Ignoring evidence, The Politico's Allen offered Obama's name, supposed "frank liberalism" as "big vulnerabilities"
In a February 9 article for The Politico titled "Undoing Obama: Inside the Coming Effort to Dismantle a Candidate," chief political correspondent Mike Allen claimed one of Sen. Barack Obama's (D-IL) "big vulnerabilities" in the 2008 presidential race is "his frank liberalism in a time when the party needs centrist voters." As evidence of Obama's "frank liberalism," Allen cited Obama's support for "civil unions for gay people." However, Allen ignored the fact that polling shows the majority of Americans as well as the majority of self-identified "independents" favor same-sex marriage or same-sex civil unions.
Also, Allen claimed that Obama's name is another potential weakness, and suggested that Obama has been inconsistent in explaining its origins, writing: "Why has he sometimes said his first name is Arabic, and other times Swahili?" In fact, "Barack" is the Swahili derivative of the Arabic word meaning "blessing."
Allen wrote:
In interviews, strategists in both parties pointed to four big vulnerabilities: Obama's inexperience, the thinness of his policy record, his frank liberalism in a time when the party needs centrist voters and the wealth of targets that are provided by the personal recollections in his first book, from past drug use to conversations that cannot be documented.
He went on to offer a "capsulized look" at Obama's "liberalism," writing:
The senator is unabashedly more liberal than the centrist path charted by President Bill Clinton. Back in 1996, a Cleveland Plain Dealer reporter wrote that Obama -- then the Democratic nominee from his state Senate district - sighed when asked about the fall election. "Bill Clinton?" Obama was quoted as asking. "Well, his campaign's fascinating to a student of politics. It's disturbing to someone who cares about certain issues. But politically, it seems to be working."
"Audacity of Hope" advocates civil unions for gay people, declaring tartly that Obama is not "willing to accept a reading of the Bible that considers an obscure line in Romans to be more defining of Christianity than the Sermon on the Mount." He says he doesn't "believe we strengthen the family by bullying or coercing people into the relationships we think are best for them -- or by punishing those who fail to meet our standards of sexual propriety."
He writes that Bill Clinton and conservatives turned out to be "right about welfare as it was previously structured." He adds, "But we also need to admit that work alone does not ensure that people can rise out of poverty."
However, polling data have shown that majorities of Americans and "independents" favor either same-sex marriage or same-sex civil unions -- undermining Allen's suggestion that Obama's support for civil unions will alienate "centrist" voters. According to a November 4-5, 2006, Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll, 60 percent of respondents favor allowing same-sex couples "to get legally married" or enter into "a legal partnership similar to but not called marriage." An October 27-31, 2006, CBS News/New York Times poll found that 57 percent of all Americans, and 59 percent of "Independents," favor allowing same-sex couples to marry or enter into civil unions. An October 26-27, 2006, Newsweek poll found that 50 percent of Americans, and 56 percent of "independents," favor full marriage rights or civil unions for same-sex couples.
Allen also suggested Obama has been inconsistent in explaining the etymology of his first name, asking, "Why has he sometimes said his first name is Arabic, and other times Swahili?" Allen added:
Even his name offers fodder for the critics. When he was growing up, his family, friends and teachers called him "Barry." Then as a young man, he started insisting on "Barack," explaining in a memoir published in 1995 that his grandfather was a Muslim and that it means "blessed" in Arabic. His dad, who was Kenyan, had gone by "Barry" -- probably trying to fit in when he came to the States, his son figured. On the campaign trail during his 1994 Senate race, Obama told reporters that "Barack" was Swahili for "blessed by God."
According to Yale University's "Kamusi Project" -- the "Internet Living Swahili Dictionary" -- the Swahili word "baraka," meaning "blessing," is derived from the Arabic word "bariki." According to a January 12, 2004, Copley News Service article: "In an interview last week, Obama said he decided to call himself Barack -- a Swahili derivative of Arabic that means 'blessed,' as 'baruch' does in Hebrew -- after his father died."















Hello my name is Frank Liberalism. Pleased to meet you. Get a clue cons, liberal is not a dirty word, in fact last November we saw how mainstream liberalism truly is. Liberal is not a four letter word nor is it what cons have portrayed it to be. As is evidenced by some of the con posters here.
