We are a racist society. When Obama first announced his candidacy for president of the United States the first question that the media asked, "Is America Ready" for a Black president? That first question in itself proved we are in fact a racist country. I admit I'm tired of talking, reading and listening regarding the topic of race in this presidential election. I'd much rather read and talk about the economy, health care and the war. Yet, I can't help wonder what if Obama had the same heritage he has of a White mother and a Black father, but had white skin. Would we still be having this conversation? What if Obama in his lifetime had been able to walk down any ordinary street in America and all who passed by simply saw a cute looking White kid or a nice looking White man, would his perception of racism in this country be different and would his race be as significant as it is in this election? I think not. The racism that we all share would have been tempered simply because his skin color happened to be white. Shame on us and our country that we love. That the first thing and sadly sometimes the only thing we notice in a person is the color of their skin or the shape of their eyes. Perception is after all everything.
We, The O-Boomers
Obama's speech on race this week came at the precise moment when I'd been mulling over his appeal to my generation of boomers. It's been somewhat staggering for me to encounter the number of close friends of my own '60s-generation cohort who, in the past few weeks, have been rather quietly confessing to me their own begrudging admiration for Obama.
And I do mean confessing. For those of us who grew up reading Ramparts, not Facebook, it's somewhat uncomfortable, if not downright embarrassing, to admit to investing any real hope in a Democratic presidential candidate. It might be hard for the Millennials or even the Xers to fully grasp, but my generation was radicalized by LBJ Democrats more than by Nixon Republicans. We thought Jimmy Carter was a Southern conservative (and we were right). Bill Clinton, we thought, was the best Republican president since Ike (and I think the record confirms that notion as well).
But along came John Edwards and Obama this time around, and it was hard to deny that we were starting to hear some of the same arguments we had wearily been making over the last four decades finally coming from the presidential-campaign stump.
Not that we've been pushovers for Obama's message of Change We Can Believe In. Coming to us veterans of the Gulf of Tonkin, Chicago '68 and Kent State, it is a little bit like the Jehovah's Witnesses trying to hawk the latest edition of The Watchtower at a convention of atheists.
But I know I speak for these same friends when I say you can now count us among the O-boomers. We've sipped no Kool-Aid, nor been seduced by focus-grouped campaign rhetoric, nor driven senseless by finely tuned speechifying. Instead, we've looked around and reached three simple conclusions:
Read the rest of the post here.
Cross-posted at L.A. Weekly.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
I was born in 1962, which makes me part of Generation Jones, since Jonesers were born between 1954 and 1965. We are not Boomers! And we are not Xers! When will this fact finally be widely recognized?! Ask people you know who were born between '54 and '65 whether they feel like Boomers, Xers, or part of this in-between generation, and you will quickly find that we overwhelmingly identify with GenJones. Thankfully, the media finally seems to be catching on, because I have seen several articles recently saying that Obama is a Joneser. You Boomers may support Obama, and that's great, but let's not for a moment confuse ourselves into thinking that Obama is a Boomer. He's no more a Boomer than an Xer.
Parade, I'm glad you brought this up, I so agree. You and Barack Obama are NOT baby boomers, you're WAAAAAYYY too young. My sister was born in 1954, however, and she is a baby boomer, I think, that is, if I am one. Thing is, I don't think that even I am a baby boomer (born 1950), because I don't represent the bounding birth rate that directly followed the end of WW 2. When I was a little teenager, I used to hear the term "baby boomer" and I thought it sounded SO cool, and I was envious of the seniors four years older than I who fit this label. (Before that, the cool thing to be was a "war baby," but i was just a small kidlet then.) Decades later, I suddenly "became" a baby boomer, by magic.
But like I said, glad you brought it up, because this whole business gets my inner Adrian Monk in a dither. On TV, I saw Stewart and Colbert referred to as baby boomers. Ridiculous! My gosh, they're only in their forties. How long do the idjuts think the post war baby boom lasted, anyway? Me, I think it lasted a couple of years. 1946-1947. But what are you gonna do? "They" paste the labels on us, and we live with it. The only solution is not to care. Cuz they are not gonna stop. God only knows what your age group might suddenly be named tomorrow.
