lever in the Democratic primaries in Texas and Ohio, his vote would go into the Obama column." I think he's correct. But I think he oversells the reasons why that's the case and, in analyzing McCain's advantages over Obama, overlooks some key aspects of how they both came from the rear to their frontrunner positions. He speculates that McCain's position(s) on the war will transform it into a "Republican plus."

The reason is that McCain’s position on the war, as on so many other issues, looks in (at least) two directions.

On the one hand, he voted to authorize the invasion. On the other, he consistently disagreed with the administration’s prosecution of the war in general and with the judgment of defense Secretary Rumsfeld in particular. And on the third hand, he advocated for a course of action that was at last implemented in the so-called “surge,” and with some success.

I'm not sure why that argument would apply to Obama and not Clinton, but let's take it at face value. Survey after survey shows that, whatever fruits the surge may have produced, the American public wants out of Iraq. There is no sign that we're going to further escalate "the surge", and at this point we seem to have reached something of a plateau. It is not apparent that we can withdraw "surged" troops without backsliding. There is a very real concern that our commitments in Iraq are degrading our military, and there is plenty of evidence (such as the relaxation of restrictions on recruitment of people with medical ailments and criminal records) that suggests this to be the case.

But perhaps all of that is too nuanced for an election campaign? Fish imagines,

McCain can ask, Don’t you see that the situation has changed in recent months, and shouldn’t a responsible leader adjust his or her stance according to the facts on the ground?

The obvious response to this is that (a) things changed after the surge, but have not changed in recent months, and there is very little sign that Iraq is headed toward a form of stability that can be maintained without the continued presence of 100,000+ U.S. troops, and that the McCain "We could be there for 100 years" policy is a post-surge policy. As I see it, McCain does not benefit by introducing an argument that only highlights that "improvement" at best means "we're no longer losing ground", but that he has no strategy for either winning or cutting our losses. His hyperbolic overstatements that helped lead us into the war won't help him - contrast an early clip of him raving about how easy and cheap the war will be with his more recent "100 years, maybe forever" commitment to the war, and you have a powerful anti-McCain campaign ad.

And he can add, I too had my doubts about the conduct of the war, but now a policy I long advocated has been put in place with good results.

And that can be contrasted with all of the promises, "Things will be better in a few months; we'll know by the fall; we'll know in six months...."-type statements by pretty much every supporter of the surge. How does McCain respond to, "Your strategy bore some initial fruit, but we've not seen any substantial improvement for more than a year - what's your next move?" We already know his answer - I don't think it makes him electable.

The parts of McCain’s story, even with one or two twists and turns, fit nicely into a coherent narrative that brings credit to him in every chapter. I was resolute in the beginning, I demurred for a while but for good reasons, and now I am resolute again, and you can trust me because, in this area especially, I know what I’m doing. He can rehearse this narrative without apologizing for anything and then turn around to Obama and (borrowing from Clinton’s attacks on him), declare: You, on the other hand, don’t know what you’re doing, as everything you say, not only about the war, but about the conduct of foreign policy, proves. (He and President Bush are already pushing this line in anticipation of Obama’s nomination.)

And Obama can respond, "Being resolute in one failed policy or another is neither a sign of experience nor good judgment." (Perhaps Obama's ad can mention how McCain embraces one failed Bush policy after another. The Bush-McCain plot has already run off-course with the Bush Administration adopting what had to that point been depicted by McCain (and Clinton) as one of Obama's naive, silly ideas.

Fish goes on to surmise that on the issues, McCain is too much like a Democrat to inspire voters to vote for Obama instead of him.

The criticisms of McCain made by his primary opponents – he twice voted against Bush’s tax cuts, he cooperated with Ted Kennedy on immigration reform and with Russ Feingold on campaign-finance reform, he said that waterboarding was torture and should not be used, he scorned fundamentalist Christian leaders, he supported stem cell research, he opposed a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage, he expressed doubts about Samuel Alito – cannot be appropriated by Obama because these are his positions, too.

