So I'm wondering - why is torture all Sen. Obama's fault?

[Kagemusha]

A quick scan of blogs over the last few days would convince any Martian that somehow, Senator Obama is uniquely and personally responsible for torture in America, and has a unique and personal responsibility to end his support for torture today, to repent, and to proclaim from the rooftops how terrible torture is, a unique and personal responsibility borne by no other Senator or Congressman, or by anyone else in the entire world, actually.

So um, not to put too fine a point on it... why? Why's it all his fault now?

It's like no one even cares Bush proposed "alternative interrogation techniques" anymore. The important thing is, it's all Obama's fault.

I really didn't want to ask like this but, I'm seeing so *much* of this talk (Atrios' blog in particular) that I feel that it's a subject for civilized discussion, at least to sort this mess out.

[bryant69]

1. Well it's true that there's nothing a Democrat hates more than his fellow

Democrats. That said, there's certainly some validity in the argument that while we can't expect much out of Republicans we should be able to expect our side of the fence to fight bad legislation like that, and that's not even considering that Obama is on the shortlist for Vice President or President.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[MADem]

2. You need to provide a little context to get decent answers

I'm reasonably aware, I do a lot of reading, and gee, I don't have the impression that torture is Barak Obama's fault.

I have the strong impression from my reading that it is all the MONKEY's fault.

A few links are in order to prove your point.

[Kagemusha]

4. Well not that I intend or want to prove it really is Obama's fault...

But to make things easier, this is Atrios' blog Eschaton:

http://atrios.blogspot.com/

He links to a rant from Digby:

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_09_01_digbysblog_archive.html#115934106449183913

of which this is the first paragraph:

The vote is going to happen and it's going to pass. But I can't help but wonder if the momentum wouldn't have gone the other way if some of the Democrats who constantly exhort the rank and file to be more friendly to religion and values and morals had stood up and said no. Imagine if Barack Obama had staked out a leading position against this legislation making the explicit argument that it is immoral and unamerican to torture. That would have gone farther to demonstrate our respect for religious values than his frequent process talk and scolding could ever do.

-

This is followed by two back to back posts giving contact information for Sen. Obama's office. The comments for each, in sequence:

"Ask when his office is going to issue a statement in support of or against torture."

"Now would be a good time to start, you know, leading instead of scolding."

The latest post cites Rep. Louise Slaughter as demonstrating leadership on the issue (that Obama is not) in a post I believe was put on Daily Kos (probably among other places).

The gist: Torture is going to be legalized AND IT'S OBAMA'S !&#$@&* FAULT.

So is it or does everyone just hate the man that badly?

[MADem]

7. Sounds like the work of those "concern trolls" trying to dis Obama

specifically, perhaps to blunt his effect in helping out other candidates. He is a moneymaker, he's got almost as much juice as Hillary in separating people from their cash with a smile. And that's all good for our team.

Ya gotta realize something with some of these clowns who make comments like that: Just because they post on democratic forums doesn't always assure one that they are Democrats.

[Kagemusha]

9. But Atrios is the last person I'd accuse of being a concern troll.

So I'd attribute it faster to deep, personal resentment...

[MADem]

10. He's not thinking for himself on this matter, apparently

Or it IS some sort of odd personal resentment. Or he's floating in "We Are The World" land, and demands that everyone don rose colored glasses as well. OR, he is picking on, and punishing, the new kid because he dared to play the Jesus and Faith cards in a largely secular (or "Keep your shit private") political party. Perhaps he doesn't like those church-goers in the corner of our big tent?? And they'll be held to a higher standard simply BECAUSE they go to church?

Here's what I think (not that my opinion matters) of people who put all of the onus on ONE person, like Obama, to carry a standard (and it's the MORALITY standard that Atrios, et. al., want Obama to carry)--they're idiots. And I don't mean that in an unkind way, but they are.

Politics is the art of being brutally pragmatic while appealing to the idealistic nature of your supporters. It is the art of compromise. It is the art of sticking it to your opponent with a smile and a denial while you advance YOUR agenda and burn theirs to the ground, quickly handing off the matches and wiping your own hands clean. And it is the art of NEVER getting too far ahead of your constituency, or exposing yourself unnecessarily to flak. It is a talent to develop a following that gets behind you and pushes you forward on waves of cold, hard cash, because you, the candidate, represent all that is good about THEM. Obama is doing a great job on all counts.

Because the bottom line here is, if your ass is not warming that legislative seat, you can't do ANY good for your party or your constituents. Obama knows exactly how far he can push it. Atrios and the rest of them are excessively idealistic, devisive, and frankly, they're unhelpful with weeks to go until election day. Obama needs to be able to get his ass out on daises all over the country and use his rising tide to lift boats in other races around the country, not respond to an issue where the Democrats HAVE NO CLOUT, and NO VOTES, anyway. The GOP has both houses right now. Let Obama get out there and help us get at least one of them back, and THEN he can do some griping.

Others' mileage may vary, but that's my take.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

3. I'm definitely not going to jump on the bash Obama bandwagon, however...

I will say that it seems most of his first term thus far has been spent working towards a future Presidential run of his own. I see this move by him as one that builds a "tough on national security" portfolio.