You're absolutely right... er, correct. This piece is more wishful thinking than anything.
Well said. I'm sure we will hear more in coming weeks and months about his supposed "unabashed" and "unembarrassed" liberalism, as if it were something to be abashed and embarrassed about...
Hey guys,
I don't see where liberalism should be viewed as a *bad word*...however many have abandoned it in favor of *progressive*....even MMFA describes itself as progressive.
Now I suppose Liberal and Progressive are interchangeable, but you have to admit the word Liberal has taken a beating over the years....as in [insert Democrat] being TOO Liberal.
This has been discussed here in the past, and I have always believed the dirtying of the word Liberal probably was helped along by the sitcom All in the Family.
Archie Bunker often referring to Mike/Meathead as a pinko commie Liberal.
Stuff like that sometimes sticks....
Just my opinion ;-)
Agree... being 'liberal' has always been a good thing in my book.
And, beyond politics. It's a good word... Of course, it is up for debate whether #3 is 'good' or not... From Mirriam-Webster
1 a : of, relating to, or based on the liberal arts b archaic : of or befitting a man of free birth 2 a : marked by generosity : OPENHANDED b : given or provided in a generous and openhanded way c : AMPLE, FULL 3 obsolete : lacking moral restraint : LICENTIOUS 4 : not literal or strict : LOOSE 5 : BROAD-MINDED; especially : not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms 6 a : of, favoring, or based upon the principles of liberalism b capitalized : of or constituting a political party advocating or associated with the principles of political liberalism; especially : of or constituting a political party in the United Kingdom associated with ideals of individual especially economic freedom, greater individual participation in government, and constitutional, political, and administrative reforms designed to secure these objectives
Whoa... that was weird. The 'pasted' comment made some 'licentious' agreement with the tags down there...
Sorry about that.
Thanks Bing, they must be desperate for material. What is so bad about being socially responsible? What is so wrong about taking care of your fellow man (or woman). I know most of the righties that roll through this sight are obsessed with proving wrong is right.
What is so bad about being socially responsible? What is so wrong about taking care of your fellow man (or woman).
Indeed.
I believe it's what Jesus would do.
Or St. Francis of Liberalism, Francis Xavier Liberalism's namesake.
You can take the boy outta the confessional, but...
I don't think he 's very liberal. Compared to Ralph Nader or Bernie Sanders, he's a downright establishment conservative. Supporting gay marriage but also supporting unwarranted aggression against Iran or unconditional support of Israel's occupation of Palestine is hardly "liberal".
It's like I've been saying....the Master Plan is to sell Democrats war-supporting candidates by having the media scream "liberal!" at them over and over again. They did it with Gore, they did it with Kerry, they're doing it with Barack right now. When the war-mongers begin their upcoming campaign of Iran-threatening, you'll see Hillary and Obama both joining in the chorus. Just wait and watch.
I agree compared to Kucinich or Sanders or even Sherrod Brown he is downright middle of the road
I think its kind of ridiculous how "middle of the road" is used to bully politicians into "moderating" their views, as if no matter what the issue in question is, whatever the "middle of the road" position is by default the best or most supported view, and the "further left" you go, the crazy you are or some such nonsense. This goes hand in hand with using the terms "far left" and "far right" in a way that suggests they are the smallest fringes of society, staking out the most wildly unrealistic or out of touch positions, or are just plain "angry." I guess if pundits used more honest and informative language to describe different levels of adherence to political principles, people might end up forming rational informed opinions instead of reacting to emotion-laden buzzwords and reinforcing their own preconceptions.
I agree. Jim Hightower wrote a book called there aint nothin in the middle of the road but a yellow line and dead armadillos. Personally I am pretty far left.
And compared to Josef Stalin, Fidel Castro is a downright nice guy!
Maybe this will help you figure whether Obama is a liberal:
" The nonpartisan National Journal gives Mr. Obama an 82.5 liberal rating in the Senate. For comparison, National Journal gives Sen. Hillary Clinton -- the other most-talked about Democratic presidential wannabe -- a 79.8 rating. For 2005, the liberal Americans for Democratic Action gave Mr. Obama a 100 percent rating, as did the AFL-CIO. ADA's conservative counterpart, the American Conservative Union, gave him a 8 percent rating."
from http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20061218-093212-5950r.htm
Follow the references. Google the ADA, American Conservative Union and AFL-CIO ratings for all senators. There are indeed people in the Senate who are more liberal than Mr. Obama. But there are also Liberals who are less liberal than he is, in the opinions of these watchdog groups who care about this. There is not a one of these groups calling him either a moderate or a conservative.
