This article was published last fall, and the information in it was probably available before then, but I’ve just now discovered it:
Sen. Barack Obama had hired Pete Rouse for just such a moment.
It was the fall of 2005, and the celebrated young senator — still new to Capitol Hill but aware of his prospects for higher office — was thinking about voting to confirm John G. Roberts Jr. as chief justice. Talking with his aides, the Illinois Democrat expressed admiration for Roberts’s intellect. Besides, Obama said, if he were president he wouldn’t want his judicial nominees opposed simply on ideological grounds.
And then Rouse, his chief of staff, spoke up. This was no Harvard moot-court exercise, he said. If Obama voted for Roberts, Rouse told him, people would remind him of that every time the Supreme Court issued another conservative ruling, something that could cripple a future presidential run. Obama took it in. And when the roll was called, he voted no.
Here’s what that tells me about Obama:
1. At the age of 44 this man had no clue why voting to confirm a young, anti-abortion, anti-women’s rights ultra-conservative to the Supreme Court was a bad idea for the women of America. Or he simply didn’t care.
2. This article is reproduced on Obama’s own website, so apparently he still hasn’t figured out #1. Or he still doesn’t care.
3. When he did change his mind it was only to preserve his presidential chances. Defending the rights of female American citizens wasn’t enough.
In the fall of 2005 the feminist sphere was aflame with calls to block Roberts’s confirmation. And while we were doing that, this chump was sitting in his Senate office making absurd noises about Roberts’s “intellect”.*
And you trust this clown?
*Allow me to remind you that Roberts’s vaunted intellect has led him to oppose abortion rights, equal pay for women, and to question “whether encouraging homemakers to become lawyers contributes to the common good.”
16 Responses to “Do feminists for Obama understand what the hell this guy is about?”
It also answers a question I read once – when Obama says that he’s a progressive Democrat who’s also eager to work nonpartisanly with Republicans, is he (1) lying to the Republicans while planning to pursue the progressive agenda they abhor, or (2) lying to the Democrats while planning to jettison the progressive agenda to appease his Republican “friends”? I’m going with (2). The progressive agenda is obviously not his priority.
Obama’s agenda is and always has been to become the president. Not so he can be the president but just so he can be the president. In other words, once he sits in the oval office and get his picture taken and say some pretty words he will have to rely on everyone else to do the work.
Yup. This NYT article is another good demonstration that it’s all about auditioning.
Sorry, link didn’t work:
The Ghost of Violet says:
I fixed the first linky.
I do not understand why people are so obsessed with the Supreme Court that they would vote for Obama. Obama would NEVER nominate any prospective justice that the GOP would oppose. Obama just likes the GOP too much for that (it must be a post-partisan thing).
Obama also opposed a filibuster against Alito.
Why oh why does anyone think that Obama would do any better than McCain in picking SCOTUS justices?
The Ghost of Violet says:
I wish I had known about this before, because if I had I would have never considered Obama an acceptable second choice for the nomination. What a smug, entitled asshole. The insight this gives into his character and how he thinks — rather, how he doesn’t think — about women is very disturbing.
It seems to me that when he made that obnoxious remark to the bible-thumper about women being “allowed to have some control” over their own bodies, it wasn’t just infelicitous phrasing.
Thank you. I hadn’t read about this one, and I’m rather stunned. I mean, I always knew that’s how the calculating “post-partisanship” would play out, but to celebrate it on your website? It suggests, as you say, that he doesn’t see anything wrong with Roberts or such naked political calculation on judicial appts… or else… he just doesn’t care. He knows the media will crown him regardless, so it simply doesn’t matter.
Does this man stand for anything but himself? I think he’s bought into the adulation of the media and the stadiums.
Yes, I have this article bookmarked for the Roberts information and for this: I find it interesting and oh so ironic that in this article we find that despite Obama’s talk (do words mean anything or not?) about being an agent for a *new* way of politics — the *change* guy — he says things like this:
“Pete’s very good at looking around the corners of decisions and playing out the implications of them,” Obama said an interview when asked about that discussion. “He’s been around long enough that he can recognize problems and pitfalls a lot quicker than others can.”
“His familiarity with Washington makes him somebody whose judgment I trust,” Obama said. And yet this is the Washington of “cheap political points” and “petty” partisanship that figures prominently in Obama’s public speeches these days. “I know I haven’t spent a lot of time learning the ways of Washington,” Obama tells his audiences. “But I’ve been there long enough to know that the ways of Washington must change.”…
Kinda sounds like Barack values those “old” (yick), “experienced” guys that he proclaims are the reason we are where we are… The guy is an amazing hypocrite.
Are you a regular reader of Feministing? That place has become Obama central. Their political person whoever you want to call her is so obviously for Obama. She even told Ferraro to fuck off. I am a feminist in my mid-20s and I understand that many my age like Obama but they need to start using their brains. I was disappointed that a place like feministing won’t even cover half of the sexism out there against Clinton but they would write two posts on Ferraro being a racist. I will never go to Feministing again.
No, I rarely check Feministing.
Ferraro isn’t a racist. It’s absurd. She was simply referring to the specialness of Obama’s candidacy, the country being caught up in the concept of a biracial, mixed-ethnicity president. Her main point was that a woman wouldn’t have the same opportunity (because of sexism), and added that a white man wouldn’t either.
DailyKos deliberately lifted the comment out of context and pushed it aggressively as a racist comment in order to smear Hillary.
Okay. It’s not like he gets the GWB jackass exception. He was a professor of constitutional law. He knew exactly what would be wrought by a conservative court. This is deeply disturbing. Thanks for passing on, though, I feel like not enough people know this.
I have long suspected that Obama simply wants to at least GEt the Nomination settled and if he wins the election, simply become The First Black President.
He has seen enough of how the Bush and other POTUSES have acted to know that he doesn’t really have to have the motivation of implementing a real democratic agenda or be concerned about ALL americans who are hurting, much less end the war in IRAQ when he signed off on continuing the war in IRAQ. Lies, I tell, it’s all just words and just lies.
He will simply coast through the first four years, keep the war in Iraq going (because as CinC he must listen to his Military Staff and Generals) and when all is said and done, sign off on a Senate bill giving 825 BILLION dollars to Africa on his signature alone in his first 100 days in office.
That is primarily what he wants to accomplish in his first 100 days in the Oval Office.
Forget the poor, the disenfranchised, the economy, the universal health care issues, the foreclosed homebuyers.
This man ONLY wants to give the wealth of america for an African economic stimulus of 825 BILLION dollars of american taxpayers money.
The rest of this nation, be damned!
For america, it is PAYBACk time.
So. The short and the long of it:
Roberts for USSC?
Clusterbombing innocent children?
Catnapping, try reading the post again. Obama was in favor of Roberts.
As for the cluster bombs, red herring. Sorry, but that’s a typical Obamabot talking point and it’s just wrong. The amendment had no chance whatsoever of passing anyway, so votes on it revolved around procedural issues. Most of the Democrats voted against it because they were sending a message that the extremely flawed and incomplete ban was a half-assed way to go about the issue and was guaranteed to fail.
Unless “catnapping” is trying to perpetuate the fiction that Obama voted against the war. He wasn’t even in the Senate then! Not even close!