The Obama I know

[Adrian Laguna]

A commentary written on the Chicago Tribune by one of Obama's former colleagues at the University of Chicago, where he used to lecture on Constitutional Law. It hardly offers a neutral viewpoint, as the two men are old friends, but I think it gives interesting insights into how Obama's mind-set, thoughts, and ideals.

The Obama I know
Terrific listener goes wherever reason takes him

By Cass R. Sunstein
March 14, 2008

Not so long ago, the phone rang in my office. It was Barack Obama. For more than a decade, Obama was my colleague at the University of Chicago Law School.

He is also a friend. But since his election to the U.S. Senate, he does not exactly call every day.

On this occasion, he had an important topic to discuss: the controversy over President Bush's warrantless surveillance of international telephone calls between Americans and suspected terrorists. I had written a short essay suggesting that the surveillance might be lawful. Before taking a public position, Obama wanted to talk the problem through.

In about 20 minutes, he and I investigated the legal details. He asked me to explore all sorts of issues: the president's power as commander in chief, the Constitution's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the Authorization for Use of Military Force and more.

Obama wanted to consider the best possible defense of what Bush had done. To every argument I made, he listened and offered a counterargument. After the issue had been exhausted, Obama said he thought the program was illegal, but now had a better understanding of both sides. He thanked me for my time.

This was a pretty amazing conversation, not only because of Obama's mastery of the legal details, but also because many prominent Democratic leaders had already blasted the Bush initiative as blatantly illegal. He did not want to take a public position until he had listened to, and explored, what might be said on the other side.

This is the Barack Obama I have known for nearly 15 years -- a careful and evenhanded analyst of law and policy, unusually attentive to multiple points of view.

The University of Chicago Law School is by far the most conservative of the great American law schools. It helped to provide the academic foundations for many positions of the Reagan administration.

But at the University of Chicago, Obama is liked and admired by both Republicans and Democrats. Some local Reagan enthusiasts are Obama supporters. Why? It doesn't hurt that he's a great guy, with a personal touch and a lot of warmth. It certainly helps that he is exceptionally able.

But niceness and ability are only part of the story. Obama has a genuinely independent mind, he's a terrific listener and he goes wherever reason takes him.

Those of us who have long known Obama are impressed and not a little amazed by his rhetorical skills. Who could have expected that our colleague, a teacher of law, is able to inspire large crowds?

The Obama we know is no rhetorician; he shines not because he can move people, but because of his problem-solving abilities, creativity and attention to detail.

In recent weeks, his speaking talents, and the cultlike atmosphere that occasionally surrounds him, have led people to wonder whether there is substance behind the plea for "change" -- whether the soaring phrases might disguise emptiness and vagueness. But nothing could be further from the truth. He is most comfortable in the domain of policy and detail.

I do not deny that skeptics are raising legitimate questions. After all, Obama has served in the U.S. Senate for a short period (less than four years) and he has little managerial experience. Is he really equipped to lead the most powerful nation in the world?

Obama speaks of "change," but will he be able to produce large-scale changes in a short time? What if he fails? An independent issue is that all the enthusiasm might serve to insulate him from criticisms and challenges on the part of his advisers -- and, in view of his relative youth, criticisms and challenges are exactly what he requires.

Fortunately, the candidate's campaign proposals offer strong and encouraging clues about how he would govern; what makes them distinctive is that they borrow sensible ideas from all sides.

He is strongly committed to helping the disadvantaged, but his University of Chicago background shows he appreciates the virtues and power of free markets. He is not only focused on details but is also a uniter, both by inclination and on principle.

Transparency matters

Transparency and accountability matter greatly to him; they are a defining feature of his proposals. With respect to the mortgage crisis, credit cards and the broader debate over credit markets, Obama rejects heavy-handed regulation and insists on disclosure above all so consumers will know exactly what they are getting.

Expect transparency to be a central theme in any Obama administration, as a check on government and the private sector alike. It is highly revealing that Obama worked with Republican (and arch-conservative) Tom Coburn of Oklahoma to produce legislation creating a publicly searchable database of all federal spending.

Obama's health-care plan places a premium on cutting costs and making care affordable, without requiring adults to purchase health insurance. (He would require mandatory coverage only for children.) Republican legislators are unlikely to support a mandatory approach, and his plan can be understood, in part, as a recognition of political realities.

But it is also a reflection of his keen interest in freedom of choice. He seeks universal coverage not through unenforceable mandates but through giving people good options.

It should not be surprising that in terms of helping low-income workers, Obama has long been enthusiastic about the Earned Income Tax Credit, an approach pioneered by Republicans that supplements wages but does not threaten to throw people out of work.