Ah yes, the various issues which cause some right-wingers to become apoplectic and call McCain a "liberal." I've already mentioned how common ground can be used to positively camaign against McCain. Ads in the states most concerned about border security describing how President Obama will be able to work with Republican leaders, such as John McCain, to break through the gridlock on immigration reform. And 527's can have even more fun, running ads about how McCain will allow the Bush tax cuts to expire so we can get back to balancing the budget - something that will likely inspire fierce denials from John "I was against tax cuts and budget deficits before I was for them" McCain.

And if you want to go negative, whatever McCain's history of distancing himself from "agents of intolerance", he's currently doing his best to embrace as many as he can reach. One set of ads can work to undermine him as a hypocrite who actually opposes religion, and wants the government to pay for stem cell research and recognize same-sex marriage; another can depict him as a hypocrite who will abandon any sense of principle or ethics to embrace hateful religious leaders, as long as it brings him votes. Without too much difficulty, he can also be forced to take a clear position on abortion rights - he's against them, but many people don't seem to realize that.

I suspect that the Bush Administration will coax the Iraqis into trying to demonstrate "progress" by passing legislation or taking other nominal steps that do not actually do a thing to improve the situation on the ground; Obama will have to deal with that type of "progress". But I also suspect that absent real progress in Iraq, McCain has nothing to offer on that issue and his commitment to indefinite war will weigh down his campaign. Whether or not Obama manages to maintain the same level of enthusiasm behind his campaign, I don't sense that there is much (if any) enthusiasm behind McCain. Am I missing something? Pretty much everything McCain could historically offer to the political center is either undermined by his more recent flip-flopping or by its alienating him from voters on the political right.

One thing that is clear from the campaign to date is that many people (myself included) underestimated Obama as a political candidate. One of the things that has impressed me about Obama is how fast he is to respond to even modest attacks, and find ways to defuse them. McCain has made himself very vulnerable to counterattack.

Let's Not Overrate Bipartisanship

David Ignatius is much more comfortable with McCain's record on "biparisanship" than with Obama's:

The Obama campaign sent me an eight-page summary of his "bipartisan accomplishments," and it includes some encouraging examples of working across the aisle on issues such as nuclear proliferation, energy, veterans affairs, budget earmarks and ethics reforms. So the cupboard isn't bare. It's just that, unlike McCain, Obama bears no obvious political scars for fighting bipartisan battles that were unpopular with his party's base.

A couple of reactions....

Bipartisanship is a great concept when your party doesn't control the government. "They may have the power and control, but wouldn't it be better if they tossed us a bone from time to time?" It's necessary when no party is in control, as otherwise you can have gridlock. But if you do have control, what's your incentive for tossing the other side that bone? The vain hope that in the future, when they regain control, they'll return the favor? (What does the Republican legislative history from 2001 - 2006 tell us about that hope?)

Also, I don't believe for a second that McCain plans to run a bipartisan government, except as necessary to advance his agenda. He may be more willing to break with the Republican Party than his recent predecessors, just as they will be more likely to break with him, but that's not about "bipartisanship" - that's about their each advancing their own agendas. The spittle directed at McCain by right-wing nutters like Limbaugh and Coulter is a reflection of that reality - the problem is not that McCain is a "liberal" as some pretend, or that he belives in "bipartisanship". It's that he'll build coalitions to do what he wants.

It doesn't worry me that Obama doesn't have a long history of reaching across the aisle. He hasn't been in national office long enough to have a long history of anything, and for the first six years of the Bush Administration "reaching across the aisle" has largely meant getting a sufficient number of Democrats to acquiesce to an item on the Republican agenda. It would worry me more if he had the opportunity to advance significant legislation without compromise, but nonetheless decided to gut it in the name of "bipartisanship". (But I don't think he'll do that.)

Ronald Reagan taught the country something about the ability of a world-class communicator to create such a new political space that defies the previous categories.

