Unstoppable Obama

Posted February 14, 2008 | 01:27 PM (EST)




When did you begin to think that Obama might be unstoppable? Was it when your grown feminist daughter started weeping inconsolably over his defeat in New Hampshire? Or was it when he triumphed in Virginia, a state still littered with Confederate monuments and memorabilia? For me, it was on Tuesday night when two Republican Virginians in a row called C-SPAN radio to report that they'd just voted for Ron Paul, but, in the general election, would vote for... Obama.

In the dominant campaign narrative, his appeal is mysterious and irrational: He's a "rock star," all flash and no substance, tending dangerously, according to the New York Times' Paul Krugman, to a "cult of personality." At best, he's seen as another vague Reagan-esque avatar of Hallmarkian sentiments like optimism and hope. While Clinton, the designated valedictorian, reaches out for the ego and super-ego, he supposedly goes for the id. She might as well be promoting choral singing in the face of Beatlemania.

The Clinton coterie is wringing its hands. Should she transform herself into an economic populist, as Paul Begala pleaded on Tuesday night? This would be a stretch, given her technocratic and elitist approach to health reform in 1993, her embarrassing vote for a credit card company-supported bankruptcy bill in 2001, among numerous other lapses. Besides, Obama already just leaped out in front of her with a resoundingly populist economic program on Wednesday.

Or should she reconfigure herself, untangle her triangulations, and attempt to appeal to the American people in some deep human way, with or without a tear or two? This, too, would take heavy lifting. Someone needs to tell her that there are better ways to signal conviction than by raising one's voice and drawing out the vowels, as in "I KNOW ..." and "I BELIEVE ..." The frozen smile has to go too, along with the metronymic nodding, which sometimes goes on long enough to suggest a placement within the autism spectrum.

But I don't think any tweakings of the candidate or her message will work, and not because Obama-mania is an occult force or a kind of mass hysteria. Let's take seriously what he offers, which is "change." The promise of "change" is what drives the Obama juggernaut, and "change" means wanting out of wherever you are now. It can even mean wanting out so badly that you don't much care, as in the case of the Ron Paul voters cited above, exactly what that change will be. In reality, there's no mystery about the direction in which Obama might take us: He's written a breathtakingly honest autobiography; he has a long legislative history, and now, a meaty economic program. But no one checks the weather before leaping out of a burning building.

Consider our present situation. Thanks to Iraq and water-boarding, Abu Ghraib and the "rendering" of terror suspects, we've achieved the moral status of a pariah nation. The seas are rising. The dollar is sinking. A growing proportion of Americans have no access to health care; an estimated 18,000 die every year for lack of health insurance. Now, as the economy staggers into recession, the financial analysts are wondering only whether the rest of the world is sufficiently "de-coupled" from the US economy to survive our demise. 

Clinton can put forth all the policy proposals she likes - and many of them are admirable ones - but anyone can see that she's of the same generation and even one of the same families that got us into this checkmate situation in the first place. True, some people miss Bill, although the nostalgia was severely undercut by his anti-Obama rhetoric in South Carolina, or maybe they just miss the internet bubble he happened to preside over. But even more people find dynastic successions distasteful, especially when it's a dynasty that produced so little by way of concrete improvements in our lives. Whatever she does, the semiotics of her campaign boils down to two words - "same old."

Obama is different, really different, and that in itself represents "change." A   Kenyan-Kansan with roots in Indonesia and multiracial Hawaii, he seems to be the perfect answer to the bumper sticker that says, "I love you America, but isn't it time to start seeing other people?" As conservative commentator Andrew Sullivan has written, Obama's election could mean the re-branding of America. An anti-war black president with an Arab-sounding name: See, we're not so bad after all, world!

So yes, there's a powerful emotional component to Obama-mania, and not just because he's a far more inspiring speaker than his rival. We, perhaps white people especially, look to him for atonement and redemption. All of us, of whatever race, want a fresh start. That's what "change" means right now: Get us out of here!

Comments for this post are now closed



Comments
857
Pending Comments
0

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

Hint sample
View Comments:
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next › Last » (10 pages total)

Don't be so sure Ms. Ehrenriech, the general election isn't over yet. Dems all thought Kerry won also, alas, he did not and since he
turned out to be insincere and endorsed Obama instead of his former running mate, I'd say jealous. What a bunch of phonies, along with Obama and his campaign cronies.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 01:30 AM on 02/21/2008



It's deja vu all over again!!