But Obama is not a compromiser; he does not try to steer between the poles (or the polls). "Triangulation" has no appeal for him. Internationally and domestically, he is willing to think big and to be bold. He publicly opposed the war in Iraq when opposition was unpopular.

He favors high-level meetings with some of the world's worst dictators. He would rethink the embargo against Cuba.

He proposes a $150 billion research budget for climate change. He wants to hold an unprecedented national auction for the right to emit greenhouse gases. He has offered an ambitious plan for promoting technological innovation, calling for a national broadband policy, embracing network neutrality and proposing a reform of the patent system.

His campaign has spoken of moving toward "iPod government" an effort to rethink public services and national regulations in ways that would make things far simpler and more user-friendly.

A new tone

These are points about policies and substance. As president, Obama would set a new tone in U.S. politics. He refuses to demonize his political opponents; deep in his heart, I believe, he doesn't think of them as opponents. It would not be surprising to find Republicans and independents prominent in his administration.

Obama wants to know what ideas are likely to work, not whether a Democrat or a Republican is responsible for them. Recall the most memorable passage from his keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention: "We coach Little League in the blue states, and, yes, we've got some gay friends in the red states. There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq, and there are patriots who supported the war in Iraq."

In his book "The Audacity of Hope," he asks for a politics that accepts "the possibility that the other side might sometimes have a point." Remarking that ordinary Americans "don't always understand the arguments between right and left, conservative and liberal," Obama wants politicians "to catch up with them."

After he received an e-mail from a doctor who opposes abortion, Obama recalls how he softened his Web site's harsh rhetoric on abortion, writing: "That night, before I went to bed, I said a prayer of my own -- that I might extend the same presumption of good faith to others that the doctor had extended to me."

In short, Obama's approach is insistently charitable. He assumes decency and good faith on the part of those who disagree with him. And he wants to hear what they have to say. Both in substance and in tone, Obama questions the conventional political distinctions between "the left" and "the right." To the extent that he is attracting support from Republicans and independents, it is largely for this reason.

Natural born leader?

From knowing Obama for many years, I have no doubts about his ability to lead. He knows a great deal, and he is a quick learner. Even better, he knows what he does not know, and there is no question that he would assemble an accomplished, experienced team of advisers. His brilliant administration of his campaign provides helpful evidence here.

But there is some fragility to the public fervor that envelops him. Crowds and cults can be fickle, and if some of his decisions disappoint, or turn out badly, his support would diminish. Some people think it might even collapse.

My concern involves the importance of internal debate. The greatest American presidents (above all Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt) benefited from robust dialogue and advisers who avoided saying "how wonderful you are" and were willing to say, "Mr. President, your thinking about this is all wrong."

Because Obama is exceptionally able, and because so many people are treating him as a near-messiah, his advisers might be too deferential, too unwilling to question. There is a real risk here. But I believe that his humility, and his intense desire to seek out dissenting views, will prove crucial safeguards.

In the 2000 campaign, Bush proclaimed himself a "uniter, not a divider," only to turn out to be the most divisive president in memory. Because of his certainty and lack of curiosity about what others might think, Bush polarized the nation. Many of his most ambitious plans went nowhere as a result.

As president, Barack Obama would be a genuine uniter. If he proves able to achieve great things, for his nation and for the world, it will be above all for that reason.

[Shroom Man 777]

The pigmentation of his skin belies his transparency, but can America truly be a transparent government? Would transparency not reveal the nipples of the nation? That is the question America must answer in December, 2008.

That said, Obama seems like a decent human being that that alone makes him the most eligible candidate left.

[Uraniun235]

Some people talk about Obama and question whether he's got actual ideas and plans behind his rhetoric (a funny thing at that, given that last I checked his website is the most detailed of all the current candidates) and interestingly, similar remarks were made when FDR was first starting to campaign for the Presidency. If I remember right, there was one journalist (who later recanted and praised FDR) who said that FDR's sole qualification was that he was (paraphrasing) 'an affable young man who would like very much to be President'.

I'm not worried at all about an Obama presidency. He's proven that he has wit and intelligence to some degree. This is more than Hillary (with her inept campaigning) and McCain (advocating nothing but the same Republican rhetoric) have demonstrated.

[D.Turtle]

Along a similar vein from a diary on DailyKos (emphasis from the originial, if I didn't screw it up ):

Chatting with the guy from Illinois with the funny name

Way back in 2004, I was working for a union. Part of my job was to create and manage a handful of websites. One of the websites was an online election center where we graded the policy positions of candidates running for state and national offices. We sent out probably 5,000 emails to candidates, and when they responded, I copy/pasted them into the database and gave them a grade. Usually some staffer sent us some boilerplate text that they didn't even bother to customize to our questions or our audience.