I thought we were talking about bipartisanship, so why does Ignatius evoke Reagan? At present, to be transformative, McCain would have to do a lot of reaching across the aisle. Obama, not so much.

The Words Put Into Politician's Mouths

Michael Gerson tells us,

The construction of serious speeches forces candidates (or presidents) to grapple with their own beliefs, even when they don't write every word themselves. If those convictions cannot be marshaled in the orderly battalions of formal rhetoric, they are probably incoherent.

Michael Gerson? Speechwriter for G.W. Bush? Did it even occur to him that he's indicting his own work?

McCain can and should make an ideological case against his opponent. Why does Obama want to fight terrorists in Pakistan and Afghanistan but not in Iraq? How would it advance the war on terrorism to grant al-Qaeda's fondest wish - an untimely American retreat from the Middle East? Would Obama really devote his first year in office to a series of surrender summits with the leaders of Cuba, Iran, Venezuela and North Korea?

Here's the problem. If you caricature and misrepresent your opponent's beliefs, you don't come across as a "straight talker". McCain has already stumbled when trying to confront Obama on foreign policy, ridiculing Obama's statements about striking targets inside Pakistan even as the White House was adopting the very techniques Obama proposed.

Trying to caricature Obama as intending to meet with every world leader, no matter how despotic, during his first year in office? At the expense of every single other priority, domestic or international? Let's just say that if I were drafting Obama's response to such an accusation the overt message would be "he's confused", and the subtext would be "he's senile." Obama's team may be more charitable than I, but I would suggest that McCain take a look at G.W.'s past, frequent incoherence before adopting a response endorsed by one of Bush's principal speechwriters.

Trying To Outsmart A Sicilian

The New York Times brings us this from a long-term McCain supporter:

The nobler side of me admires him, even across party lines, for the tremendous interest and enthusiasm he has engendered among younger Americans. But the larger, less decent part of me believes that Hillary Clinton would be a more formidable general election opponent for the Republican nominee. She’s certainly on the ropes right now: her campaign has been flailing through the last few rounds of primaries in a way that Clintons are usually able to avoid. But we’ve been losing to Clintons for a long time now: I’d still just as soon avoid her in a general election campaign.

Ever see The Princess Bride?

All I have to do is divine from what I know of you: are you the sort of man who would put the poison into his own goblet or his enemy's? Now, a clever man would put the poison into his own goblet, because he would know that only a great fool would reach for what he was given. I am not a great fool, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. But you must have known I was not a great fool, you would have counted on it, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me.

Whatever you make of this supposed fear of Clinton, this is also worth noting:

As an equally loyal fan of the Republican Party and of the Green Bay Packers football team, I had come to regard the Clintons the same way I’ve always thought about the Dallas Cowboys. I don’t like them. I root against them. I want them to lose and occasionally find myself wanting bad things to happen to them.

This of course is one of the leading problems with partisan politics. Sometimes the other team has the better players and better strategy, and its victory would be much better for everyone, but you still back "your" team because its "yours".

Obama On Farrakhan

I didn't watch the debate, but I see that there are any number of criticisms of Obama for not being quick enough to "renounce" Farrakhan's support as opposed to merely "denouncing" Farrakhan's positions on the issues. This is being framed  by  some as a great failure by Obama and a missed opportunity by Clinton. As if Obama was deliberately avoiding rejecting the Farrakhan endorsement and the... what, three votes it might bring to his campaign?

Let's look at some definitions:

Denounce: to pronounce especially publicly to be blameworthy or evil (they denounced him as a bigot)

Reject: to refuse to accept, consider, submit to, take for some purpose, or use (rejected the suggestion) (reject a manuscript) b: to refuse to hear, receive, or admit : rebuff, repel (parents who reject their children) c: to refuse as lover or spouse

Personally, I would much rather be rejected than denounced, particularly by a presidential candidate on national television.

I suspect that Obama either believed that his statements denouncing Farrakhan's positions, and decrying them as "unacceptable and reprehensible", was responsive to the question. Who, after listening to that answer, would think, "Obama thinks Farrakan's beliefs are blameworthy (perhaps evil), reprehensible and unnacceptable. But he wants Farrakhan's endorsement." Well, Ann Althouse for one, and possibly Andrew Sullivan.

