The News-Gazette Sunday had an article that points out how Barack Obama has kept a low profile in Washington while maintaining rock star status across the country. Obama was able to go through last year's Senate race without raising any red flags regarding his liberal positions. Back to back scandals by millionaires Blair Hull and Jack Ryan gave Obama the luxury of campaigning as the nice guy and sweeping to a huge electoral victory.
So far, Obama hasn't shown any inclination to put his left foot to far forward. Aside from his rather odd comparison of his upper middle class roots with Abraham Lincoln's remarkably difficult life, Obama has made no missteps.
But now Obama has his first major vote to show Illinois voters just where he will align himself. If he votes against John Roberts for the Supreme Court, he will demonstrate that he is part of the fringe of the Democratic Party. If he votes for Roberts, he'll manage to hold onto the facade of moderation that much longer.
Obama was put into office by the far left wing of the Democratic Party. I'll be surprised if he bucks them and votes to put the eminently qualified Roberts on the bench.
I don't think he has crossed party lines on any of the prior fillibuster votes, and he hasn't taken any flack for it. I would be surprised if he broke ranks this time - he will vote with Durbin, and do it quietly.
It looks like he is managing his career like Roberts - keep a clean record and stay away from controversy until you get to your ultimate goal.
Right: It's nonsense to say that Obama was put into office by "the far left wing of the Democratic Party." He was put into office by carrying right around 70% of Illinois voters. It's also nonsense to say his win in the primary had everything to do with Blair Hull's implosion, considering the fact that Obama also trounced Dan Hynes, who might not have been far left wing but certainly represented the "party" part of the equation (and he was a legacy, to boot).
Red State: You're doing it again with the wolf in sheep's clothing routine. Last time you backtracked and said was HRC who was "the uber-liberal that is just 'acting' more conservative and reasonable as a setup for a general election," while Obama was just someone to "wonder what he's really about." But now your own sheep's clothing has come off, and Obama too is just waiting to spring his trap. :)
How long does someone have to "act" like a moderate before he or she is a moderate? (Not that Obama has had time to act like much of anything in the US Senate, but, if I recall his General Assembly career properly, he certainly a liberal but with a strong compromise/pragmatist streak.)
I realize that Illinois is a blue state but I seriously doubt "the far left wing of the Democratic party" comprises 70% of the state's general election voters.
The best part about Obama is that he doesn't owe anybody anything.
LITM, sorry, I didn't mean to sound like that. I think Obama is just playing it smart and cool. He even said as much in the NG article - he is showing deferrence to "senior" leadership and waiting his turn. He hasn't taken strong positions on anything in the Senate. (I don't know a thing about his Gen Assembly career - that is likely my problem)
I heard one conservative commentator say the best thing about Obama was that maybe he could be a reasonable voice for "black America" - replacing the over-the-top rhetoric of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. I hope that guy was right. I also hope Obama turns out to be a guy who can vote with a Republican majority every now and again.
(Maybe deep down I just don't trust him - he seems just too good to be true - like Jack Ryan was. :
And Hillary is a lib - she could "act" like a moderate for 30 years and I wouldn't believe it.
Obama voted for Condoleeza Rice which, on the surface, may seem like no big deal, but at the time caused a great wailing and gnashing of teeth amongst many liberals I know.
It took me by surprise, actually, as I didn't think her nomination was terribly controversial (even though she's not someone I particularly care for all that much).
Why not do research on Obama's voting record (both in the IL and national Senate, and then comment? To not do so, and instead speculate as to what kind of politician he is, is rather pointless.
And remember: Regardless of whether or not he's a far-leftist, a centrist, or a conservative-type Democrat, he is a Democrat, and will, more times than not, vote with his party. This of course isn't anything new, so I'm hoping no one here is particularly upset by the fact that a Democrat is voting like... a Democrat?
Obama was running second behind Hull until the "wife beating" incident and order of protection came out. That second place showing at the time was comprised primarily of the left wing of the Dem party. I don't mean that the general election was decided by the libs, but the primary definitely was.
Matthew, Obama was anointed "rock star" by the Democratic party, not by IP or me. I think we both are amazed he hasn't used his status in any high profile way. I am not really upset or surprised by how he votes.
But if this SC confirmation battle gets ugly, will he stick with the left wingers (Durbin, Kennedy, Schumer), or will he be "the moderate voice of reason"?
This is a blog - speculate is what we do sometimes, isn't it? Then later we can all say how smart we are, or others can tell us how stupid we are.
RSW,
I wasn't addressing Obama's "rock star" status in my comment, so....
Also, while people can speculate on blogs, that doesn't necessarily mean it's a good thing to do.
Most importantly, it doesn't (or shouldn't) matter what the Democratic Party has dubbed Obama as. What matters most is how Obama views himself. And if you watch any interview with him since November, one of the things he constantly says is, "I'm ranked 99th out of 100 in seniority within the Senate." He's been telling folks not to expect him to set the the Senate alight with Obama magic, etc.
In other words, don't buy into the hype.
IIRC Obama also voted in favor of the reforms of the bankruptcy laws which I am sure didn't sit well with the "pro-consumer" types.
I seem to recall that Obama had reeservations about Rice, but ultimately decided that the President has a right to decide who is on his cabinet. Pretty reasonable. I suspect he will make a similar move with Roberts, i.e. express reservations about his possible federalist connections and his so-called "blank slate" but in the end will vote to confirm him.
Personally, I think it is entirely appropriate and perhaps even commendable that he is learning from the more experienced senators before deciding where to cash in his popularity chips.
Good point about his putative Horatio Alger. Love the redesign.
Perhaps the reason why he is using the “I'm ranked 99th out of 100 in seniority within the Senate” bit is because it is the best way to keep his "rock star" status.
If he sits back and goes with the flow on the hot button issues, he doesnt burn any bridges with the conservatives and moderates that voted for him in the election or the liberals who want him to be very left.
When he plays that card, he seems like a humble, moderate, and pragmatic guy even if he is not. Regardless of whether you agree with his views, you have to give him partical credit for the way he is perceived. The way he is using the media is genius.
Obama won because of Blair Hull and Jack Ryans' combined spousal issues. My unscientific random polling (I ask strangers I meet what they think) is Obama's startling popular in the burbs where everyone wishes him well, and sort of tolerated in the city, where Bobby Rush --a real Democrat-- appropriately trounced him.
If Drudge is right, and Hillary votes for Roberts, I'm guessing Obama will follow her lead.