38 years ago, I was a grunt in my student cultural group. The ambitous and hormonally evocative framed the issues and tactics. Funny thing happened on the way to the ramparts with the streets filled with tear gas and pepper gas: they were holed-up in the secret societies, fraternities, and other private clubs while we "true believers" were the fodder being gased.

Yet, I made my "bones" as a connector, politically and socially, with my street comrades. Particularly with the town-activists, I made FRIENDS, not a network for personal aggrandizement.

The military had my number, 36. I chose service as an enlisted than as a much desired officer-candidate or an ex-patriot in Canada. In the military, my drill who was 2 months my junior and who'd spent two tours in 'Nam. He was still the rocker who had been in an "American Band". I shared the experience with those who didn't have the fortune for connection or privilege. Obligation to duty, authority, and title made me, the ex-Space House-Human Tragedy, very sensitive to the "why" I do and would sacrifice.

At the caucus I saw the same ideologic-apparatchik whose passion for the cause has been subordinated to be a minion of the "network"-no matter its non-egalitarian structural inequities . The search for title and status still goes on.

In the 1970 movie "Cromwell", after beheading Charles and being given a monarch-free republic, the Parliment apparatchik sought the literal to metaphorical version of a monarch, that was eventually restored several years after Cromwell.

It's a consciousness issue of perpetuity: alterior motives by those having the ends be the dissemblage for the corrupted means. For those who would be and are the fodder of those means and ends, the apparatchik is as much the potential enemy as is the explicit subject of our ire.

It's for this reason the page needs to be turned and moved on from the corrupted cynics of the 60's-70's struggles to the true-believing idealists that live and suffer the struggle.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 03:37 PM on 02/19/2008

Two Questions:

Has Obama ever held a single job for more than 4 consecutive years?

Has Obama ever worked (in any number of jobs) for more than 7 years without taking a multi-year break?

This guy might survive the campaign, but his record suggests not a lot of horsepower on the job. Nevermind executive experience, this guy has a serious deficit of work experience of any kind.

One of the (few) constitutional requirements for presidents is they must be at least 35 years old on taking office. Seems reasonable - probably ensures some degree of minimum maturity and work experience. But, of course, most serious 35 year olds have more work experience than Obama (despite his being 11 years older).

At best this guy might be qualified to be a bureaucrat or work for some sleepy not-for-profit.

http://tinyurl.com/2mb5f4

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 09:46 AM on 02/19/2008

He lectured on constitutional law at the University of Chicago School of Law for 11 years ('93-'04).

He was IL state senator from '96-'04 uninterrupted (contrary to the lie in your "source"). He resigned that when he was elected to the US senate in '04.

He has a proven mastery to govern and lead and organize. His campaign itself is ample evidence. He has overtaken an entrenched machine that nobody could have guessed he could rival.

He has more experience as an elected official than Hillary. Hillary was elected green to the US senate in 2000.

Get yourself some sources that are at least somewhat credible/accurate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 01:54 PM on 02/19/2008

Despair: The Corporatists hand picked chosen candidates, McCain and Clinton, finally winning the nomination that they were supposed to clinch in the beginning, giving us no change, more of the same, status quo march into mediocrity, decline, debt, and increasing poverty for the bottom 90% of the population. (but with 300 cable channels to choose from in HD).

We'll now get to vote for the same old same old. Only one comes with a suit the other with pantsuit.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 05:10 PM on 02/18/2008

Obama's deep connections to Rezko can stop him. Unfortunately the Rezko trial has been pushed back to Mar. 3, 2008.

If this hits the fan AFTER BO wins the nomination, the GOP will make BO's Rezko dealings a bigger story than Whitewater ever was.

Forget the real estate deal -- it goes deeper.