I was present at the first official campaign-organized rally for Howard Dean in Los Angeles for his presidential run in '03. There were about 250 people to hear Howard speak.
I brought my wife to what was amongst the first of the public rallies for Obama, held in Los Angeles, eleven days after his announcement in Illinois.
There were 10,000 people to hear Barack speak.
Something is going on and it needs to be appreciated not only for the depth of support but for the depth of the intellect involved. Obama connects and is for real but we are too and this is the basic requirement of progress. Thanks, Marc.
American = NOT AN ADULT.
Americans are sooooooo good at NIT-PICKING themselves INTO MYOPIA and then
voting FOR THE WORSE candidate because they are confused, stubborn, spoiled li'l BRATS.
The critics still don't get it. You will never achieve change if you don't try and from 8 years of the Clinton presidency and 6 years of Senator Clinton, it should be clear that Hillary will not rock the boat. Obama is the only mainstream candidate left that is attempting to change the frame, and offers the hope for a better tomorrow. Will he deliver? Maybe not, but we all know Hillary won't.
HRC and HRC supporters like to tout her political experience as being an asset, but how can anyone look at her record and think she will actually fight for any change? She is the epitome of a status quo politician.
She will certainly be a much better president than McCain, but that's setting the bar really low.
Senator Clinton fought for change in the US healthcare system and got shafted by the Democratic establishment. She learned a lesson from that. True, she won't bring a sea change if elected--BUT NEITHER WILL OBAMA. He'll be up against the same forces that killed Clinton's health care reform. There are too many congressional DINOs for any president to effect radical change.
I voted for Senator Clinton based on the economy. I think she is by far the best positioned to argue that she can restore our economy--she will use the proven Clinton model. Obama can't really claim any particular advantage over McCain in the economic sphere--and the economy is what will determine this election.
So, yes, Senator Clinton won't stray too far from the status quo, but that's because she knows powerful forces are arrayed against change--even within the Democratic party. Look at this congress and tell me you don't believe that! Obama promises change, but he won't be able to deliver (if he can even win the general election which I doubt). Not because he won't try, but because he won't have the votes.
If we keep voting for change, as we did in the last Congressional elections, we'll sweep more of the array of powerful forces from their privileged positions.
You may doubt he can win the general election, but a real array of voters wants the kind of change that Obama represents, and they'll surprise you whether you believe it or not.
People are sick of the tactics the Clinton campaign has resorted to, and once Obama has the nomination, he will sweep into office with a mandate and plenty of new Senate and Congressmen to change this nation's course.
Clinton supporters are the neo-naysayers, and their willingness to do anything to win is as pitiful as it is cynical. I give them their due, however, because they honestly believe that only slight, incremental changes are possible because that's all they were ever able to take on with their distracted, enemy obsessed politics.
Hillary's health care plan failed because she developed it in secret and then surprised everyone with it at the last minute so there was no time to negotiate or compromise. If all she learned from that experience was that she "got shafted by the Democratic establishment" then she learned nothing at all.
One significant difference between Clinton's new health care plan and Obama's is that Clinton wants mandates and Obama wants to start out with making coverage available to everyone but with voluntary participation. One reason he gave for this decision was that most Republicans will balk at the idea of mandates and that could prevent a health care plan from getting passed.
Regarding an overall promise for change, Obama has mostly promised that the real work will begin when and if he takes office. Doris Kearns Goodwin, a presidential historian, recently explained it thus:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
...what history argues, and I think this is what [Obama's] arguing, is that the only time we've seen progressive change in this country is when the country is mobilized to push the people in Congress to action. That's what happened in the Progressive Movement in the turn of the century, it's what happened in the New Deal, it's what happened in the '60s. And I think that's what he's arguing. That "I can't just get it down by myself; I need to have that movement out there that will push us in Washington, me and them included." And that's what I think is the strength of that message that he's trying to espouse.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I've given you two, real-world, reasons why Obama has a better chance than Hillary at passing health care reform: 1) his plan does not alienate Republicans as much as Hillary's does, and 2) he is planning on using a tried and true model that has been proven by history to be effective at achieving progressive change.
The only reason you gave for Hillary having a better chance is her previous failed efforts along with a lame excuse for why she failed. I hope she has learned her lesson from that failure but all the secrecy and lies that surround her campaign indicate otherwise.