Once in a while, though, someone would call. Usually it was some crackpot who had no resources, no staff, no money, and no chance of winning whichever office he was running for (I say he only because I don't remember any of the crackpots being women).

One day, a guy in Illinois running for U.S. Senate called. Based on the fact that he picked up the phone to call me, I assumed he didn't have enough resources to hire any staff that could call me or send me an email. I assumed (like the fool I am) that he was a nobody on a fast train going nowhere. I was basing this assumption, of course, on the fact that everyone else who called was definitely on a fast train to nowhere.

Before you read further, this is my disclaimer: This is my take on a conversation that happened four years ago. I am writing this based on notes and memory. Any errors or misinterpretations are mine, and I take full responsibility.

This man from Illinois with the funny name understood labor issues better than any candidate I'd talked to. He understood these issues as well as any labor leader or activist I'd talked to. And what's more, even though I was doing the interview, I look back and realize that he controlled the conversation. We spent the entire 45-60ish minutes going through my questions, but he brought everything back to his key issue: reuniting the country.

The issues that I was dealing with were difficult, complex issues. Both sides were represented by entrenched groups that have shown no signs of budging for years. I'm in a unique position to judge these entrenched groups because I've worked for organizations on both sides. I literally understand both sides of these particular issues from the inside out. And these are my issues, the issues that I truly hold dear to my heart. So when I say that Barack Obama understood how to bring these entrenched groups together for a solution, I'm actually somewhat qualified to say so.

The first question on the survey did not ask about the issues. It merely asked, "What's most important to you?" I think his answer will look familiar to you:

Uniting a polarized America. There are those who are preparing to divide us. I say to them, there is not a liberal America, and a conservative America, there is the United States of America.

That's a direct quote from the man himself. When I read these words now, I have heard them so many times that I can hear his voice as I read them. But something became clear to me when I saw these words in my notes. This is not something his speech writers wrote for him. These are his words. These are words that Barack Obama said. The guy from Illinois with the funny name said these words, word for word, back in 2004 to a person that thought he was nobody.

I don't remember, but I'm really afraid that I might have even commented sometime during the phone call that I was sorry he didn't have more support. I definitely remember thinking it.

Who would have thought that a man who was truly on his way to the U.S. Senate would care enough about labor issues to call a labor activist, personally, to talk about labor issues. And I don't think it's because we were posting them onto a public website. If that was it, I would have gotten calls from other viable candidates. Barack Obama was the only viable candidate that called. I'm not saying he's the only one who cared, but he is the only one who cared enough to call.

To be honest, I was feeling a little intimidated about hitting the 'Post' button on this diary. I mean, he really was just some guy from Illinois with a funny name to me... I didn't think he was anybody or that he would get anywhere. There was a part of me that kept thinking, what if there was some other guy from Illinois with a funny name, and I just think it was Obama, or what if there was some guy named Boartla Onala from Iowa or something, and I just got them confused? To prove it to myself, I dug up his answers. It really was Barack Obama. It was (I said it twice to convince myself). And his answered impressed me even more today than they did then.

He talked about how the difference between the lowest paid employee at a company and the highest paid employee at a company has grown so extraordinarily over the years and how the disparity will only become greater if ordinary people aren't willing to work for change. Those words are in italic because that's what I wrote down. Word for word. If ordinary people aren't willing to work for change.

Regarding trade agreements, he said:

any trade agreement must have real, tangible benefits for U.S. businesses and workers

I put "and workers" in italic because in my notes I underlined those words twice. And workers. I remember having the feeling when I talked to him that he really meant what he said. He was sincere.

He had a plan, the "Real USA Corporation" plan. He had a litany of things that we should reward: companies that keep 90% of their production in the USA, companies that keep 90% of their employees in the USA, companies that keep 50% of their research and development in the USA, and companies that provide healthcare to their employees. He said right now companies are being rewarded for not doing those things. Companies ship jobs overseas and get tax breaks.

I remember sometime during the conversation thinking that he sounded academic, but it was his realism and candor that pulled me in. I wish he had told me he was a viable candidate. Maybe he thought I knew -- or should know. Maybe he thought I was following all of the Senate elections because I was doing the surveying. One thing is for sure, though. I may have thought he was going nowhere, but if he had been in my state, I might have gone along for the ride.

He said that people who work hard should not struggle for survival. Not anywhere, but especially not in America. Healthcare was not even an issue that we asked about, but it's interspersed throughout his answers. He brought up working poor and healthcare again and again.

