Earlier this week, I had lunch in Austin with the city’s two best lawyers – Robert Icenhauer-Ramirez and his ex-wife Linda – along with their law-student daughter Katie. Because Robert is a presidential historian, having recently earned his master’s degree from UT, and Linda is an Obama fanatic, our conversation naturally gravitated to presidential politics. (Katie feigned bystander interest.)
Robert and Linda seemed inordinately proud of Obama’s accomplishments, and they asked what I thought. I told them that earlier that same day, talk-show host Don Imus suggested that Sarah Palin, as incompetent as she seems to be, could not have done worse than Obama. Robert and Linda thought that was a joke. I reminded Robert that a few years ago, he had suggested to me that Bush-43 was one of the worst presidents ever, and I thought Robert was joking. I guess turnabout is fair play.
As we started discussing the Obama presidency, I found myself steering the discussion to Obama’s life before the presidency, probably because I had just read a book on that subject, which I am about to review:
The Bridge is a new biography on Barack Obama, written by David Remnick. The author concedes that it “is preposterously early for definitive, scholarly biographies,” and describes his objective as “a piece of biographical journalism” on Obama’s life before his Presidency. With that objective in mind, Remnick succeeds. As a reader, however, I was unsatisfied. I was hoping for a balanced, thorough review of Obama’s life and instead was given an unblemished narrative deserving of the person whom Sean Hannity calls The Anointed One.
The book flowed from an essay that Remnick wrote in 2008 for the New Yorker magazine, titled “The Joshua Generation.” The essay title referred to a March 4, 2007 speech that Obama gave in Selma, Alabama to commemorate Bloody Sunday, which occurred on March 7, 1965. Bloody Sunday was a voting-rights march over the Edmund Pettus Bridge that resulted in the marchers being clubbed and tear-gassed by Alabama state police. According to Remnick, Bloody Sunday was the most important act of nonviolent resistance since Mahatma Gandhi’s march to the beach in 1930.
In his Bloody Sunday speech, Obama gave credit to the iconic African-American civil-rights leaders of the 60s – the so-called Moses generation:
- “I’m here because somebody marched. I’m here because y’all sacrificed for me. I stand of the shoulders of giants.”
There’s a bit of literary license in that comment since, as Remnick pointed out, Obama was born in America four years before Bloody Sunday. In any event, Obama went on to declare in his speech that he and his so-called Joshua generation would finish the trip across the Edmund Pettus Bridge. When Remnick subsequently decided to expand his essay into a full-fledged biography, he used the same speech to provide the book’s title – The Bridge.
The Bridge, despite 586 pages of information, failed to answer the question that I have always had about Obama’s academic career. He was not an outstanding student at his exclusive high school in Hawaii or during his two years at Occidental College in California, yet was able to transfer to an Ivy League college in New York City – Columbia. So I have always wondered what role, if any, affirmative action played in that decision.
Do you remember how much reporting was done to determine what special favors got Bush-43 into the Texas National Guard? This book contains no reporting on Obama’s admission to Columbia or Harvard Law. All I detected was a single paragraph about a person who wrote a recommendation to Harvard Law – “McKnight agreed to write the letter. He had the idea that Obama had not received exceptional grades as an undergraduate – ‘I don’t think he did too well in college.’” Because Obama Sr. earned a graduate degree at Harvard, it is possible that his admission could have been supported by “legacy” or affirmative action.
Obama has said that he doesn’t think his kids – Malia and Sasha – should benefit from affirmative action because they are relatively privileged, but what about affirmative action for Barack Obama over Anglos trying to get into Columbia or Harvard Law? I think that affirmative action for Obama was entirely inappropriate because his dad had a graduate degree from Harvard and his mother had a graduate degree from the University of Hawaii. Furthermore, his grandparents were able to use their connections to get him into the finest private high school in Hawaii – Punahou. Compared to most American kids, he was highly advantaged from an educational perspective and should not have been “entitled” to any preference.
