Obama: A Compromiser Who Keeps His Eye On The Ball

[elizm]

Obama: A Compromiser Who Keeps His Eye On The Ball
By M.J. Rosenberg

With the polls all showing that Sen. Obama is our strongest candidate for November 2008, it is worthwhile to look at the man's actual record. What kind of President would he be?

A major piece in today's New York Times provides something of an answer. "Mr. Obama did not bring revolution to Springfield in his eight years in the Senate, the longest chapter in his short public life. But he turned out to be practical and shrewd, a politician capable of playing hardball to win election (he squeezed every opponent out of his first race), a legislator with a sharp eye for an opportunity, a strategist willing to compromise to accomplish things."

In other words, he was a compromiser with a vision.

There are two kinds of compromisers. The first builds bridges to the other side out of some (I think perverse) desire to make friends there. They don't stand for much and simply want to be liked by everybody. Then there are the strategic compromisers, like Obama.

He knows what he wants and makes the necessary compromises and temporary alliances to achieve his goals. This is what he did in Springfield although he hasn't had much opportunity to do the same in the United States Senate, an institution so broken that no one Senator has accomplished much of anything in the few months since the Democrats took over.

So all we have on Obama is his Springfield record and this article makes clear its a good one.

I'd add one other point. Obama does not elicit strong negatives. The percentage of Americans who know who he is and don't like him or say that under no circumstances would they vote for him is very small. Don't take that for granted. It is, frankly, amazing that an African-American would be viewed as acceptable by huge numbers of voters who have absolutely dug in against some of our other "offerings."

If elected, he would not face a situation where a large segment of the public (and the Republicans in Congress) simply stonewall him from Day 1. He does not produce those reactions; he never has.

More here:

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2007/jul/30/obama_a_compromiser_who_keeps_his_eye_on_the_ball

[Benhurst]

1. If the Republicans in Congress aren't out to stonewall him or any

other of our candidates from Day 1, then he or they don't stand for anything.

We are facing zealots who are maintaining a unified front despite Bush and Cheney's low standing in the polls. These are not persons with whom an honorable compromise can be made.

[goclark]

2. I agree with you ~ he also represents "a new day!"

He is smart and so is Hilary.

We should be proud of both of them and the other Democrats that are seriously running.

He acts like a Chess player to me, one that plays the game extremely well.

[illinoisprogressive]

3. Obama was good in getting bills he wanted on the floor even with the repukes in charge.

[Ethelk2044]

4. That is the only way to get things done.

[rinsd]

5. Why does this supporter for Obama lie about the most easily of verified subjects?

"With the polls all showing that Sen. Obama is our strongest candidate for November 2008,"

Except all the polls do not show that. In fact even with his slip in the polls Edwards does as good if not better than Obama in head to head matchups.

And what is up with posting supporter blogs as if they hold weight?

[wyldwolf]

6. I was about to point that out...

...but it goes back to my "netroots echo chamber" theory. Within the confines of a small group, they pass around half truths and myths. When reality sets in, they scramble to come up with an excuse (the polling was bought off, etc.)