I find The Politico to be a huge dissapointment so far; it seems to be nothing more than yet another clearing house for rumor and innuendo, almost exclusively dealing with smears against Democratsl like Obama and Clinton. As if there's a need for more of that.
One would say,that given the tone of most of the rhetoric that the conservative media and their supporters, that what's best for our country is imbalance. We hear all the time about radicalism in the Muslim world, how extremists are taking over, how the moderate Muslims are being silenced. Yet, when it comes to us, we never take those same observations and apply them to our political and social discourse. No one person can satisfy everyone, it's always been those who can properly juggle both ends and make it work. And you have to be able to moderate. Extreme anything is wrong, and in the case of this current settup, it's been extremely wrong. I want to see more people in office with a more balanced approach to things and good common sense, with the courage to back it up. If there ever was a time for that, the time is now.
What incompetent argumentation. MiadiaMatters wants to discuss ignoring evidence? Let's discuss this:
"However, [link to www.pollingreport.com] color="#0052a3">polling data have shown that majorities of Americans and "independents" favor either same-sex marriage or same-sex civil unions -- undermining Allen's suggestion that Obama's support for civil unions will alienate "centrist" voters. "
If this were true, courts would not be ordering state legislatures to make these liasons legal. If it were true, then the assortment of of 'gay marriage' ballot initiatives offered around the country would mostly pass. There were 8 of these proposals in 2006. Most of them were GAY MARRIAGE BANS of one sort or another. 7 of them passed! The only one that failed was in Arizona. If 60% of the voters actually supported this, one might surmise that not only would most or all of these gay marriage bans have been defeated, but that some number of gay mariage laws would have been passed. The ony polls that matter contradict these polls MediaMatters is quoting.
>>polling data have shown that majorities of Americans and "independents" favor either same-sex marriage or same-sex civil unions -- undermining Allen's suggestion that Obama's support for civil unions will alienate "centrist" voters. "
>>If this were true, courts would not be ordering state legislatures to make these liasons legal. If it were true, then the assortment of of 'gay marriage' ballot initiatives offered around the country would mostly pass.
Can you point out ANY ballot initiative that offers EITHER gay marriage or civil unions? Indeed, can you point out ANY ballot initiative EVER on civil unions?
So your "if that were true" point is entire hokum.
CU's are a common sense answer to the issue... but the radical right is more interested in using the spector of gay marriage to galvanize the lunatic fringe than in solving problems.
"Can you point out ANY ballot initiative that offers EITHER gay marriage or civil unions? Indeed, can you point out ANY ballot initiative EVER on civil unions?"
My point made for me. Neither can you. In fact, both states which have legislative initiatives, Massachusetts and New Jersey, only do so because of judicial activism in those states. Some small number of liberal extremist judges in these have discovered heretofore unknown constitutional protections for homosexual unions and have abused judicial authority to compel these legislatures to legalize same sex marriages. i.e. they have redifined what the term marriage means.
No state has legislatively or ballot initaited same sex marriage. in 2006 alone, 7 states restricted or prohibited same sex marriage by ballot initiative. One state, Arizona, rejected a constitutional amendment baning same sex mariages.
Apparenty you live in one of the states that does not have ballot initiative. You don't seem to understand how this works. To get a measure put on the ballot for referendum, most initiative states require a petition be presented signed by some number of voters. If you think the Gay Rights Activists haven't been trying to get such petitions signed, then you are sadly mistaken. Here is one such: [link to knowthyneighbor.org]
The point is, Media Matters refers to this poll data showing 60% of Americans suport Gay marriage or Civil Unions, yet when put to the test, these measures have thus far universally failed, and in the vast majority of cases where they have been proposed, measures aimed at prohibiting same sex marriage have succeeded.
The immediate and unescapeable conclusion is the polls quoted are bogus, erroneous, or false.