Carolyn Lewis: What Manner of Man is Barack Obama?
Posted at 1:50 pm, April 18th, 2008
Watching the candidates for the Democratic nomination at their debate the other night, I caught myself lapsing into the old adversarial journalistic habit of mind. When the ABC interlocutors jabbed at Obama and Senator Clinton then unsheathed her shiv, I wanted Obama to return the favor. He mentioned Clinton’s much-criticized 1992 remark that she preferred to practice law instead of baking cookies, and I thought that at last he was moving in for the kill.
But no. The lesson he drew from her awkward word-choice was that everyone blunders now and then and in fact he understood that what she had said did not accurately reflect who she was. And he offered the instruction gently. Gently!
It was a telling moment. I thought: what manner of man is this? What does it say about the kind of leader he might be? Does he lack the instinct for the jugular, or does he prefer not to make enemies when soft words might prove more persuasive?
The media prattle about inconsequential matters misses the essential question: What do we see and know about these candidates that reveal their character? I recall that, years ago, when I was interviewing Senator Sam Ervin – who had chaired the Watergate hearings that led in part to the resignation of President Nixon – I asked how it was that American voters had elected Nixon in the first place. The Senator answered that the media had ignored early evidence of the candidate’s character, relying on the public relations theme that there was a New Nixon. When we choose a president, Ervin said, there are three things to look for: character, character, and character.
What might it say about Senator Clinton’s character that, when she and President Clinton were under assault, she blamed their difficulties on a “vast right-wing conspiracy”? What does it say when Governor Bill Richardson freely chooses to back Obama, and he is labeled a “Judas” by a Clinton backer? It was, and is, a style of politics that I used to relish as a reporter because when sparks fly it makes good copy. And if they aren’t flying, why a jab here, a tickle there, will lure the politicians into the coliseum to savage each other.
Then along comes Barack Obama, admitting he is flawed and imperfect, but most of the time unwilling to play the game. David Brooks of the New York Times is wrong when he says Obama is just an ordinary pol. He is something different, though just what he is we journalists have yet to figure out.
Most revealing to me is what Obama wrote in his two best-selling books, volumes in which he discusses his remarkable family history, but also sheds light on how he thinks and what he values. Revealing, too, is what he said to Katie Couric when she asked what is his favorite book. Doris Kearns Goodwin’s “Team of Rivals,” he answered. It is the story of how after his election, President Lincoln employed “kindness, sensitivity, compassion, honesty, and empathy” to draw his fiercest opponents into his circle, appointing several of them to his cabinet and forging a unified administration to face the horrors of the Civil War.
It seems to me that much can be gleaned about an individual’s character if we not only see how he has lived his life and listen to what he says, but if we also read what he writes and take notice of what he reads. These are all useful ways to get inside the candidate’s head and his heart. Better than the inevitable gaffes, at any rate.
April 18th, 2008 at 2:05 pm |
Madam, your hormones are showing. This is an embarrassingly fawning post–beginning with the cliched, faux archaism of your headline. This isn’t Jesus Christ. Please get a grip.
April 18th, 2008 at 2:52 pm |
Obama and the Country of Doom
Obama spells doom for this country. Not only because of his dubious affiliations with mob members like Rezko and criminals like Auchi, but because of his lack of experience and bias education especially his bizarre religious affiliations. He is like silly putty; able to change his ideas for the public as needed so as to achieve his goal as supreme leader.
His intentions are unclear, but his affiliations are clear. Being surrounded with people like the violent Ayers, or the Hiteresque Wright, or his American hating wife Michelle, or his Kenyan half brother Islamic Jihad terrorist Abongo “Roy” Obama, or his Jewish/Israeli hating best friend Rashid Khalidi, or his close advisor Robert Malley who advocates supporting and helping the terrorist group Hamas, or Mr. McPeaks, Obama’s military advisor who open believes American Jews are the “problem.” and “Christian Zionists were driving America’s policy in Iraq to benefit Israel,” or Obama’s super delegate and major long term supporter Senator Meeks who openly hates and distrust all whites and gays or Obama’s most dangerous affiliation to Mr. Auchi who was Saddam Hussein right hand man and made billions in Iraq and has been a important supporter and behind the scene man throughout Obama’s rise to power.
And besides all this questionable laundry in Obama’s life, another serious question is why is Obama protected and promoted by the media? Is this also being directed from behind the scenes?