The follow-up answer boils down to, "This is America, and I can't stop him from endorsing me if he wants to." Althouse imagines this as an exceedingly clever evasion. I see it as Obama not quite grasping that Russert didn't accept his prior answer as it was intended. Whether that would make Obama a bit thick-headed or Russert a big thick-headed is a debate I won't enter at this time. But let me say, there have been a couple of occasions where I found myself being that thick-headed when examining a witness at a trial or deposition and misinterpreting their answers based upon what I expected to hear.

So on it goes, with Obama repeating his denunciation of Farrakhan's position and deeming his past statements "reprehensible and inappropriate". Althouse seems impressed that Russert then shifted into Gotcha mode - an "I see that you danced with a man, who danced with a girl, who danced with the Prince of Wales"-type question.

The title of one of your books, "Audacity of Hope," you acknowledge you got from a sermon from Reverend Jeremiah Wright, the head of the Trinity United Church. He said that Louis Farrakhan "epitomizes greatness."

He said that he went to Libya in 1984 with Louis Farrakhan to visit with Moammar Gadhafi and that, when your political opponents found out about that, quote, "your Jewish support would dry up quicker than a snowball in Hell."

RUSSERT: What do you do to assure Jewish-Americans that, whether it's Farrakhan's support or the activities of Reverend Jeremiah Wright, your pastor, you are consistent with issues regarding Israel and not in any way suggesting that Farrakhan epitomizes greatness?

If somebody is being thick-headed at this point, it's Russert. Which of the words "denounce," "reprehensible", "inappropriate", and "unacceptable" aren't in his vocabulary?

And again, it goes on and on.

Hillary Clinton, who caught Russert's use of the word reject, ultimately joins the exchange, after Russert lobs her a softball, "Are you suggesting Senator Obama is not standing on principle?" She replied,

No. I'm just saying that you asked specifically if he would reject it. And there's a difference between denouncing and rejecting. And I think when it comes to this sort of, you know, inflammatory - I have no doubt that everything that Barack just said is absolutely sincere. But I just think, we've got to be even stronger. We cannot let anyone in any way say these things because of the implications that they have, which can be so far reaching.

Althouse sees this as a tremendous lapse on Clinton's part - "near gibberish" that shows she "does not have the instinct for blood". Um... right....

Personally, I think Clinton called it as she saw it. She, along with anybody with half a brain, knows that Obama doesn't want or need Farrakhan's endorsement. So she gave an honest answer instead of distorting his comments as a twisted effort to maintain Farrakhan's useless... no, worse than useless... counter-productive endorsement. This led to Obama's clarification that " I'm happy to concede the point, and I would reject and denounce." Something I think was pretty clear from the start of the entire useless exchange.

I suspect that if Hillary Clinton had actually tried to depict Obama as wanting Farrakhan's support, and the three or so votes it would bring to his campaign (even as it drove away thousands upon thousands of others), she would have looked petty and small.

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

Update: From his new home at The American Conservative, Daniel Larison observes,

Ross keeps asking how the Republicans are going to attack Obama. Well, they will do something rather like this (dated 2/25). Of course, flinging the charge of anti-Semitism or of being in league with anti-Semites is the last resort of the unimaginative and intellectually bankrupt. That doesn’t mean it won’t have its intended effect.

Health Insurance Mandates

At the Volokh Conspiracy, Russell Korobkin, an Obama supporter, criticizes Hillary Clinton's call for health insurance mandates.

Full disclosure: I am an unpaid member of a health care policy advisory committee for the Obama campaign, but I personally favor individual mandates as part of comprehensive health care system reform.

That apparently means that he supports mandates for the right reasons, while Hillary supports them for the wrong reasons. (But he doesn't tell us what his reasons are.)