This is a man on his way to the U.S. Senate who picked up the phone to call a labor activist who was creating a small website that few people would probably see. This is a man who talked about America's working poor and the plight of people without healthcare even when the questions didn't require those answers. This is a man who had real, specific answers to complex and difficult issues that other candidates simply could not talk about in detail.

Before I looked at my notes, I was convinced that this is a man who is truly sincere. A man who cares about ordinary people. After looking at my notes, I'm even more convinced than ever. For the first time in my life, a presidential candidate has convinced me. For a cynic like myself, that is extraordinary.

Sure, it's kind of cool that I can say I talked to Barack Obama before he was somebody. But what's really important here, what's really important for America, is that Barack Obama was willing to talk to me when I was nobody. That's something special.

You guys got a really good guy there for the next Presidency - please don't screw it up (again)

Oh, I just remembered something: Anybody have experience with voting rights for Americans who live in a foreign country? My father is (originally) from Oregon, so shouldn't he be able to vote? I'm guessing I can't vote, because I've never lived in the US, though I am officially (also) an American citizen.

[Mr Bean]

D.Turtle, you want to look into American Ex-patriots laws, not familiar with them myself but they would be how you'd get the absentee ballet you need to vote.

OAN, I find it highly amusing that the person who posted the OP is not Stas Bush of all people, not only that but the piece makes for very good reading.

OAAN:Get out while you still have a chance Hillary! Run far away and you might have a chance at recovering yourself rather than falling into total disgrace as you are bound.

*Edit, Not Stas!

[Shroom Man 777]

Mang. The OP is by Adrian Laguna. Don't let his sig, provided by Stas Bush, fool you. That's just what they want you to think!

[Mr Bean]

Mang. The OP is by Adrian Laguna. Don't let his sig, provided by Stas Bush, fool you. That's just what they want you to think!

Noted, I blaim you for this

[Max]

A commentary written on the Chicago Tribune by one of Obama's former colleagues at the University of Chicago, where he used to lecture on Constitutional Law. It hardly offers a neutral viewpoint, as the two men are old friends, but I think it gives interesting insights into how Obama's mind-set, thoughts, and ideals.

I had no clue where to post this and didn't want to start a new thread on it, since it sort of relates. My mom was talking to me the other day regarding Obama. Apparently, my mom's friend, who studies body language, said something regarding how it's unnerving how quickly he is able to change his body language. Not that Clinton doesn't have her own issues. Then I did a little googling and found other body language people saying similar things. [url=http://bodylanguagelady.com/2008/03/02/ ... y-language[/url]

Obama comes off as a giant ass, and when you hear the things that his wife and pastor have said about america, it only verifies it more for me.

"Narcissists …don’t talk, or communicate. They fend off. They hide and evade and avoid and disguise. In their planet of capricious and arbitrary unpredictability, of shifting semiotic and semantic dunes - they perfect the ability to say nothing in lengthy, Castro-like speeches."

Sounds familiar.

[Surlethe]

A commentary written on the Chicago Tribune by one of Obama's former colleagues at the University of Chicago, where he used to lecture on Constitutional Law. It hardly offers a neutral viewpoint, as the two men are old friends, but I think it gives interesting insights into how Obama's mind-set, thoughts, and ideals.

I had no clue where to post this and didn't want to start a new thread on it, since it sort of relates. My mom was talking to me the other day regarding Obama. Apparently, my mom's friend, who studies body language, said something regarding how it's unnerving how quickly he is able to change his body language. Not that Clinton doesn't have her own issues. Then I did a little googling and found other body language people saying similar things. <snip link>

Leaving aside whether or not narcissism is relevant to whether a person is qualified to be president, did you honestly swallow that article? A person (not even remotely qualified in psychology) has developed his own criteria for NPD and "diagnosed" Obama -- not from long-term evaluations, but from watching him on TV. You really think that is trustworthy?

Obama comes off as a giant ass, and when you hear the things that his wife and pastor have said about america, it only verifies it more for me.

So? I happen to think Hillary comes of as an even bigger douchebag, and I don't give a shit about what his wife or pastor says about America, because that's got jack to do with whether he'll be a competent president.

[brianeyci]

Obama comes off as a giant ass, and when you hear the things that his wife and pastor have said about america, it only verifies it more for me.

He's a politician. I don't think it means shit that he can change his body language quickly. Some of the observations your link gives as proof of narcissism are hilarious.

Part of it was the narcissism of the self-presentation. Obama does this creepy thing after being introduced. He approaches the stage only after a good 5 minutes of passing through a parting sea of applauding audience members.

Almost every politician does this, moves through the crowd and shakes hands. Politicians who don't risk disconnection from their citizens. Sounds like someone has never been to a party convention before.

