Obama and being human

[NorthSideSox72]

This is a Slate article, about something Barack Obama has chosen to do differently than other politicians. He admits when he has been wrong...

 

http://www.slate.com/id/2144983/

 

My point in posting this isn't to say that I think Obama is the greatest, or to bash any particular politician. It is to point out that this is something almost all politicians have lost sight of - embracing errant humanity. The current tendency in marketing politicians by not just showing their best side, but actually trying to make them appear perfect, is IMHO ridiculous. It has no good end, and the electorate is smart enough to know better. So its nice to see a politician who certainly markets himself as best as he can, but also acknowledges that sometimes, mature people need to acknowledge mistakes and move forward on a new road.

[jackie hayes]

Yeah, well, those are pretty minor mistakes he's admitting to. John Edwards admitted to being flat wrong on the Iraq vote. Obama admits to a tactical mistake against a joke candidate and a pretty minor overstatement. Oh, what heart-rending humility.

 

I'm not trying to take anything away from Obama, just saying, that article is blowing this WAY out of proportion.

[jasonxctf]

i agree. hopefully obama will usher in a whole new group of politicians.

[NorthSideSox72]

Yeah, well, those are pretty minor mistakes he's admitting to. John Edwards admitted to being flat wrong on the Iraq vote. Obama admits to a tactical mistake against a joke candidate and a pretty minor overstatement. Oh, what heart-rending humility.

 

I'm not trying to take anything away from Obama, just saying, that article is blowing this WAY out of proportion.

Given how rare any sort of humility at all is at that level, at least in the public eye, I'd say that it IS a big difference. It makes him a far sight from a lot of his cohorts, which I believe was the point.

[Rex Kickass]

I'm not a big Obama fan policy-wise, but speeches like this is a good reason needs a good dose of people like him.

[jackie hayes]

Given how rare any sort of humility at all is at that level, at least in the public eye, I'd say that it IS a big difference. It makes him a far sight from a lot of his cohorts, which I believe was the point.

Even if that's true (and I don't agree that minor humility is so rare), it's like calling someone a saint because he's the only one on the block who's not kicking his dog. I want to see real humility, not relative humility, before I give a politician any credit for it.

 

Nor do I understand why the first mistake (the response to Keyes) is any different than Kerry stating that his 'I voted against before I voted for' was a poor choice of words. And that was taken (correctly) as politics, not self-humbling.

 

Look, it's a fine speech, I just think that Sullivan's interpretation of it as some form of public confession is one of the silliest misreadings in a long time. Personally, I don't think Obama meant the speech to be taken that way, at all. But she seemed determined to write a hagiography, and wrestled the material to fit her goal.

[NorthSideSox72]

Even if that's true (and I don't agree that minor humility is so rare), it's like calling someone a saint because he's the only one on the block who's not kicking his dog. I want to see real humility, not relative humility, before I give a politician any credit for it.

 

Nor do I understand why the first mistake (the response to Keyes) is any different than Kerry stating that his 'I voted against before I voted for' was a poor choice of words. And that was taken (correctly) as politics, not self-humbling.

 

Look, it's a fine speech, I just think that Sullivan's interpretation of it as some form of public confession is one of the silliest misreadings in a long time. Personally, I don't think Obama meant the speech to be taken that way, at all. But she seemed determined to write a hagiography, and wrestled the material to fit her goal.

I think I took the article differently than you did. Its not that any one act of humility or apology is somehow earth-shattering. Its that there is a string of little ones, indicating a persona. That persona, as a whole, represents something that I (and she) would cotend is novel among his cohorts. And I think she is right.

[jackie hayes]

I think I took the article differently than you did. Its not that any one act of humility or apology is somehow earth-shattering. Its that there is a string of little ones, indicating a persona. That persona, as a whole, represents something that I (and she) would cotend is novel among his cohorts. And I think she is right.

Look at Amy Sullivan's writings during the 2004 election campaign. She wrote article after article trying to convince people that Kerry's religion is real, at least as real as Bush's. (Not that I disagree, or know one way or another, just stating the fact.) She sees this as a major obstacle to the Democrats, and I believe this article was another attempt to build up the Dem's religious (maybe, Christian) bonafides. But, jmho, in doing so she took two minor points entirely out of context and out of perspective.

 

Obama is a very, very good politician. But I have no idea whatsoever about his personality. Deciphering persona from public speech is a pretty sketchy proposition. I don't believe the person you'd limn after reading the Lincoln-Douglas debates is much like the Lincoln that we know of from a more full knowledge of his life.

 

Edit:

 

An example of the article blowing something out of proportion:

 

Thirty minutes later, Obama concluded his remarks by quoting an e-mail message he received from a pro-life voter during the campaign, a man who had expressed his disappointment that Obama called abortion opponents "right-wing ideologues" on his campaign Web site. "I do not ask at this point that you oppose abortion," the e-mailer wrote, "only that you speak about this issue in fair-minded words." "I felt a pang of shame," Obama acknowledged.

 

If it's hard to imagine a speech like this from George W. Bush...

 

But if you listen to the speech, he's careful to distance himself from these words ("right-wing ideologues"). He attributes these to his staff, with the excuse that these are standard Democrat "boilerplates". But if she mentioned how careful he is to avoid credit for those words, it would work against the humility that she so much wants to inject. He's basically apologizing for someone else's mistake.

 

I want the Dems to win, but spin is spin, no matter what side it's on.

Edited July 6, 2006 by jackie hayes

[NorthSideSox72]

Look at Amy Sullivan's writings during the 2004 election campaign. She wrote article after article trying to convince people that Kerry's religion is real, at least as real as Bush's. (Not that I disagree, or know one way or another, just stating the fact.) She sees this as a major obstacle to the Democrats, and I believe this article was another attempt to build up the Dem's religious (maybe, Christian) bonafides. But, jmho, in doing so she took two minor points entirely out of context and out of perspective.

 

Obama is a very, very good politician. But I have no idea whatsoever about his personality. Deciphering persona from public speech is a pretty sketchy proposition. I don't believe the person you'd limn after reading the Lincoln-Douglas debates is much like the Lincoln that we know of from a more full knowledge of his life.

She took more than his speeches into account. I do agree that she certainly does seem to have a theme in her writing - and I guess I don't care. What she drilled down to, correctly I believe, is something worth noting. And, for that matter, something worth applauding.

 

This reminds me a bit of that Onion article, lauding some NBA player (I forget which one) for being a decent human being. Is that so laudable? Maybe not - maybe it should be a basic expectation. But in the current environment, the behaviors we can see and hear are often less than honest. Obama's behaviors (as you said, we cannot see into his inner workings) seems closer to admirable. That is, I think, her main point. Religion seemed secondary to me.

Edited July 6, 2006 by NorthSideSox72

[southsider2k5]

I wonder when Helen Thomas is going to write an Obama article waiting for him to admit to his big mistakes....