Clinton alleges that, simply because it includes a mandate, her plan would lead to universal health insurance while Obama's would not. This is not true.

Well, yes, it is. If mandates exist and are effectively enforced, you have universal health insurance. If they don't exist, you won't. Speaking about how Obama's reforms could make health insurance more affordable, and sharing a dream that everybody may voluntarily buy affordable health insurance? That's fine, but he admits, "[Obama] is open to mandates down the road if, after the reforms and subsidies reduce costs, a large number of healthy "free riders" still do not buy coverage". Either way, we end up with mandates. The question in a sense becomes, will reforms make health insurance more affordable in the absence of mandates? I think, there, the Clinton camp is being far more realistic - if you let people wait until they require health care to buy insurance, you will drive costs up.

Clinton wants to require all Americans to purchase health insurance, but she refuses to describe how she would enforce such a requirement.

Okay... And Obama is open to mandates if people don't voluntarily buy health insurance, "but [he] refuses to describe how [he] would enforce such a requirement". This is what we call "election year politics".

What makes Clinton's criticism of Obama really off the mark, though, is that she is trying to market mandates as a benefit for the large number of currently or potentially uninsured Americans, when mandates actually are a concession to constituencies that otherwise might favor the status quo against attempts to make insurance more affordable. Auto insurance mandates are good for the people who might be hit by an uninsured motorist, but they are hardly welcomed by the uninsured who feel, rightly or wrongly, that they can't afford coverage. Similarly, health insurance mandates are good for people with insurance, employers who would be forced to pay into an insurance pool, and private insurers who would face greater regulation under a reform plan, because expensive subsidies that would be required to help the "sick" uninsured to purchase coverage would be at least partially offset by requiring the "healthy" uninsured to contribute their fair share to the system. But telling someone without insurance that the government will force him to buy it at whatever price the market charges is unlikely to convince him that his problem is solved.

As Paul Krugman observed several months ago,

Mr. Obama claims that mandates won’t work, pointing out that many people don’t have car insurance despite state requirements that all drivers be insured. Um, is he saying that states shouldn’t require that drivers have insurance? If not, what’s his point?

Look, law enforcement is sometimes imperfect. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have laws.

Krugman more recently observed,

So the Obama plan would leave more people uninsured than the Clinton plan. How big is the difference?

To answer this question you need to make a detailed analysis of health care decisions. That’s what Jonathan Gruber of M.I.T., one of America’s leading health care economists, does in a new paper.

Mr. Gruber finds that a plan without mandates, broadly resembling the Obama plan, would cover 23 million of those currently uninsured, at a taxpayer cost of $102 billion per year. An otherwise identical plan with mandates would cover 45 million of the uninsured — essentially everyone — at a taxpayer cost of $124 billion. Over all, the Obama-type plan would cost $4,400 per newly insured person, the Clinton-type plan only $2,700.

That doesn’t look like a trivial difference to me. One plan achieves more or less universal coverage; the other, although it costs more than 80 percent as much, covers only about half of those currently uninsured.

You would think that by now Obama's advocates would have updated their argument.

Back to the Obama suppoorter:

To see why Clinton's argument is nonsensical, consider that the country could achieve nearly universal health insurance immediately simply by enacting an individual mandate coupled with a truly draconian penalty for non-compliance. But so what?

This rebuke of Clinton is silly on its face, given that many people do not have health insurance because it isn't affordable, and many others do not have health insurance or are severely underinsured due to pre-existing medical conditions. But even if we pretend that's not the case, the real purpose here seems to be to suggest that draconian penalties would be required to enforce mandates - whether by Clinton today or by Obama down the road (as necessary). Back to Krugman:

Third, and most troubling, Mr. Obama accuses his rivals of not explaining how they would enforce mandates, and suggests that the mandate would require some kind of nasty, punitive enforcement: “Their essential argument,” he says, “is the only way to get everybody covered is if the government forces you to buy health insurance. If you don’t buy it, then you’ll be penalized in some way.”

