Thanks to Shomik Dutta, a wonderful former Williams student of mine now working for the campaign, I got to attend a small evening reception with Barack Obama last night. He arrived almost two hours late and clearly exhausted after a big youth rally in DC in the afternoon, but then stayed on long after the event had been scheduled to end (reminded me of a Bruce Springsteen show I saw in Chicago many, many years ago). While I don't want to get into primary politics here, I've thought for quite a while that Obama was the most interesting and exciting candidate in the race on either side, and that he's been putting out some great ideas about foreign policy and especially Iraq, but this was my first chance to meet him in person. I was reallly impressed, especially by his answer to a question about exactly how a withdrawal from Iraq would increase American security and by his discussion of the urgency to reach out to the Muslims of the world with a positive alternative (suggesting a more comprehensive understanding of the problems of public diplomacy and anti-Americanism than I've heard from other candidates). I'm not going to go in to the details of our short chat about Iraq policy and about Middle East reform issues, but I was more interested in just seeing how he interacted with people. He came across, despite being exhausted, as confident, warm, interested, and genuine - especially when Chicago or sports came up (I had to tell him that since I'm a passionate Green Bay Packers and Milwaukee Brewers fan, we were sworn enemies, but let's just say that he didn't pander). I got to see his passion and his command of detail, and his ability to engage in easy conversation with a (somewhat) wide variety of people. He also showed the ability of a good professor to quickly move up and down the ladder of abstraction, if you will, moving from soaring rhetoric to detailed pragmatic analysis with ease. I came away from the evening even more perplexed by the emerging media narrative about his alleged gaffes, few of which actually look like gaffes to me (the Pakistan "gaffe" came out of a really excellent speech on terrorism, and he was obviously right about the need for Presidential diplomacy).
Also, I got to hang out for about ten minutes with Shawn Springs, the stellar defensive back for the Washington Redskins. Nice guy. He thinks they're going to do well this year, in case your interested, and he looked healthy to me. He was full of praise for new quarterback Jason Campbell, who he described as having tremendous potential and feeling very comfortable in the offense. He showed due respect to Brett Favre, but declined to offer any thoughts about how the Packers would do in the Super Bowl this year.
Did you get the chance to ask Obama why he doesn't have the backbone to openly support Palestinian rights, when we all know that he personally does? About the article by Ali AbuNeimah:
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article6619.shtml
And Obama's distancing of himself from his own "spiritual mentor" because of his pro-Arab positions:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/06/us/politics/06obama.html
He might not have been pandering you about the Packers, but he certainly is pandering Jews over his support for Israel. Why doesn't he have the guts to be honest about his own views.
Posted by: Joe M. | September 19, 2007 at 12:37 PM
I am beginning to understand some of what the media mindset is like.
what their ultimate narrative is, I don't know. Could be they think of our election as a baseball game and want a 'subway' series.
And/or they have this single minded idea of making Obama the vp to Hillary. nevermind the two cannot stand each other and Obama is superior to Hillary.
But, they have an agenda. They don't like his not walking the line on cw and paying homage to the establishment and the insider games.
His dangerous ideas of actually letting the people participate in their democracy is feared.
They like their cozy Georgetown cocktail life with the insiders like Hillary gossiping and being totally out of touch.
So, they are going to punish him. Besides, if Hillary tells them to misrepresent what he is really saying to play up the naive theme they are happy to.
I saw Jonathan Alter on one day who ripped his own profession for their preplanned storyline of the boy king who everyone wanted to have a beer with. They were obsessed with this and so set out to destory, actually destroy Al Gore.
We always suspected but, this was coming out the mouth of one of their own who I gather is sick of the culture there.
Posted by: vwcat | September 20, 2007 at 01:15 AM
Obama's been loathesome in his attempt to slur Mearsheimer and Walt. Besides Joe M's point about his U-turn on Palestinian rights, you might also have asked him why he's been at the forefront of criticism of 'The Israel Lobby' (although this isn't exactly a mystery).
Reading this post its got a slightly depressing feel about it - it reads like a love in between the Washington politician and the Washington academic.
Posted by: Guardian reading liberal | September 20, 2007 at 12:32 PM
Yeah, I have to partially agree here. I mean, Obama strikes me as a personally decent guy (so does Romney, but his policy prescriptions are something darn close to pure evil in my view), but I'm not quite sure what's got you so enamored of Barack. I mean, the foreign policy speech of his which struck you as so innovative - while certainly far better than anything Bush could ever offer and ignoring the Pakistan stuff - remained in my view deeply patronizing of the Muslim world. The tone that came through to me was "they need to see us as their loving fathers in the Blackhawks instead of their occupiers". Ironically for a person of color, in my view it harkened back to a century ago and the talk of civilizing our "little brown brothers" in the Philippines far more than it struck me as anything innovative or new. While that certainly implies a far more gentle approach, it hardly approaches the issue from a basis of mutual respect and equality with the Muslim world or the global south generally. I'd personally rank Obama as a least bad option (and as such likely to get my vote if he gets the nomination), but far from ideal.
