TNR BLOGS

July 03, 2009 | 5:02 PM
July 03, 2009 | 4:51 PM
July 03, 2009 | 4:35 PM

March 09, 2009 | 5:19 PM
March 09, 2009 | 5:16 PM
January 07, 2009 | 12:20 PM

July 01, 2009 | 10:33 PM
June 30, 2009 | 8:42 AM
June 29, 2009 | 9:09 AM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
01.05.2008
Is Obama Too Human?

Today Gail Collins writes one of those psychobabbly, pop culture-riffing political columns I know I'm supposed to hate, but it's actually very, very good. The best part:

Obviously, Obama doesn’t share Wright’s racial paranoia. But the saga does play into Hillary Clinton’s most powerful argument: that he is not seasoned enough to be elected president.

By seasoned, she actually means hardened by the soul-searing fires of humiliation and defeat. When Hillary was around Barack’s age and still in Arkansas, it’s perfectly possible that if her longtime pastor suddenly became a political embarrassment, she’d have loyally tried to distance herself without disowning him entirely.

Since then, she’s had a long string of painful lessons learned. One is that when beloved associates become political embarrassments, they tend to be much more concerned about their own reputation than yours. Many bodies under the bus later, when she tells you that she’d have dumped Rev. Wright at the first mention of chickens coming home to roost, you’d better believe it.

This sales pitch — I know how the cruel world works — is powerful in a political party that keeps losing elections that it thinks it deserves to win. On the other hand, young voters who have yet to have their hearts broken by a politician find it wicked depressing.

I was talking to a friend yesterday about all of this and we both agreed that, in a strange way, Obama's handling of the Wright situation actually made us like him more. The fact that Obama hesitated to throw Wright under the bus suggested that Obama's an actual person with actual human relationships and not just some robo-pol whose human interactions are governed exclusively by political considerations.

But then my friend said something else. He said he wasn't sure someone he could relate to would actually be an effective president. I'm still thinking about that one.

--Jason Zengerle 

Posted: Thursday, May 01, 2008 9:08 AM with 22 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

dbhuff said:

I've had this debate with myself and with my father in law. We fell on different side, because he wants to win the election, but I want a change from Bush/Clinto/Bush mind numbing politics of cynisism and inaction and pointless debate about say Terry Shaivo to something that actually addresses real problems my children will face: global warming, energy, educational decline, economic decline, crime and wasted potential, etc. My personal belief is a 'human being' might actually move the needle on these problems, while a robo-pol will just initiate more yelling...

May 1, 2008 9:50 AM

virginiacentrist said:

So presidents have to be cold/evil bastards? Ugh. You  might be right, but most people will spend their whole lives trying to believe otherwise.

May 1, 2008 10:06 AM

scire said:

I don't think Obama responded as he did over the course of the last month simply out of loyalty to a friend. I think he also responded as he did out of his personal sense of integrity. I think he felt the crassness and inconsistency/dishonesty of completely disowning Wright. Which is why he said in his original March speech "I can no more disown him than . . ." Also, Barack Obama is obviously not the only politician to see things in shades of grade (nuance), but because of that same integrity I mention above, he isn't going to pretend to see things in black and white just to pander to voters. This simple fact is what Hillary (and many of her older supporters) sees as not being seasoned/hardened. But it's that same characteristic that is so appealing to many of his supporters. And it is frankly, the platform he's running on, so it sticks in his craw to abandon it.

So it's no surprise that Hillary is running a republican-style campaign here. That Darwinist attitude is what has led to the success of the Republicans in recent decades, and she's learned that lesson. She thinks the way to beat the Republicans is to one-up them at their own game. Obama sees it differently. What the media and Hillary see as his stumbling, ineffective approach to the whole Wright scandal has not been because of lack of experience on his part, but because of his different philosophy of politics. In a fumbling way, his approach has been consistent with his message.

The question is, which philosophy will win out?

May 1, 2008 10:30 AM

adamvaught said:

"He said he wasn't sure someone he could relate to would actually be an effective president."

Under that theory, Nixon should have been an amazing President.  

May 1, 2008 10:41 AM

Rhubarbs said:

The thing is, there's not necessarily a conflict between being a well-rounded senses of honor, integrity, and decency, and the ruthless pragmatism required to govern well. See Washington, Lincoln, first-term Cleveland, Eisenhower, and others. Obama's conduct in the early campaign in this regard is what won my anyone-but-Clinton vote. He has been graciously ruthless to his opponents.

