NOTE: The original draft of this post was written on July 11, 2017. Though it’s being posted nearly nine years later, the critique of Obama is still relevant and exemplifies the shortcomings of our Democratic leaders.
Trump once asked, if Russia was meddling with the 2016 election, why didn’t the Obama administration stop them? That’s an excellent question.
We now know that there was a growing mound of evidence of Russian meddling in the election, and some of the meddling goes back several years. Obama discussed the issue with Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan. He hoped that the three of them could issue a joint statement. He feared that if he spoke alone, without their support, the Republicans would charge him with interfering in the election in order to benefit of Hillary Clinton. There was never a joint statement. McConnell and Ryan dismissed the idea of Russian meddling though they knew it was true. In fact, even Trump knew it was true.
In August 2016, “Trump receive[d] his first classified intelligence briefing. It is later reported by NBC that Trump received information at the briefing about “direct links” between the Russian government and the email hacks.” When Clinton raised the issue during the October presidential debate, Trump denied that there was any interference. The election took place on November 8, 2016, despite the accumulating evidence of Russian interference.
** ** ** **
Obama was confronted with a difficult choice. If he spoke out, perhaps a lengthy speech in front of Congress with lots of visuals to explain the complexity of the issue, that speech would have been lambasted by both Republicans and Democrats, though for different reasons. While both would have agreed that the speech interfered with the election, the Republicans would have portrayed it as an act meant to hurt Trump and favor Clinton. The Democrats would have portrayed it as hurting Clinton (she needed Obama’s direct interference to win the election) and helping Trump.
Let’s assume that Obama spoke up and, in effect, blew up the election, thereby handing the victory to Trump. The result would be exactly what we have now: a broken democracy and an authoritarian president. Yet we’d also have something that would outweigh a Trump victory. We would have seen what it is like for someone to put country over party, to set aside political interests and do what is necessary to save the Republic. Further, we would have a better informed electorate, so that subsequent revelations of Russian meddling would be harder to dismiss as sour grapes since they would reinforce Obama’s earlier warning.
An Obama speech about the great threat to democracy would have done what he failed to do during his two terms of office, namely, drastically alter the perception of Democrats. They would have been seen as a party of steel nerves, of boldness, of a willingness to save the Republic no matter what the cost.
Yet, at just the time when we needed courage, audacity, and hope, when we needed the commander-in-chief to command, we got the tired old centrist, non-confrontational Obama. Whatever we may think about Trump, we cannot forget that Obama was in charge during the attack on our election. Obama did not rise above politics, did not rise above partisan bickering, and the threat of right-wing propaganda. The country needed the constitutional law professor, the one who understood the sweep of history and the weight of precedent, and how it impacts the present. We needed him to act as if he were an historian writing a hundred years in the future about the first Black president who rose above the petty squabbles, who despite the legacy of racism and slavery, despite the horrific acts of violence against Blacks that continue to this day, nonetheless, he rang the alarm bells about an attack and he saved democracy. Obama did none of those things. The commander-in-chief did not command. He allowed the country to be attacked.
We may be angry about the Republicans not putting country over party. However, they’re just following the example set by the Democrats.
by 
Why Didn’t the Democrats Stop Them?
NOTE: The original draft of this post was written on July 11, 2017. Though it’s being posted nearly nine years later, the critique of Obama is still relevant and exemplifies the shortcomings of our Democratic leaders.
Trump once asked, if Russia was meddling with the 2016 election, why didn’t the Obama administration stop them? That’s an excellent question.
We now know that there was a growing mound of evidence of Russian meddling in the election, and some of the meddling goes back several years. Obama discussed the issue with Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan. He hoped that the three of them could issue a joint statement. He feared that if he spoke alone, without their support, the Republicans would charge him with interfering in the election in order to benefit of Hillary Clinton. There was never a joint statement. McConnell and Ryan dismissed the idea of Russian meddling though they knew it was true. In fact, even Trump knew it was true.
In August 2016, “Trump receive[d] his first classified intelligence briefing. It is later reported by NBC that Trump received information at the briefing about “direct links” between the Russian government and the email hacks.” When Clinton raised the issue during the October presidential debate, Trump denied that there was any interference. The election took place on November 8, 2016, despite the accumulating evidence of Russian interference.
** ** ** **
Obama was confronted with a difficult choice. If he spoke out, perhaps a lengthy speech in front of Congress with lots of visuals to explain the complexity of the issue, that speech would have been lambasted by both Republicans and Democrats, though for different reasons. While both would have agreed that the speech interfered with the election, the Republicans would have portrayed it as an act meant to hurt Trump and favor Clinton. The Democrats would have portrayed it as hurting Clinton (she needed Obama’s direct interference to win the election) and helping Trump.
Let’s assume that Obama spoke up and, in effect, blew up the election, thereby handing the victory to Trump. The result would be exactly what we have now: a broken democracy and an authoritarian president. Yet we’d also have something that would outweigh a Trump victory. We would have seen what it is like for someone to put country over party, to set aside political interests and do what is necessary to save the Republic. Further, we would have a better informed electorate, so that subsequent revelations of Russian meddling would be harder to dismiss as sour grapes since they would reinforce Obama’s earlier warning.
An Obama speech about the great threat to democracy would have done what he failed to do during his two terms of office, namely, drastically alter the perception of Democrats. They would have been seen as a party of steel nerves, of boldness, of a willingness to save the Republic no matter what the cost.
Yet, at just the time when we needed courage, audacity, and hope, when we needed the commander-in-chief to command, we got the tired old centrist, non-confrontational Obama. Whatever we may think about Trump, we cannot forget that Obama was in charge during the attack on our election. Obama did not rise above politics, did not rise above partisan bickering, and the threat of right-wing propaganda. The country needed the constitutional law professor, the one who understood the sweep of history and the weight of precedent, and how it impacts the present. We needed him to act as if he were an historian writing a hundred years in the future about the first Black president who rose above the petty squabbles, who despite the legacy of racism and slavery, despite the horrific acts of violence against Blacks that continue to this day, nonetheless, he rang the alarm bells about an attack and he saved democracy. Obama did none of those things. The commander-in-chief did not command. He allowed the country to be attacked.
We may be angry about the Republicans not putting country over party. However, they’re just following the example set by the Democrats.
Categories:Political & Social Commentary