As neither a Boomer, nor a Gen-Xer, people like me are in a unique position to see into the generational divide in a unique way. Boomers, by and large, are judging events from a set of "truths" that no longer hold. For instance, it strikes me as exceedingly odd to hear the continued refrain that "the young do not vote, so Obama will lose the general election." Somehow, they didn't get the memo that the young are indeed voting, in record numbers.
Another "truth" that seems to have slipped their grasp is that people who are only passingly involved in politics only vote in the general election and not in the primaries. People who vote in the primaries, in contrast, are much more likely to vote in the general election than those who don't.
What these folks are missing in their analysis is the simple fact that the young voters today have at their fingertips vast stores of information, and they know how to access it with an efficient virtuosity that would leave most older folks stunned if they would only take the time to watch a twenty-something year old surf the net for a few hours.
As a person sitting between these two worlds, I remember going to the library and spending many hours simply trying to track down a hand full of paper documents. I also watched and took part with eagerness as the internet grew from "world-wide and a micron deep" to the amazing tool it is today, where I can literally access thousands upon thousands of sources of information, from scholarly works to opinionated blogs. And even more importantly, I can compare and contrast all of these sources, forming and reforming my judgements as necessary as I go, in the space of time it would have taken to track down a single source in the pre-internet days.
The one difference that probably has the most impact on the divide between the way the young and the Boomers view the world is that Boomers by and large are still relying on old technology and limited sources for their information, such as TV and newspapers. The young can and do scoff at how uninformed the older generation seems to be. Are they wrong?
I'm a member of Obama's generation and I am not voting for him.
We can do much better I believe.
I have a theory.
The cable channels got their start with the OJ trial - whites against blacks, women against the man. Lots of race and sex to jazz things up.
The media's prejudice in the OJ trial was against any possibility that OJ could be innocent. I decided, because of the prejudice shown, OJ was most likely innocent. Still believe that.
In this 2008 Election season - so far it has been blacks and their sympathizers against whites and men against the woman.
So I have reason to believe - because of the prejudice against Hillary, she is most likely the best candidate for President.
I believe both of your conclusions are equally likely.
Yes, we will see LIBERAL criminals flood into DC vs rethuglians, a real sea change by any standard.
This post just highlights one of the less talked-about aspects of this race for the Presidency: that age is turning out to be a bigger issue than people realize. Why are so many "young-people" coming out in droves for Obama? Because Clinton represents what they hate and fear most: their parents' generation. Likewise, so many Boomers are turned off to Clinton because she represents what they hate and fear most: themselves. Into her and Bill they project their own foibles and moral shortcomings and see everything that the Clintons do wrong (and there's been plenty of that) as a shocking reminder that their time is not so slowly passing.
This pass-the-torch approach smacks of the narcissism of guilt that the Boomers suffer from feeling like they're the ones driving the country into the ground, combined with the narcissism of recapturing their lost youth by voting for the hip, young rock-star candidate. Well, age is no stalwart against the follies of youth, especially when you refuse to grow up.
I'm a de facto "boomer" and part of the demographic the idiot pundits say is the core of HC's support, and an "O-boomer" by enthusiastic choice. I resent their assumptions about me and your rationalization of my disillusionment and erosion of respect of the Clintons. It's pure psychobabble.
Like Marc, I do not "invest naive hope in Barack Obama." The "hope" Obama speaks of is not the pie-in-the-sky kind but it is, as he has defined it and what a lot of people don't get, a combination of optimism and hard work. I, for one, stand ready on Day One of an Obama presidency to ask (recalling from my "boomer" youth) to ask what I can do for my country.
Wow, if all the generations are so turned off on the Clinton's, how come Hillary has won all the big state primaries except Illinois? Somebody has to be votiing for her.
Republicans did, as they prefer to run against her, and all of her baggage. Get some perspective!
Many of us are simply not driven by 'hate and fear', as you describe the motivation, but by rational and intelligent thought. We read, we listen, we evaluate, and we use our critical thinking skills.
It is not the 'folly of youth' at work here, but a reasoned and thoughtful mind. I am a 'baby boomer' from 1956, and I think Obama is the best chance we have had for a great President in my voting lifetime.