He occupies quite a bit of space and also frequently initiates physical contact - e.g. putting his hand on someone’s back or arm.

Almost every sociable person I know does this.

“A chronic restlessness, an inability to appreciate, no matter how well things were going, those blessings that were right there in front of me.” He has tried to turn this to his advantage. “I know I haven’t spent a lot of time learning the ways of Washington,” he said in announcing that he would run for president. “But I’ve been there long enough to know that the ways of Washington must change.” Obama’s restlessness is a quality that would lead him to conclude, again and again, that the time had come to make a move—to take a chance, to aim higher - when others told him to wait his turn.”

Why should Obama wait his turn? Sounds like somebody thinks that it's Clinton's "turn" to be President, especially given the link name "body language lady." What a ridiculous idea, that someone should wait his turn to be President, when the President is not chosen by Obama but by voting. Nobody gets ahead in life waiting for his turn... unless he is entitled to such from the start.

Just because someone points out there are problems in Washington, including earmarks, Iraq, and so on, that doesn't make him a "giant ass." Just because someone points out problems, that does not mean he isn't appreciative enough of the good.

Please. Candidates should stand humbly by the side of the stage and walk up right after being introduced. I do not attend political rallies to see a pretend savior savoring popular adulation as he dances through the cool stream of the multitude.”

Fake humility has defined the Bush Presidency. Humility is a dual edged sword. It allows people like George Bush to pretend to be humble in public, then behind everybody's back comment how much better America would be as a dictatorship. Humility is a religious emotion, and the less religious a person is the less likely he is to be humble. People should be proud of their accomplishments, and embarassed about their faults. Humility is about as fake as an emotion as you can get. I'd prefer anger.

Ultimately I think your problem is you think speeches should be about content rather than style. That is true -- if the speech is meant to be a formal debate, fighting honest opponents. In fact, some facts are rather impossible to communicate orally. For example, you cannot teach economics or biology orally. Those require textbooks. It sounds like you're angry that Obama has dumbed down his presentation to the lowest common denominator, without considering that the medium itself is best used in this fashion.

I am sick and tired of people saying that Obama is too pastor-like, with too much style over substance, when Obama has the most substance of all the candidates on his website. Written communication is always superior to speeches, and by recognizing the limitations of the oral medium and using it for what it's meant for -- to rile up support -- Obama is playing to the medium's strengths. It does not mean Obama is style over substance because he uses style in campaign rallies, because guess what, oral communication and speeches are about style. If you want more facts, you go to the written medium, his website, rather than a campaign rally.

Basically this Obama has too much style tripe is because some Americans are angry at Obama dumbing everything down, without realizing the irony of how dumb someone is who doesn't want to read but wants to be spoonfed everything through an oral speech.

[Big Phil]

A commentary written on the Chicago Tribune by one of Obama's former colleagues at the University of Chicago, where he used to lecture on Constitutional Law. It hardly offers a neutral viewpoint, as the two men are old friends, but I think it gives interesting insights into how Obama's mind-set, thoughts, and ideals.

I had no clue where to post this and didn't want to start a new thread on it, since it sort of relates. My mom was talking to me the other day regarding Obama. Apparently, my mom's friend, who studies body language, said something regarding how it's unnerving how quickly he is able to change his body language. Not that Clinton doesn't have her own issues. Then I did a little googling and found other body language people saying similar things. [url=http://bodylanguagelady.com/2008/03/02/ ... y-language[/url]

Obama comes off as a giant ass, and when you hear the things that his wife and pastor have said about america, it only verifies it more for me.

"Narcissists …don’t talk, or communicate. They fend off. They hide and evade and avoid and disguise. In their planet of capricious and arbitrary unpredictability, of shifting semiotic and semantic dunes - they perfect the ability to say nothing in lengthy, Castro-like speeches."

Sounds familiar.

My former employer had a severe case of Narcissistic Personality Disorder. I'd say I'm more qualified to diagnose this than your mother, and in my experience, Obama doesn't even come close to having NPD. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, almost certainly suffers from a narcissistic personality disorder, and old Billy Bob Clinton is the King of NPD.

BTW - if you, your mom, or your mom's friend don't want to vote for Obama (for whatever reason), then don't. Just don't start making excuses for it, like inventing personality disorders he doesn't have.

[Shroom Man 777]

The negro should just learn his role. All the body language he needs is to pick cotton from the fields.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

All this talk about "taking his turn" and "He's not experienced enough" is all bull. There are plenty of examples in history where some "youngling's" political skills were sorely underestimated, to the detriment of his rivals. Octavianus Caesar anyone?