My lawyer-friend Robert argues that using connections to avoid Vietnam is more egregious than using affirmative action to get into an Ivy League school. That’s true, but what about the media’s obsession with needing to see Bush-43’s college transcript. Obviously, they were attempting to prove the stereotype of conservatives as Philistines and liberals as Renaissance people. When Bush’s transcript was eventually released, his grades were comparable to those of his presidential opponent, John Kerry. Why won’t Obama release his transcript to show the kind of student who earned admission to Columbia and Harvard Law? Why the double-standard by the media?
One of Obama’s early claims to fame was becoming the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review, which is determined by a popularity vote of the other student-editors (analogous to being selected as a fraternity president). Before becoming president, however, he had to become a member of the law review. Remnick suggests that admission to the law review depended on merit, but merely said the following – “Obama’s grades were good – he graduated magna cum laude – and he got in.”
I have read elsewhere that Obama’s grades were marginal for the law review, and he wouldn’t have been admitted except for his race. Magna cum laude was good enough for African-Americans and Hispanics, but Anglos and Asians had to be summa cum laude. Why wouldn’t Remnick at least discuss this important issue? As FOX News says – give us the facts and let us decide.
From my perspective, Obama’s privileged background is reflected in the characteristic most associated with elites – a feeling of entitlement. Numerous studies have shown that people from privileged backgrounds often obtain preferential treatment in America merely because they insist on it. Remnick never seems to acknowledge this characteristic, but does report near the end of the book that Bill and Hillary Clinton and John McCain “thought of Obama as a talented speaker, but a callow politician, serenely entitled, lucky beyond measure.” Too bad Remnick didn’t take the time to examine that allegation.
Based on urban legend, you might think Obama spent many years working in the trenches as an ascetic community organizer. Actually, he worked only three years in the field for a foundation, almost like a Peace Corp or Teaching for American sabbatical, and he made decent money for the work before going to Harvard Law.
Right-wing pundits often attack Obama as becoming an indoctrinated disciple of Saul Alinsky, a famous community organizer in Chicago who died in 1972. Although The Bridge commonly takes detours to provide in-depth looks at persons or events that influence Obama, there is very little in this book about Alinsky. I assume that means that Remnick doesn’t think Obama was significantly influenced by Alinsky’s famous organization techniques and strategies, but even so, Remnick should have directly debunked the right-wing allegations.
Obama’s journey to Rev. Jeremiah Wright seems more sincere and less opportunistic than other Obama actions. Although Wright led the prestigious Trinity church, which would be helpful to the success of a community organizer, there were equally prestigious churches in South Chicago. Instead Obama was drawn to Trinity because of its emphasis on social justice as opposed to spiritual salvation. According to Wright, Obama was looking for “a faith that doesn’t put other people’s faith down, and all I’m hearing about is you’re going to hell if you don’t believe what I believe. He didn’t hear that from me.” That sounds totally appropriate coming from a cosmopolitan world traveler like Barack.
Because of his election as President of the Law Review, and the associated national publicity, Obama was given a book deal to discuss race in America while still in law school, with an advance of $100k. He started on the book while in law school, and then finished it after taking a job for a prestigious civil-rights law firm in Chicago. He also accepted a part-time job at the prestigious University of Chicago Law School lecturing on Constitutional Law. Amazing for a kid just out of law school.
Obama’s dominant goal ever since law school was to become a career politician, and he let that be know in Chicago as soon as he returned from law school. But because there were no openings for a few years, he networked and waited. Finally a state senator position opened up in 1996, and Obama won the position by getting the favored incumbent thrown off the ballot for failing to submit enough valid signatures on her petition. Apparently, this is a common tactic in Chicago, with candidates often filling their petitions with invalid signatures. By law, each candidate must submit 750 valid signatures. Out of an abundance of caution, Obama submitted 3,000 signatures while the incumbent submitted only 2,000 (as a result of making a last-minute decision to run for re-election), and Obama proved that only 500 were valid. Hell of a way to start a career in politics.