Well, John Edwards has just called Mr. Obama’s bluff, by proposing that individuals be required to show proof of insurance when filing income taxes or receiving health care. If they don’t have insurance, they won’t be penalized — they’ll be automatically enrolled in an insurance plan.

Although you wouldn't get this from Korobkin's post, Clinton has endorsed Edwards' proposed solution.

The silliest part of all is that Barack Obama's refusal to discuss mandates reflects, in my opinion, the politician's instinct to tell the public, "You can have it all - without paying any price at all." Clinton (and formerly Edwards) let people know up front that there is a price to universality - an obvious price - in that everybody must be insured.

Korobkin also skips right over the fact that we presently pay an enormous price to provide medical care for the uninsured and underinsured. Right now, the "subsidy" for that comes from charging higher health care prices to everybody else.

To lambaste Clinton for a lack of specifics on how mandates might be enforced, even while suggesting that Obama recognizes that they are necessary (but won't specify when or how they would be implemented or enforced), is not the way to convince me that Obama has the better plan.

Korobkin ignores Krugman, so I have no reason to believe he would respond to any challenge from me, but I would love to see him detail the "good reasons" to enforce mandates - those which inspire his own support for mandates. I would love to hear him explain how Obama would enforce mandates, with no hedging about how they may not become necessary. For that matter, how he would enforce the mandates that he expressly endorses. There is no such thing, after all, as a voluntary mandate.

Why was this posted at the Volokh Conspiracy, a purported "libertarian" blog? It's hard to guess. Maybe because it is critical of Clinton?

More On Those Tiny American Flags

In case you have missed it, which pretty much would entail your not paying attention to any political commentary, the "go after the Obamas' patriotism and harp on the flag pin" line of attack is not unique to Bill Kristol. It's a line being pushed by pretty much any within the obsequious political right, whose devotion to the Republican Party's cause overwhelms any reservation they might otherwise have against prevarication in public. Case in point, Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA).

But, the thing that [Michelle Obama] did not do, and still has not done now for three days, is to explain what she meant. And it would have been that simple, just to say, “You know what? This is a great country, and I’m just proud that people really are getting involved in this election.” That would have been the end of it.¹ Instead, through Axelrod, the campaign manager going to let her be her spokesman, they’ve let this thing grow. When you combine that with the fact that the guy would not say the Pledge of Allegiance, and won’t put an American lapel pin on his coat — [audience boos] — that’s things voters are watching. And, it’s because this Democratic primary —

MAHER: [overlapping] Wait a second? He won’t say the Pledge of Allegiance?

KINGSTON: Well, the famous picture of him standing while Bill Richardson and Hillary Clinton have their hand over their heart, saluting the flag during the Pledge, and Obama has his hands deliberately down, that is disturbing to Americans.

You can see the trademark pattern - start with an attack on Michelle Obama's patriotism and try to extend it to Barack Obama through a series of lies and misrepresentations.

• Prevarication #1: "When you combine that with the fact that the guy would not say the Pledge of Allegiance....." - Video evidence to the contrary be damned, right?
• Prevarication #2: "... and won’t put an American lapel pin on his coat ...." - Which, of course, isn't what Obama said.
• Prevarication #3: "... Bill Richardson and Hillary Clinton have their hand over their heart, saluting the flag during the Pledge, and Obama has his hands deliberately down ..." - Except the picture was taken during the National Anthem - is Kingston so unpatriotic that he doesn't know the difference? And there are many pictures of Obama with his hand over his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance.

"Now wait a minute," you say, "Maybe Kingston isn't being deliberately dishonest. Maybe he is just an incredibly stupid man who makes rash accusations about national political figures in complete ignorance of the facts." While I might otherwise be tempted to acknowledge the possibility, applying the rule of "never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity," Kingston's other prevarications serve to "out" him.