I personally am a year ahead of the boomers, so I don't qualify.
But anyone who thinks either of our two awesome dem candidates would have a bad presidency is wrong.
Like Jackie Robinson, when you're first, you're going to bust your butt to set the precedent for all to follow.
I'm all Hillary in the primary. I love the Clintons and everything they stand for.
But once the primary is over and should Obama win, everything else, the bickering, the "aha" factor, the nit picking about delegates etc. is gone, moot, history.
We'll all be democrats in the same foxhole, protecting each other's back from the attacking republicans.
And anyone who decides to not vote because their candidate didn't win has no real argument here.
So take your ball and bat and go home and have a pity party.
We won't have to boycott the Clintons because they won't get the nomination. That being said, if Hillary were somehow to win, I'd have to swallow my contempt for her and hope that her team could become at least partially inspired to change Washington. Change in Washington will require facing up to the senselessness of giving corporate America a free rein regardless of their manifest errors and depredations. Corporate governance has proven to be destructive of our core values as well as our economy, bankrupting the nation's workforce as Republican governance has bankrupted the nation's finances. Hillary has shown the willingness to take money from these discredited leaders, so she's suspect, but I understand the realpolitik that might eventually bite the hand that feeds her.
She tried to change the health care system radically, but failed, so maybe there's still the ability to think outside the patented triangle. Error is certainly a powerful instructor.
I would have agreed two months ago that we are all in the foxhole together, but after the Clintons started smearing their fellow democrat, and going into the gutter with their politics, i can never support HIllary. She and Bill praise McCain for God sake!!! It's disgusting! So if there is any lack of party unity, it is the Clintons' fault.
couldn't have said it better myself.
That may explain it for Democrats, but for Independents such as myself (which ANY Democratic candidate will need in November) your argument is moot. We are not in your foxhole. The fact is there are MORE Independents in this country than Democrats or Republicans. Which candidates attract us Independents? Obama and McCain. Hillary turns us all off, and save me the sexist crap. I am MORE than willing to vote for a female, but she is the WRONG female. If that female were Janet Napolitano (Gov. AZ) or Kathleen Sebelius, I would vote for them in a heartbeat. But Hillary, absolutely NOT!
This was the presidential contest of all contests. I have the feeling betweent he Clinton's race-baiting, their back-stabbing, their push-pull politics (examples....where do I start....Hillary's CIC imaginary threshold that in her opinion Obama hasn't reached, Hillary's attempt at two-for-one when she is in second place, Bill Clinton calling Obama's patriotism into question, etc.) is pathetic. I HAD great admiration for the the two of them, but they keep digging their grave. And we all know the first rule, "when you are in a hole, quit digging".
Yes, independents like us are crucial. I am not a democrat, though at this point I have never voter republican. We need so much more than just two troughs to feed at. I'm in my 40's and no one I have ever wanted as president has ever become president. Some never made out of the primaries, others didn't attain it in November. This time?!
I waited and waited for VP Gore, when this didn't materialize I looked at the elder statesman Biden, Dodd, Gravel, yes of course Gravel and Kucinich. Lastly looking at Edwards and Obama. Clinton was never going to be considered. Why? The list is long, others have stated volumes, but for me as an independent, B, C, B, C was not how I wanted to view a couple of decades of my life. We've got over 300 million people in this country, two families dividing us for too long just isn't going to fly.
As the campaign has developed Sen. Obama has grown, learned and shown more and more of who is inside him. I resonate with him and am proud to say that I am very excited by his candor and candidacy.
Sen. Clinton will not be receiving my vote or support should she become the nominee. Foxes are stunning but I'm in no ones foxhole.
And that's why you shouldn't be voting in Democratic primaries...you've chosen to be an Independent NOT a democrat or Republican.
You need your own primary.
Ah yes, the independents that have no primaries. The independents that pay for no convention and stand for nothing.
It's so much easier to stand back and "see" what the active parties have to offer because they "need" your vote.
Republicans and independents did decide the last election, you can definitely take credit for that. Thanks for four more years of Bush.
The last great idiot you came up with was Ross Perot. Impressive!
Hillary Clinton would make a ten times better president than John McCain. So would Obama.