The fact that Obama has made it this far demonstrates the collective lack of discriminative intelligence and education of this country. And nothing demonstrates this better than how well Obama plays his black card; which plays on our fear of being labeled a racist.
April 18th, 2008 at 3:02 pm |
I agree. Character is fundamentally important and like you, I was heartened by Obama’s observations in regards to Clinton’s gaff and his allowing her to be human and make a mis-statement. He is clearly a man of principle, living by his own rules while being flayed on national television. Clinton, on the other hand, is indeed old politics. It is amazing to watch the Clinton attack-machine tear up a man like Obama with trivia and innuendo, and they did it with out flinching in front of our very eyes in the Philadelphia debate! The breadth and depth of the war-machine is formidable, not only having the pit-bull Carville threaten any and all Obama supporters as “traitors”, but add to it the ex-Clinton Administration wunderkind George Stephanopoulos and his associate at the “tip of the spear” impaling a man of integrity and honor – words rarely if ever used in a sentence with Hillary or Bill – they just lack those qualities. Period.
Shame on ABC and it’s reporters, shame on Clinton. We are finally getting to see that the Clinton Democrats care not for healthcare, or the economy, or the war, or diversity – they are no different than so many in Washington – they care ONLY about GAINING POWER and wielding it for their benefit.
They will pander to minorities, promising opportunity but delivering nothing decade after decade; talking about equal rights, as long as those needing them don’t get too “uppity”. The old-school Democrats have USED minorities and special interests to divide and conquer for POWER and have NO intention of delivering on anything other than keeping power. Clinton is not about change, nor vision, nor principles, nor values. It is clear, she is about power, and she and her attack machine will destroy by any means those that stand in her way. Even a principled, value-driven, articulate and educated black man who believes in the promise of America.
April 18th, 2008 at 4:09 pm |
I am impressed with the author of this blog. I read ‘Team of Rivals’ and also Obama’s books, which give insight into who he is and how he thinks and are revealing. I have also listened to many of his interviews-not the “interpretation” of them by media pundits, but the actual interview. I too see his character, vision and integrity. The first post (from Haven Knoll) is full of opinions and half-truths about Obama’s ‘assocations’. Pulleessee. I’m not going to diss Senator Clinton, but the distinction between the two of them becomes very apparent as this campaign proceeds.
April 18th, 2008 at 4:43 pm |
What a great blog post. I’ve been impressed with Obama’s character for quite some time. Most especially after reading “The Audacity of Hope”. He is truly the definition of a gentleman.
I believe Governor Richardson’s experience with Senator Obama shows perfectly what a class-act Obama really is:
(Richardson telling a story about how Obama saved him during one of last year’s Democratic debates)
“I had just been asked a question — I don’t remember which one — and Obama was sitting right next to me. Then the moderator went across the room, I think to Chris Dodd, so I thought I was home free for a while. I wasn’t going to listen to the next question. I was about to say something to Obama when the moderator turned to me and said, ‘So, Gov. Richardson, what do you think of that?’ But I wasn’t paying any attention! I was about to say, ‘Could you repeat the question? I wasn’t listening.’ But I wasn’t about to say I wasn’t listening. I looked at Obama. I was just horrified. And Obama whispered, ‘Katrina. Katrina.’ The question was on Katrina! So I said, ‘On Katrina, my policy . . .’ Obama could have just thrown me under the bus. So I said, ‘Obama, that was good of you to do that.’”
April 18th, 2008 at 5:43 pm |
Although part of me wishes he would stick the shiv to Clinton, as she did all night,in the long run I think we will be glad he didn’t. Perhaps he feels some empathy or sympathy for her,in spite of her nastiness towards him. Turn the other cheek, as they say. In retrospect, I think it was best for him not to attack her. She is her own worst enemy when she attacks. She reminds me of a two year old having a temper tantrum, who flails with legs and fists but fails to hurt the parent.
I have no doubt he will be a great President. Thanks for the post.