[Horse with no Name]

8. I totally agree

Very milquetoast and cautious.
Personally I have a problem with him using the Senate as a stepping stone instead of a landing place--which precludes him from taking stances on tough issues and votes.
He should be doing THIS job--the one of saving a Republic--not insulating himself for a Presidential run.
In fact, in the end the joke may be on him. He spent so much time straddling the fence and staying out of the fray that in the end, he very well could have ultimately upheld a fascist regime by not speaking up.
Do I believe this was his intention? Absolutely not.
However, at the end of the day the result could be the same and Obama will hold that responsibility for being cautious and keeping his powder dry for his own Presidential run.

[Jacobin]

5. I'll take a guess>

Raises hand:

"Is it because he is being touted widely as an up and coming leader of the Democratic Party, and they expect to see leadership from him on important issues?"

[Eric J in MN]

6. Maybe it's a negative reaction to Obama's speech here.

http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060628-call_to_renewal_keynote_address/index.html

[Kagemusha]

11. Just to add this for the record...

I've been reviewing the torture bill issue. ALL Democratic Senators are at fault here for not keeping up. They'd better get busy reading the legal bloggers' blogs on this or be crushed. That bill's been modified to be far worse than what McCain thinks he agreed to. The Kings of Britain didn't have powers like these since the bad old days! And they never had powers like this explicitly approved by a legislative body.

But to blame that on Obama's insane. If anyone's at fault here, it starts with Sen. Reed. Those expecting a freshman senator to - let me be blunt here - defy the Democratic Party on an issue of fundamental importance to the party's midterm electoral chances, is expecting a little much, however justified it might be. It's such behavior why Lieberman lost his primary and not a variety of other pro-war senators.

[BuyingThyme]

12. This is why:

Obama, like Hillary, was jammed down our throats as a future leader of our party.

But when people are led into dungeons to have our fingernails removed with pliers, we call for new leaders.

[Kagemusha]

14. So why do the current leaders get a pass?

That's what I don't understand whatsoever. Future leader? Maybe. But sure as hell not a current one. He's not the one blabbing to the NY Times about rolling over on official Senate business. So he talks about moral stuff - fine, that's his role. Reid is the minority leader. That's HIS role, and I don't see him doing it.

If you're gonna call for new leaders, start there.

[BuyingThyme]

15. I did:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2199029

[depakid]

16. Obama has even worse judgment than Hillary

Amazing how many misteps and stupid statements he's managed to make in only 20 months.

[ComerPerro]

17. Read Paul Wellstone's book sometime

a man who almost everyone here would categorize as a great Senator, a textbook progressive hero, and an all around fantastic person.

He spends his first few chapters discussing his mistakes and screwups and misteps during his first few years in the Senate.


And, no, I'm not comparing Obama to Wellstone...

[carpe diem]

13. I think I understand the frustration Atrios and Digby are expressing....

towards Obama. He is being touted and promoted as the hope and future of the party and politics in general. He, unlike most Dems, gets a huge amount of positive media attention. When he makes a statement, the press covers it and if he spoke out about the big/controversial issues of the day, it would undoubtedly get covered whereas it's 'Operation Ignore Democrats' for everbody else not named Clinton. Right now he is promoting a new book that's coming out next month and much of what I've read in his interviews is 'Sista Soulja' type chastising of the Dem party base. A few months ago he gave a speech suggesting Democrats were not receptive or welcoming enough to religion/or religious voters. Speaking as an African-American southerner who grew up in the Baptist church and has been a Democrat all of my life, I have always felt that like 'Democrats are weak on National Security', this 'Godless Demorat/Liberal' meme was a smear by the right rather than something that was factual or true. The only thing the Republicans have done, is used religion and family values as a political weapon to manipulate and seduce a certain segment of the population rather some sincere belief system on their part. Rather than call out the hypocracy and cynical manipulation of this political strategy, and telling the public that 'hey, you're being played for suckers', Obama seems to be playing into this tactic by saying, basically, 'yeah, they're right, we need to get our God on!'

I can understand the resentment that some Democrats may have at being chastised (by a Democrat) for lacking sufficient religious or moral etiquette when we are facing some of the most immoral and corrupt behavior ever seen in government being wrought by folks who wrap themselves up in religion and justify some of the most cruel and dispicable, hateful and sadistic behavior in the name of 'Jesus'. WE ARE NOT WHAT'S WRONG WITH THIS COUNTRY RIGHT NOW! THEY (the religious RIGHT) ARE! They are enabling and supporting fearmongering, hatemongering, warmongering, war-profiteering, racism, homophobia, corruption, deception, chaos and cruelty of the highest order. None of what these people are doing to this country reflects the values I was brought with or taught that God wanted us to be. Rather than validating this schizophenic ungodly, unholy mess, Obama and others ought call it what it is...politics. People might actually appreciate the respect of being told the truth rather than pandered to and patronized. Maybe I'm naive, but trying to out religion the fanatics on the right doesn't seem like the best thing for this country, separation of church, state, etc...