"Take a stand and make a mark".....John Jakes
What Cooper is telling you when he says he was more "radicalized" by LBJ than anyone else is the obvious tell to anyone who knows his work: he is bitter and unforgiving, nasty really, to Democrates, and generally benovolent and forgiving to Republicans. Is this really LBJ's fault? Could be, Cooper's massive ego may never have forgiven the guy who tried to put his butt in the line of fire.
But let's leave the highly dubious notion that Marc Cooper is a radical aside, and deal with Cooper's "generation." To support his claim, does he sight any of these people? Nope, he sites two right wingers, and even here Herbert is utterly unrepresentive of the general reaction at The National Review, where Obama's speech was sneered at.
The other thing here for those interested in a little reading between the lines is "the dissapointment" bit. What Cooper is telling you is that once his real purpose has been accomplished (Clinton's defeat),.it won't take him long to start in on Obama. Bear in mind, Cooper has dumped on every black leader for the last twenty years, and if MLK were alive he'd be dumping on him.
Obama's speech, by the way, was O.K. But the fact that Cooper and others are comparing it to "I Have a Dream" only shows they have not a sliver of a concept of an idea how impressive a figure MLK actually was. Bottem line: Cooper will say ANYTHING to get Clinton.
I knew Dr King. Obama is no Dr King.
I was at the March On Washington to hear the "I Have A Dream" speech. People with courage DO things other than talk. Dr King was courageous for the things he did. There were years of marches, prison, humiliation.
The speech encouraged a new identity to those who listened and were moved. Dr King tried to teach us to judge one another on the basis of character - not skin color. I do not vote based on skin color.
After Dr King was assassinated, those that followed turned away from non violence into a black separatist movement - Black Nationalism.
That turning away from the discipline of non violence is one of the keys to everything happening now
vsign is right. Obama is no Dr. King. Yet.
Unlike the unelected spokesmen of great causes, Obama has taken it upon himself to run for office with a serious, well tempered campaign. He is not tone deaf as the Clintons appear to be.He doesn't simply talk about feeling our pain, as Bill Clinton did and Hillary does so unconvincingly to the majority of Democratic and Republican voters.
The years of "doing things" will be Obama's true test, and that test will be on display from day one through the entire eight years of his administration.
Unlike posters here who've accused you of drinking kool-aid, I read the entire article at LA Weekly.
A well-written, thoughtful piece.
It accurately describes how I, a middle-aged, dyed-in-the wool Democrat slowly morphed into an Obama supporter.
Marc, thanks for putting this in thoughtful terms that even my husband could understand! I'm a Dem living in Holland, married to a Dutchman. An absolutely quintessential Spock logic Dutchman. I've been trying to explain to him for some time that Obama supporters are not expecting, contrary to some folks silly words, for Obama to 'wave a magic wand, and the skies will open up' blah blah blah. We've not only actually listened when he's spoken, read and re-read his proposals on this website, but we actually are inclined to believe that he will at least attempt to make them reality. For the first time in my adult life, i think that there is a slight possibility that things could really change for the better in DC. That slight possibility is enough for me.
Again, thanks.
Sandra
You're quite right, of course. One can never really know what to expect, but if Obama can deliver even 10% of what he's trying to achieve, that would be extraordinarily more beneficial than any potential Clinton presidency. With her, we know exactly what to expect, and her lies are flying so fast and thick that we can't even spend the time to properly debunk them for her saucer-eyed worshipful followers.
This silly attempt to create an impression that baby boomers are somehow not critically up to peeling the bullsh!t from the reality of politics is a bit misleading. You can count your little toes on the great probability that babies whose parents were part of W.W. 2 ... because that's who you are referring to ... are far to sharp to fall for the crap coming out of any politician. We've been through the wars before.
No, instead the 60s somethings are not thinking that Obama is a saint but a bit better connected to what a President can lend to move this country back into a positive direction. Clinton and McCain represent the stagnant, corrupt and Byzantine nature of Beltway power games. This is what this election is about.
I like Hillary, but I can live with Obama as the nominee. We just need a Democrat to win in November. I can't take another four years of the neocons.
Posted March 21, 2008 | 01:21 PM (EST)