In Defense of Barack Obama

First, let me say that I did not support President Obama in the primary, but I did vote for him in the general election. So, I was not one of those starry-eyed Obama supporters. But I was so relieved when he was elected. Finally, a smart, analytical, well-spoken president! He is still all those things. Unfortunately, he has been under siege by the Republicans since day one and Obama was naive enough to believe he could obtain bi-partisan support on issues such as health care. I don't know why he was so naive about that, perhaps his inexperience. Anyway, the Republicans have manipulated the media brilliantly to cast doubt in the minds of the American people regarding almost every Obama proposal. They create controversy using false indignation and lies. They hide behind all of these little special interest groups, which are funded by conservative Republicans. The news media (except, of late, NBC's David Gregory) does not challenge any of the Republicans' misstatements of the facts, even the most outrageous ones. Thus, we are left with stories about people claiming that Obama was not born in the U.S., that Obama is a Muslim that Obama was going to take away all the guns that the health care reforms will result in death panels and people going to jail if they did not buy insurance. The news media did not do their own research on the health care reform bill. These were all unsubstantiated claims. It didn't matter that, 25 years ago, we would have recognized that the people making these claims were mentally unbalanced, lying or just plain stupid. Their friends and neighbors would have walked away, laughing and shaking their heads and ignored them. It never would have made it to the news. Instead, the news media treats these claims as "legitimate points of view" and gives these "fingers" a national forum from which to proselytize, thus legitimizing these groundless claims. Now, they are seeking office.

Then, there are the spineless and spin-less Democrats in Congress, who, with some exceptions, are scared of their own shadows. They deserted Obama on the health care reform bill and on the issue of the Bush tax cuts. They acted in pure self-interest, choosing to please corporate donors rather than improve the lives of their constituents. Instead of being out there on Meet the Press, Face the Nation or The Situation Room, enthusiastically and aggressively supporting the president's legislative proposals, they went into hiding. How is President Obama expected to pass any effective legislation without his own party spinning it?

Now, progressives, many of whom were those starry-eyed Obama supporters, are upset at Obama's performance because he hasn't done enough. The progressives are disappointed that he increased the troops and stepped up the fighting in Afghanistan. However, he said he was going to do this in many campaign speeches and during the debates. I was disappointed that he did not repeal the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy too, but I realize that Congress is filled with homophobes who are laden with testosterone. One can just do so much.

Let's review the good things President Obama has done: he picked Hillary Clinton for his Secretary of State; his Justice Department filed a brief urging the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act as discriminatory; he supported/passed/signed the health care reform bill, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the Small Business Jobs Act and Wall Street reform. He signed an Executive Order revoking President Bush’s Executive Order that limited federal funding of research involving human embryonic stem cells. President Obama's intelligence and demeanor immediately restored much of the international admiration and respect for this nation that had been corroded down to nothing under Bush.

Barack Obama has been President only twenty months. He came into office with his own agenda, but he has also had to contend with two wars and an economic crisis the extent of which this country had not seen in almost 80 years. During the primary and election season, I opined that many of the most ardent progressives had unrealistic expectations of Obama. Clearly, they did. Recall his words from his November 2008 victory speech:

This is your victory. And I know you didn't do this just to win an election. And I know you didn't do it for me. You did it because you understand the enormity of the task that lies ahead. For even as we celebrate tonight, we know the challenges that tomorrow will bring are the greatest of our lifetime -- two wars, a planet in peril, the worst financial crisis in a century. . . The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep. We may not get there in one year or even in one term. . . There will be setbacks and false starts.

 To expect President Obama to solve all of the problems facing this nation in twenty short months, particularly considering the incredibly effective Republican interference, lies and propaganda machine, as well as the spineless, spin-less Democrats of the House and Senate, is unrealistic and unfair. This nation gave George Bush eight years to bring us to the eve of destruction. We should give President Obama more than twenty months to mop up Bush’s mess and we should support him in his efforts.

Through the Megaphone-

Hey Progressives, weren't you listening?
As President Obama's decision about America's continued involvement in Afghanistan became increasingly imminent, I have heard many angry and angst-filled progressives complaining  on the radio and on television about the prospect of the president sending more troops to Afghanistan. Even Keith Olberman sternly pontificated.  As anticipation of the decision increased, many of these people act as if a decision to increase troops would be a betrayal of their vote. I find this attitude interesting because throughout his campaign, President Obama consistently stated that he would increase the troops in Afghanistan. On August 1, 2007,in Washington, D.C., then-Senator Obama made the following remarks:

"And so, a little more than a year after that bright September day, I was in the streets of Chicago again, this time speaking at a rally in opposition to war in Iraq. I did not oppose all wars, I said. I was a strong supporter of the war in Afghanistan. But I said I could not support "a dumb war, a rash war" in Iraq."

"It is time to turn the page. When I am President, we will wage the war that has to be won, with a comprehensive strategy with five elements: getting out of Iraq and on to the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan; developing the capabilities and partnerships we need to take out the terrorists and the world's most deadly weapons; engaging the world to dry up support for terror and extremism; restoring our values; and securing a more resilient homeland."

"The first step must be getting off the wrong battlefield in Iraq, and taking the fight to the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan."

"As President, I would deploy at least two additional brigades to Afghanistan to re-enforce our counter-terrorism operations and support NATO's efforts against the Taliban. As we step up our commitment, our European friends must do the same, and without the burdensome restrictions that have hampered NATO's efforts. We must also put more of an Afghan face on security by improving the training and equipping of the Afghan Army and Police, and including Afghan soldiers in U.S. and NATO operations."

Obama made similar remarks on September 12, 2007 in Clinton, Iowa:

"Osama bin Ladin and his top lieutenants have rebuilt a new base in Pakistan where they freely train recruits, plot new attacks, and disseminate propaganda. The Taliban is resurgent in Afghanistan."

"When we end this war in Iraq, we can finally finish the fight in Afghanistan. That is why I propose stepping up our commitment there, with at least two additional combat brigades and a comprehensive program of aid and support to help Afghans help themselves."

On August 19, 2008, Obama said the following in a speech at the VFW National Convention in Orlando, Florida:

"Ending the war will allow us to invest in America, to strengthen our military, and to finish the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan and the border region of Pakistan. We must also recognize that we cannot succeed in Afghanistan or secure America as long as there is a terrorist safe-haven in northwest Pakistan. A year ago, I said that we must take action against bin Laden and his lieutenants if we have them in our sights and Pakistan cannot or will not act.


"Six years ago, I stood up at a time when it was politically difficult to oppose going to war in Iraq, and argued that our first priority had to be finishing the fight against Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda in Afghanistan."


"Ending the war will allow us to invest in America, to strengthen our military, and to finish the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan and the border region of Pakistan.  And as Commander-in-Chief, I will have no greater priority than taking out these terrorists who threaten America, and finishing the job against the Taliban."

Not only was President Obama on the record as being in support of sending more troops to Afghanistan for several years before his election, he campaigned on it. If he announces that he is going to send additional troops as is widely speculated, he is doing exactly what the he told us he would do. So, I don't understand this feeling of surprise and betrayal in the progressive community. Did they not listen to his speeches? Did they misunderstand? Did they purposely ignore it? Did they think that he did not mean what he said?