An interesting aspect of [Obama's] career in the state Senate was his habit of voting “present” on controversial legislation instead of voting “yea” or “nay.” He did this about 130 times over his eight-year career there, which other Illinois senators say is unusually high. As Nathan Gonzales of the Rothenberg Political Report noted, “We aren’t talking about a ‘present’ vote on whether to name a state office building after a deceased state official, but rather about votes that reflect an officeholder’s core values.”
Unlike in the United States Congress, bills in Illinois have a fixed numerical threshold for passage—in other words, a “present” vote is equivalent to a “no” vote for all practical purposes. But for rhetorical purposes, a “present” vote is different in that critics and journalists must discuss it differently. For example, Barack Obama did not vote against a bill to prevent pornographic book and video stores and strip clubs from setting up within 1,000 feet of schools and churches—he just voted “present.” Obama voted “present” on an almost-unanimously passed bill to prosecute students as adults if they fire guns on school grounds. He voted “present” on the partial-birth abortion ban and other contentious issues…
– David Freddoso, The Case Against Barack Obama, p 116.
I’m starting to wonder just how active Obama will be as President. The Obama that Freddoso depicts seems more likely to cling to power as long as he possibly can (a la FDR and Clinton) than to actually try and change the country to his own ideology. Obviously, power-hungry men have the ability to hurt a lot of people in their path (again thinking of FDR and Clinton). But for whatever reason (and perhaps foolishly), it only excites me.
And no, Davey, this is not political theology. It’s all an exercise in storytelling and storyreading. So there.
I suggest a false dichotomy: political theology is an exercise in storytelling.
Yes, except that anyone can be a storyteller. Political theology, on other hand, bars all souls like myself who don’t have a graduate degree and abhor verbose and stuff dialogue. Political theology is an exercise in academics; storytelling is anything but.
Likely he won’t do too much moving and shaking over the first four years. He’ll give people just enough “change” to keep them wanting more. But when he gets elected to a second term, watch out: then he’ll have nothing to lose.
@F – I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on FDR and Clinton. My feelings toward Clinton are pretty similar to those I have for Obama – I’ve been surprised a few times in the last several years, as I’ve seen interviews of Clinton, by how likable and reasonable a guy he seems to be.
I assume you have particular policies in mind. I’m just curious to know what prompts you to say these things.