April 18th, 2008 at 6:49 pm |
Thanks, Ms. Lewis, for acknowledging that we have all become accustomed to wishing to shove the shiv, forgeting there are other ways to respond to attacks. I’m reading your entry on the same day that Robert Reich, 40-year friend of the Clintons and Secretary of Labor under President Bill Clinton, has endorsesd Obama. Like Richardson, friendship and feelings of loyalty kept him from endorsing Obama earlier, but the bitterness of the Clintons’ campaign was too much for him to bear. I feel the same way, and I’ve been around and active in Democratic politics for over 50 years–thought I had seen it all, but this is both the “worst of times” (Clinton heartlessness and ruthlessness) and the “best of times” (Obama’s commmon sense, sense of humor and proportion, and ability to point a way toward a future which will, as he has said, help us forge the more perfect union and take our place again as a model for the rest of the world.)
April 18th, 2008 at 11:26 pm |
I cannot suppress my reaction to the remarks of responder Haven Knoll (above); hence, I will give it voice here.
First, I think the character analysis by the author of this peace is a well considered and fair assessment of Senator Obama’s personal qualities.
As for H. Knoll and his hyberbolic and extremely dubous ravings about “Obama and the Country of Doom”, I simply wish to remind him that if any person(s) are to be credited with sending the USA down the path of “doom” it is the Cheney/Bush cabal in the White House. And I am hardly alone in that assessment.
April 19th, 2008 at 12:23 am |
This blog is so thoughtful and full of reason. I have watched Senator Obama for two months and found his character to be refreshing. He is not only inspiring but I am sure he can deliver. He has weathered some nasty storms in this champaign and remained positive. I finally understand why most people think he is special… because he is. The US is blessed to have someone of his character even wanting the job after eight years of destruction. He admits imperfection (another sign of good character).
He credits his mother for his inner spirit. I wish she had lived to see what a wonderful son she nutured. He never fails to credit his up bringing for the man he has become. I can only imagine what wonderful family he grew up in.
April 19th, 2008 at 2:58 am |
Unusually nice and well written article. Quite thoughtful.
April 19th, 2008 at 12:07 pm |
RE: Adam and Haven Knoll,
Either these two are both (Adam and Haven) Republican and/or dont have the abilty for analytical/critical thinking and probably shouldnt try to judge anybobys character. I’m sure they both hear that alot in their little lives. They are both so way out of touch with reality. Please keep your stupidity to yourself and yes you can consider that “Elitist”.
PS: Isnt there a Skull & Bones/McCain rally you should be at.
April 19th, 2008 at 1:02 pm |
It is amazing to know that someone was going through the same thoughts as me, when I was watching the debate.
I remember stamping my fist on the table and cursing him when he didn’t exploit the Bosnia flap question. Yet, he added that Hillary had learnt the wrong lesson from the Republican attacks on her becase she was employing the same tactics on him. After his response, I felt so ashamed of myself and yet extremely proud of the character of the leader this country will have, God willing.
This article really warms the heart. Thank you, Ms. lewis.
April 19th, 2008 at 1:46 pm |
The author posits the question “What do we see and know about these candidates that reveal their character?” then prattles on with much, too much emotion. She seeks to fortify her conclusion by reference to one candidate’s two books which were self-serving at best, propagandistic at worse. Such will not correct ignorance. We know very little about Obama and that which we do shows, at least to me, a wont of experience, an ideological stance that will rent rather than unite the country, a lack of judgment in his friends and minister and an arrogance that shows he lacks a fundamental appreciation, let alone understanding of many of his fellow citizens. Beset by ennui, Lewis finds ecstasy in the candidate’s demeanor. Please madam let reality have a chance.
April 20th, 2008 at 3:26 pm |
Thank you Ms. Lewis. We have become accustomed to confusing gentleness and class with lack of strength. It would have been the easiest thing for Obama to return the favor and attack Clinton over her admitted lie about Bosnia. Instead he very graciously declined and again pleaded with the two moderators to return to substance. In that one, bright shining moment, he showed who and what he was. My heart was bursting with pride. That moment he won the debate hands down! People have said that he lost the debate and he was ineffective. I grant you that he was clearly impatient and frustrated that after trying so hard to elevate the discussion the other participants stubbornly refused to budge. His innate decency coupled with the brilliant way he has managed his campaign speak volumes about the type of President he will be. A new day has dawned!
April 20th, 2008 at 9:31 pm |
Obama has sealed the records from his time in the Illinois state senate. Dubya sealed his records from his time as governor of Texas. Sounds like the same old Washington tactics. Where’s the “change”? What is Obama hiding?