07-obama_clinton.thumbnail.jpgI am going to vote for Barack Obama in November. There is not even an iota of doubt in my ex-military mind about that, but it does not mean that I am going happily into the voting booth; it does not mean that I endorse, or even like all his policies and the stands he has taken on issues. And it does not mean that I endorse his message of trading freedom for some abstract notion of security that infringes on the 4th Amendment of the Constitution. Okay, this is not really a post about FISA and Obama, but about Leading vs Following and why it’s so important in this election.

Leadership according to Webster is:

3 : the act or an instance of leading

Let’s examine briefly the 17 months of the Democratic primary and the leadership (or lack of it) that was demonstrated by two candidates, Hillary Clinton and the presumptive nominee, Barack Obama. In the case of Hillary, she could not get herself away from her focus-grouped and consultant-driven position on her vote on the Iraq War and then she gave her full-throated support to the Lieberman-Kyl legislation which was essentially providing cover for our Beloved Leader to tell Congress to kiss his ass if he decides to go Bomb Iran. Why? After being beaten up over her vote for Iraq and to quote her:

"Obviously, I would not vote that way again if we knew then what we know now."

Then she went ahead and voted for Lieberman-Kyl. Did she vote with perhaps a nuanced position? Maybe. Do nuances matter? Absolutely, but only if they can be explained in a way that is consistent with reaching the least attentive of the "low-information voters", otherwise all the explaining is going to be lostin the noise surrounding the fury of not showing up to lead. Recall for a minute the words of Scarecrow last year:

Wednesday’s vote on the Lieberman – Kyl resolution, condemning Iran and allowing the designation of its Revolutionary Guards as a "terrorist" entity, was a litmus test for candidates seeking the Presidency. The vote separated the wise from the foolish, and Senator Clinton voted — again — for foolish.

We were seeking leadership from a woman who had repeatedly told us she was a leader, but when pressed to demonstrate it, folded like a cheap card table under the weight of a single deck of cards.

It’s pretty obvious that in the "win at all costs" Democratic Primary/Media-driven horse race, each candidate was competing to get their message out and the underlying message that they seemed to want to send was "I am a Leader". Hmmm…maybe not so much. If you Google "Obama + leadership" you get a return of about 12,500,000 results give or take a few in about .22 seconds, that’s a lot of writing about Obama and Leadership… During the primary Hillary told us she was ready to "Lead on Day One", and Obama has told us as far back as 2005 that he strives for leadership, and has drawn comparisons (not inexpertly) to JFK on matters like Iraq.

"Nearly four decades ago, John F. Kennedy took responsibility for the Bay of Pigs Invasion. He admitted that mistakes had been made. He didn’t spend a good deal of time publicly blaming the previous administration, or the other party, or his critics. And through these decisive actions, he earned the RESPECT of the American people and the world – RESPECT that allowed his diplomacy to be trusted a few years later during the Cuban Missile Crisis."

"Americans everywhere are crying out for this kind of LEADERSHIP today. They want to find pragmatic solutions to the difficult and complicated situation in Iraq. They want to move forward one of the greatest foreign policy challenges that faces this nation in a generation. And they want to get it right for every American son and daughter who’s been willing to put their lives on the line to defend the country they love. It’s time for us in Washington to offer the rest of the country this LEADERSHIP. Thank you."

That’s all well and good, and there are more than a few examples of Obama claiming that he is ready to assume the mantle of Leadership that comes with being the President and I sincerely believe that he means it, but I wonder if he really understands what he’s saying.

In a crisis, the leader is generally the first person to step and take charge, to begin to take steps to mitigate or defuse what is causing or has caused the crisis in the first place. Do I think that Obama would be a superior man in another disaster like Katrina? Absolutely.

In a time of uncertainty, a leader is the person who gathers the facts and begins to soothe the collective fears of those dependant on them for guidance and begins to "think outside the box" for solutions to end the uncertainty. Will Obama perhaps be bold and visionary like FDR in the coming financial turbulence which will rock not just our country but perhaps most of the world? I think he’s got a good chance to do just that.

And in both of those cases, and any other challenges that will face our next President, we must be assured that he will provide Leadership that is consistent with the U.S. Constitution, because on his first day in office he takes an oath to support and defend it.

So why does he feel the need to not show Leadership by stepping onto the floor of the Senate to oppose bad legislation, but in fact blithely shovel the 4th Amendment straight onto the trash heap of history and follow the wretched leadership of Jay Rockefeller and Steny Hoyer by making a statement like this:

“It is not all that I would want,” Obama said of the legislation, which was negotiated by congressional leaders of both parties. “But given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence-collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise but do so with a firm pledge that, as president, I will carefully monitor the program, review the report by the inspectors general and work with the Congress to take any additional steps I deem necessary to protect the lives — and the liberty — of the American people.”

Would you not expect a Leader to stand up and make it "all I want"? Or is that just a bit of misplaced naivete on my part?

So let’s see, if I may parse for a moment here… he assured us he’d support a filibuster, and support Chris Dodd and Russ Feingold’s efforts to strip immunity from the bill but now, not so much. Not leadership.

He has never gotten up on the Senate floor and said "I support rewriting FISA, and updating it to include the new technology that has come into existence since it was written in the 70s, because the world has changed. But I can not, and will not support, retroactive immunity for lawlessness on the part of this or any other administration". That statement would stop this immunity nonsense in its tracks. All of a sudden the media would have to be explaining what in the hell he was talking about to those "low information voters" and I suspect that the fight would be joined rather vigorously by Congresspeople that until now have been a bit lethargic against allowing the Telecoms (and perhaps by extension, the 1600 Crew) to walk away unscathed.

No, he has been mysteriously quiet, nary a peep in support of either Dodd, Feingold or a filibuster, and instead after telling us he knows what leadership is, exhibited none at all. Not only that, he now says after lying bald-faced about his support of Chris Dodd and a filibuster, "trust me" to enforce this new bill. Trust you? No, Mr. Obama… I trust Leaders. Not back-sliders.

And certainly not folks who stick their fingers into the wind, run from a fight to support the Constitution, or practice the fine art of Clintonian triangulation. Because being the first to put your finger into the wind is not leadership, it’s just following the prevailing breezes for better or worse.

Related posts:

  1. The Democratic Leadership Thinks We’re Stupid
  2. Leadership White House Threatens Freshmen Who Won’t Vote For Supplemental
  3. Status Quo? Hell No! When Leadership Means Partisanship
  4. OLC: “Look The Other Way” Doesn’t Count As Leadership
  5. “Preventive Detention” Plan Shows Urgent Need for Leadership and Accountability at OLC