Hillary on this score reminds me of George W. Bush, whose personal story amounted to being an obnoxious drunk who stopped drinking. But that was only half the problem; though sober, he was still obnoxious. Hillary has likewise thrown off any scruples of reason or honesty and proven that she can be a completely ruthless SOB (still looking for the gender-equal equivalent of SOB, so please assume whatever equivalent you feel best captures the concept of not-quite-a'hole-mean-spiritedness without the implicit b-word). But that's only half the package; she's ruthless, all right, but she's still lacking the decency and integrity that make for a well-rounded political leader.

May 1, 2008 10:53 AM

lymon1 said:

I'm sorry, I didn't even read this, I just saw the title "Is Obama Too Human?" and moaned -- since Obama as Messiah stopped playing well, now it's Obama as Everyman.  

May 1, 2008 11:11 AM

jamiller34 said:

I find it amazing that Gail Collins has a job at the Times.  Her articles usually so stupid that they can be ignored.

May 1, 2008 11:26 AM

timteeter said:

"I'm sorry, I didn't even read this, I just saw the title "Is Obama Too Human?" and moaned -- since Obama as Messiah stopped playing well, now it's Obama as Everyman."

And this is somehow more objectionable than HRC as avatar of the proletariat?

BTW, if you're going to insist on going theological (when Obama's supporters in fact do not), then you should realize that, in Christian theology, the whole point was that the Messiah WAS Everyman.

May 1, 2008 11:33 AM

r-brown207 said:

Personally I think there is something to this argument which is why I could not jump on the Obama bandwagon. Youthful optimism is a wonderful characteristic in its place but is that place the oval office? Yes, without a doubt the Bush administration has been horrible in ways too numerous to detail, but running from that horror will we be in a better situation with a pendulum swing that goes too far? It has seemed that a lot of Obama supporters are willing to suspend reality to jump on the change bandwagon. A Democrat can be elected as President and things will be different from the Bush administration, but it is an entirely different matter to think anyone is going to dramatically change Washington politics. It will be very interesting to check back with the young Obama supporters a few years down the road after they have had more experience and after they watch how Obama conducts himself if elected. Obama will get tougher or he will flounder as President.

Adversity and experience do change people and yes at this point I do think Obama is a bit too human for the job. I remember all to well the problems that Jimmy Carter faced as President for similar reasons. He was just too soft of a personality for the job. I've listened to the "change" message of Obama's campaign but I believe Obama will in the end change far more than will Washington politics if he is nominated and elected. The old dogs in Washington are not going to roll over easily. Obama will not always be able to play nice and be successful as President.

May 1, 2008 11:41 AM

Idefix said:

Collins and Zengerle entirely miss the point. Obama did not initially refuse to reject Wright out of his personal feelings  for the man. He refused to denounce and reject him out of principle. He stood by his history of twenty years with the church and he honored his commitment to the values he  saw in that community, despite the incendiary words, despite the political flack he took for it. He took a risk and he took it with his eyes opened, not misty with tears. If that's not courage, guts and leadership, I don't know what is. Hillary, on the other hand, does not hesitate to sway wherever the political wind takes her. Meanness is not toughness.

May 1, 2008 11:46 AM

r-brown207 said:

jamiller34  - Why do you or anyone else both making such comments? All that you are doing is creating noise!  I've read enough personal attacks on writers, columnist, Hillary and Obama supporters to last me a lifetime. If you don't have anything to say why don't you just keep it to yourself!

May 1, 2008 11:52 AM

Jason Zengerle said:

lymon, the "too human" title was a reference to stephanopoulos's book about the clinton white house. i thought a clinton fan like you would have gotten that!

May 1, 2008 11:59 AM

Weatherhead said:

I would like to know: how did the Rev. Wright manage a weekend sweep of the media hotspots?  Surely arranging that requires a PR manager of considerable sophistication?  Did he really accomplish it by himself? I do not mean to belittle him in any way, but his weekend activities, and the way they were set up, bespeak a level of planning and organization beyond the means of political neophytes and innocents of the sort he professes (and truly appears) to be.  

May 1, 2008 12:29 PM

Wandreycer1 said:

Ah yes, the up is downism of this campaign:

cowardice is courage

courage is cowardice

The utter banal and irrelvance of this whole topic suits the laziness of the press and partisans perfectly.  Im sure I'll hear about this stupid topic every night until by youngest is in college, especially from epic dips like Collins.