As Obama started his political career, Remnick accused him of having “a certain naïveté” about the role of money:
- “In a tone of rueful apology, he admitted that he would have to raise money from people of means in order to win the election, but ‘once elected, once I’m known, I wonder need that kind of money, just as Harold Washington, once he was elected and known, did not need to raise and spend money to get the black vote.’ As a Presidential candidate, Obama not only raised an unprecedented amount of cash… but also dropped a promise to abide by spending limits, and then outspent his Republican opponent by a gigantic margin.”
Just because Obama was a hypocrite about campaign financing, that doesn’t prove that his original sentiments had “a certain naïveté.” I agree 100% with Obama’s original sentiments, and I’ve never been called naive. (Actually, I have.)
By all reports, Obama was not happy being a state senator, his performance was lackluster, and his family-life suffered. By 2000, he grew impatient with his status and tried to unseat a popular incumbent congressman, Bobby Rush, in a district that was 70% African-American. Obama was crushed 61%-30%, and his only noteworthy accomplishment during the campaign was to earn the endorsement of the Chicago Tribune. The endorsement was one of the first signs of media-love that Obama generates:
- [Bobby Rush may] be good enough, if he did not have an outstanding opponent. Obama is smart and energetic. He was the first black president of the Harvard Law Review, and he is committed to his community. He has fresh ideas on governing and he understands that, as congressman for the 1st District, he would become a spokesman for African-American concerns nationally and an important voice in shaping urban politics in Chicago and the nation.”
Huh? That bit of puffery sounded like the Express-News endorsement of Will Hurd during my congressional race.
Somehow, the trouncing by Bobby Rush did not end Obama’s rapid ascent. In 2002, the Illinois Democrats took over the legislature, and Obama received a lot of favorable assignments (voting rights, affirmative action) because he had become the majority leader’s (Emil Jones) pet. Obama also spent a lot of time networking throughout the state.
Two years later, Obama decided to run for a U.S. Senate seat that was being vacated. The Democratic field was extremely weak, and the candidacy of Obama’s strongest opponent, Blair Hull, collapsed following the release of ugly divorce records that revealed him threatening to kill his wife.
After winning the seven-person primary with over 50% of the vote, Obama was plucked out of obscurity by John Kerry to give the keynote speech at the Democratic convention. Also on the short list of potential keynoters were Jennifer Granholm, Janet Napolitano, and Mark Warner.
After delivering a successful keynote, Obama prepared to take on the Republican nominee, Jack Ryan, but Ryan’s candidacy collapsed because of ugly divorce records that revealed him and his famous ex-wife being involved in kinky sex activities. Ultimately, Ryan gave up his nomination and was replaced by carpetbagger Alan Keyes. Obama won 70%-27%. What an amazing comeback for a guy who lost a congressional race 61%-30% only four years earlier.
The last fourth of the book concerns Obama’s abbreviated time in the U.S. Senate – four years – most of which was spent running for the presidency. That topic has been covered better by others – nothing here that I thought was worth noting.
The book’s Epilogue contained a few pages on the Obama presidency, including a mention of the famous beer summit. Although Remnick provides scant information about the incident, he reveals his personal prejudices that obviously slanted this book. In describing the beer summit, Remnick says “a police officer handcuffed and arrested a Harvard professor and pioneer in African-American studies, Henry Louis Gates, Jr.” No where in the discussion does he provide the police officer’s name – Sgt. James Crowley. Even more troubling, Remnick seems to defend Obama’s indefensible press-conference comments about Crowley acting stupidly:
- “In the coming days, Obama was criticized for sins ranging from a disrespect for the police to mouthing off without knowing both sides of the story. Although he was a great deal more right than wrong in his defense of Gates, Obama and his advisers regretted the furor.”
Huh? In whose mind was Obama more right than wrong? Maybe in Remnick’s mind, but not in the minds of most Americans. That probably explains why this book is ultimately unsatisfying to someone who isn’t interested in reading about The Anointed One.