We have not had a domestic attack since 9/11. Now — [audience reacts] — I know, because —

MAHER: [overlapping] But – and I wore the green socks again this week, and I still didn’t get cancer. [laughter] [applause]

KINGSTON: Well, Bill, I know, as a member of the Defense Committee, who sits in many, many hours of bipartisan hearings with lots of tough questions to lots of members of the military, prior to the counter-attack in Afghanistan in October, 2001, we were absolutely assured that when we took the war over to the Middle East, that we would be attacked again. That’s what all the – the consensus was from the intelligence agencies.

How could any Member of Congress who was serving in 2001, let alone one who is a member of the Defense Committee, have forgotten the Anthrax attacks?

-------------
1. Kingston claimed, "And it would have been that simple, just to say, 'You know what? This is a great country, and I’m just proud that people really are getting involved in this election.' That would have been the end of it." Given that Michelle Obama has claimed, "What I was clearly talking about was that I’m proud in how Americans are engaging in the political process," I somehow doubt that we should take Kingston at his word.

... Miniature American Flags for Others ...

William Kristol takes belated note of the fact that Barack Obama stopped wearing an American Flag lapel pin at the time it became a leading example of Republican tokenism - that is, after the 9/11 attacks, when Republicans (including G.W.) who were rarely if ever seen to wear a flag pin on their lapels made it part of their standard wardrobe.

But Obama chose to present his flag-pin removal as a principled gesture. “You know, the truth is that right after 9/11, I had a pin. Shortly after 9/11, particularly because as we’re talking about the Iraq war, that became a substitute for I think true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security, I decided I won’t wear that pin on my chest.”

Leave aside the claim that “speaking out on issues” constitutes true patriotism. What’s striking is that Obama couldn’t resist a grandiose explanation. Obama’s unnecessary and imprudent statement impugns the sincerity or intelligence of those vulgar sorts who still choose to wear a flag pin. But moral vanity prevailed. He wanted to explain that he was too good — too patriotic! — to wear a flag pin on his chest.

Kristol builds a fascinating false dichotomy here - between flag pins and "speaking out" as the only possible illustrations of patriotism, with declining to wear a flag pin being pitched as the wrong choice.

I think Obama's is a peculiar approach to the issue, but the explanation was not volunteered by Obama at the start of his silent protest. It was elicited when a reporter asked about the issue. And let's be honest, Kristol wouldn't care what answer Obama gave. Just as it doesn't matter to Kristol that his Republican masters are once again using the flag as a political prop. Wrapping yourself in the flag for political gain, I guess, is what Kristol would deem "patriotism." It's fascinating how quickly Kristol is willing to leave aside "speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security" as an illustration of patriotism - perhaps because the politicians he favors are so craven? At the end of his column, Kristol writes, "[McCain's] patriotism has consisted of deeds more challenging than “speaking out on issues" - an attack built off of the earlier false dichotomy. Are we to pretend Obama could have avoided this attack by wearing a flag on his lapel?

Kristol then proceeds to make the usual idiot's assertion about Michelle Obama's comments on pride.

Michelle Obama’s adult life goes back to the mid-1980s. Can it really be the case that nothing the U.S. achieved since then has made her proud?

Obviously it is possible to be proud in many specific accomplishments of a person, institution, or country without extrapolating that pride to the everything the person, institution or country does. For example, you can be impressed that Bill Kristol told the truth about G.W. driving the Iraq war into a ditch, while being appalled at his continued cheerleading of what he knows to be an incompetent effort. It goes both ways, as well. I'm sure a lot of people who work at the New York Times are proud of their paper, yet are horrified that somebody as willfully obtuse as Kristol now has a regular gig on the Op/Ed page.

The idea of an Obama "cult of personality" where the Democrats push forward a candidate who " tends too much toward the preening self-regard of Bill Clinton, the patronizing elitism of Al Gore and the haughty liberalism of John Kerry? Isn't that how a growing number of Republicans are presently describing G.W.?

In some senses, it's pathetic that the right-wing attack machine can find so little ammunition against Barack Obama that they are trying to turn Michelle Obama into Hillary, redux. How long will it be before she has to bashfully appear on daytime TV with a plate full of freshly baked cookies?