Yes, such a wuss that Obama, running as a black man with that name, refusing to pander to anyone - voters and co-workers alike, insisting on being decent at the potential cost of the election, taking on the biggest name in politics, numerable votes while a Senator that actually stood for doing the right thing instead of right wing ass kissing - a real shame about his innocent take on life and all.

WHat I find all too human is sticking up for the inevitablity of toxic, lazy cynicism always winning all and being proud of your supposed wisdom.

May 1, 2008 12:32 PM

jacobt1 said:

"Obama's handling of the Wright situation actually made us like him more."

Jason, It's impossible to like   Obama even more.  Your love of Obama already knows no limits.

"The fact that Obama hesitated to throw Wright under the bus "

He didn't  hesitate to throw his grandma under the bus.  

May 1, 2008 12:34 PM

ironyroad said:

As I've never met an Obama supporter who thought he was a messiah, I don't expect to meet one who think's he's Everyman.  However, one might see him as Pilgrim, making his way doggedly through the Slough of Despond!

May 1, 2008 12:44 PM

asnevitt said:

There's a problem with this comparison between Hillary and Barack. (I'll use first name since this is about whether they're human enough.)

In this campaign, Barack has been the one to ditch people incisively. Not Hillary. She didn't speak out against Ferraro's ridiculousness. She hasn't disowned her husband's statements. She didn't even really fire Mark Penn. So, which allies turned problem has she thrown under the bus? And no one has made her pastor an issue for us to test this theory in a apples-to-apples kind of a way.

Obama has not come off as too soft. He has been willing to speak out against the words of a man who married him and baptized his children. He even publicly claimed that this man was out of touch with what was needed to today.

What Obama has shown us is that you can disapprove of behaviors and still embrace a person by embracing that which you appreciate and want to to encourage in him. I think this takes a lot more strength of character than the willingness to either act like someone has done no wrong, or reject him wholesale for being flawed.

Hillary does not represent strength. She represents fear. Fear that motivates her to do or present herself as whatever it takes to "win". I'm not even sure what her winning would mean for anybody any more. She's more hawkish than the neo-cons and her sabre-rattling ways can't even be checked in a primary season where she is now battling with the voters of her own party. (Telling us how many states and constitutencies don't matter and calling anybody who thinks differently than her "elitist" are just examples.) If you're not with her, you're out. Strength is the ability to work with people who see things differently and figure out how to move ahead as inclusively as possible.

Ugh. I hate that strength is solely defined by "testicular tenacity." How antithetical to the idea of being a feminist option.

May 1, 2008 12:55 PM

dhauck said:

"But then my friend said something else. He said he wasn't sure someone he could relate to would actually be an effective president. I'm still thinking about that one."  About that...

In 2000, I voted for an average Joe, who mostly seemed to share my values, and with whom I think it would be great to sit around, have a few beers, and yuk it up for a while.  

Huh, won't make that mistake again.

May 1, 2008 12:55 PM

bigfish said:

"He didn't hesitate to throw his grandma under the bus."

My parents are pastors.  When I was young, I did some foolish things.  My parents talked about them in sermons.  Does that mean they threw me under the bus?  No.  The term for my parents is "sermon illustration."  What Obama did by calling attention to some unpleasent feelings among his own family was what I think I'll call a "political illustration."  It showed humility to reference people close to him as being less-than-perfect.

But I think I have the real question.  Is Obama more human than human?  (Cue White Zombie.)

May 1, 2008 1:02 PM

Gully said:

"He didn't  hesitate to throw his grandma under the bus.  "

Sure "he through his Grandmother under the bus", in print a decade ago. Just because you didn't hear about it until his speech doesn't mean the story wasn't out in the public domain long before then. He has amazing organizational skills in order to create the story more than ten years ago to put out a political fire last month.

May 1, 2008 1:06 PM

eudoxie said:

Has Collins written anything positive about Obama? I don't think so.

May 1, 2008 1:09 PM

teplukhin2you said:

Join the club, Jason Z.

Obama's a delightful person.He'd make a superb friend, neighbor, prof. If the post he's running for were Talker-in-Chief, he'd be the hands-down choice. But it's Commender-in-Chief, and it's not easy to picture him, at this point, in that role.

Political toughness is not some BS meme propagated by Rove; it's basic politics 101. No permanent friends, no permanent enemies. If someone's trying to cripple your candidacy or undermine your effectiveness in office, then cut him down to size.

Obama's a good guy, but goodness has its limitations. Nice to see the formerly snark-mongering Obamaphiles admitting some basic, obvious facts about Obama that the rest of us have been pointing out for many months now.

May 1, 2008 4:58 PM