Posted by: Non-Arab Arab | September 20, 2007 at 02:18 PM
Obama impresses me because he seems to have the right instincts on foreign policy (as well as the charisma which has become something of a cliche so that people look past it now... but it's real). I thought his big terrorism speech was extremely good, and his recent Iraq speech was probably the best I've seen from any candidate on the topic. Doesn't mean I agree with everything he says, but compared to the rest of the candidates he looks pretty good. As to why he's taking the line he's taking on Israel/Palestine (whatever his real views, which I don't know), that's obvious - he wants to win. Do you see any other candidates taking remotely different positions?
Posted by: aardvark | September 20, 2007 at 02:45 PM
he wants to win.
Sure he does. And when he wins he'll find himself bound by his rhetoric, not to mention his self-interest. Knee-jerk support of Israel will continue, sadly.
Posted by: No Preference | September 20, 2007 at 09:12 PM
As to why he's taking the line he's taking on Israel/Palestine (whatever his real views, which I don't know), that's obvious - he wants to win. Do you see any other candidates taking remotely different positions?
Sounds as if you don't particularly care what his "real views" are, either.
Can you be specific about what in his terrorism speech impressed you?
Posted by: Nell | September 20, 2007 at 10:48 PM
I don't think there is much doubt that Obama has a very deep understanding of the Palestinian cause. I have been told that he was very close to Rashid Khalidi when they were both at the University of Chicago. As such, I think it is very clear that Obama recognizes that the occupation is the problem and the Palestinians are not at fault overall. That's to say it mildly, I think. But publicly, unfortunately, Obama has been as spineless and cowardly as anyone. He has put his public image above his personal beliefs.
The problem with this is, in fact, that he is probably doing it because "he wants to win." It is either undemocratic or a sign he is unprincipled. both are pretty damning. Maybe it would not be so bad if it were a less important issue, but this is a central issues in world politics. And it is an issue that it's pretty clear Obama has established views which he is denying publicly.
One of the greatest disappointments with this, too, is that Obama was totally unknown last year. He became popular absolutely independently of any of his positions. He could easily have taken a stand and become the first major candidate to push for a moderate policy on the Zionist problem. But he didn't. So maybe it is that he just wants to win and will sell out the most oppressed people in the world for his shot at power, but that's a pretty big problem in my eyes, and reason enough not to vote for him.
Oh, and it is true that no "major" candidates are taking a better position. But Kucinich and Gravel and Ron Paul are better. I am sure the Green candidate, the Liberaterian and probably all other "3rd party" candidates will be better. It's not saying much, but we are debating a serious issue, not just asking which you prefer between crunchy or smooth peanut butter.
Posted by: Joe M. | September 21, 2007 at 12:05 AM
Obama definitely exceeds the rest of the pack in intelligence, charisma, and communications skills. He seems to be, from what I can see, a far better human being as well.
His Pakistan comments can be seen from multiple angles, but I think what's important is that they came in a context in which he was trying to appear more hawkish. Hillary and others criticized him for his willingness to visit certain 'notorious' foreign capitals early into his presidency, if elected. He fell into a trap that was set for him.
Moreover, the reaction in Pakistan was quite severe, and is an important factor for multiple reasons. Pakistan is an independent country, and Pakistanis, like people of other countries, would like to maintain their sovereignty. Obama could have given a similar answer in more guarded terms.
His staff should look at the recent Terror Free Tomorrow poll conducted in Pakistan. It reveals that a plurality or more of Pakistanis support the government's military actions against al-Qaeda and the Taliban, and even more oppose U.S. military actions inside Pakistan. Anti-American sentiment is high. China and Saudi Arabia are immensely popular there. One major reason is because those two countries have a visible presence in the country. China is developing a new deep sea water port, has built major highways, and the Saudis have a variety of interests in the country, including major banks. In the poll, Pakistanis would appreciate greater U.S. trade, investment, and development aid. This, they say, will improve their views of the U.S.
Perhaps it would've been better if Obama complemented more guarded, hawkish statements with a proposal for more comprehensive relations with Pakistan, featuring aid and investment that goes as close to Pakistan's people as much as possible.
Btw, for regular analysis of Pakistani affairs, you can visit my site at: www.pakistanpolicy.org
Posted by: Arif | September 21, 2007 at 03:15 AM