I just spent an hour reading through this blog: Rezko Watch ... several interesting reports, all backed up by reliable newspapers in Chicago and beyond.

http://rezkowatch.blogspot.com/2008/02/rezko-obama-is-coincidence-not.html

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 04:57 PM on 02/18/2008

You mean to say that Obama doesn't walk on water? That the Emperor of Change has no clothes? That all his wonderful words may be Just Borrowed Words? Obama Nation doesn't want to hear it. I sure HOPE you are not a Super Delegate.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 06:16 PM on 02/19/2008

Is this all you Obama opponents have? If so, you don't have much. I think this will hurt Obama about as much as Bobby Baker hurt LBJ. And if you don"t remember Bobby Baker, that just proves my point.

Write back when you have a substantive reason for opposing Barack Obama.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 07:45 PM on 02/18/2008

If this is the worst that Obama has done; friends with three less then perfect people, Obama may have a chance.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 04:51 PM on 02/18/2008

Obama is NOT unbeatable. Forget that series of primary wins. Think about that series of 80 shutouts scored against him in New York, including a big one in Harlem. Anyone who can lose like that can really lose. And you do know about those machines used in Ohio? You've heard? .... OK. So now you know.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 10:13 AM on 02/18/2008

Could one of the thousands of Obama supporters on here give me Obama's thoughts on what type of Supreme Court Justices he would appoint and how he expects to get them confirmed by the Senate? Is he going to compromise and pick centrist justices to appease the right or will he stick to his guns and pick justices that a more left leaning/pro-constituition since he taught constituitional law? Chances are Obama will have to appoint two or more Justices during his term and that is a decision that could have disasterous consequences for us all if he screws up.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 09:24 AM on 02/18/2008

Blah blah blah!
Is it not apparent to you that we have much larger problems to worry about?
Without saving our environment and calming the Muslim world nothing else matters you dolt! It is myopia such as yours that has led the charge to war thinking it makes us safer. Nobody wins a war. We just keep fighting until every one is dead! If we can't make peace with our enemies and curb co2 emissions we won't be here to give a flying fuck who is on the supreme court! Obama can talk people into doing the right thing, which is obviously painfully dificult for Many people.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 10:35 AM on 02/20/2008

The next democratic president will have a lock on Congress and a Senate majority, possibly veto proof. Unless they nominate Ariana Huffington or Mike Malloy, getting a Supreme Court nominee through the process should not be problem.

No appointments could be worse than two Nazis that Bush just appointed.

Do you believe that "bomb, bomb, Iran" McCain's Supreme Court appointments will be left of Hitler?

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 11:57 AM on 02/18/2008

exactly! - You can probably find a few Nazis in hiding who would be farther left than Scalia.

Hey, 'Chief Justice Malloy'....

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 04:47 PM on 02/19/2008

Well Barbara, it is a good thing that you are only speaking for yourself -- and not me.

Because I am embarrassed when I hear Obama talk. At first, I thought he was a good speaker, when I first heard him at the DNC years ago. But he is so overboard now, that he sounds like nothing more than a preacher or a motivational speaker.

I get embarrassed for him because I think he doesn't even realize there is no substance, no meat and portatoes, no policy talk, no reality. I just want to say "Please, stop, enough already. Don't tell me 'yes we can' again, it's too much, drop it, get over it. Say something real about something that you are going to do to make America better. No more motivational chants. I can't bear to hear it one more time."

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 07:12 AM on 02/18/2008

Hi Monique, well said! if only more people could see the truth like you, we would save the country of 4 years of disaster!!!! And they would add up to 8 more years( Bush), for a total of 12 years!!!!It's nice to see how people haven't learned the lesson here and insist on the Obama's rethoric. Well, as I say now to people, DON'T BLAME ME, I DIDN'T VOTE FOR HIM EITHER !!!!

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 06:18 PM on 02/19/2008

Wow! Someone who was not around when the Obama spell was cast. Refreshing!

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 07:07 PM on 02/18/2008

You obviously have not visited his website, which lists his plan of action in detail.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 11:59 AM on 02/18/2008

I suppose you were embarrased for JFK and MLK when they gave great oratories with no "substance, not meat and potatoes, no policy talk, no reality"? To say that Obama gives no policies or substance shows how little you pay attention. Good luck with Hillary, though.

Obama '08
Clinton '16!

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 11:42 AM on 02/18/2008

OBAMA '08, KUCINICH '16!

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 04:47 PM on 02/19/2008

It's easy to list the reasons why "No we can't". What you're missing is that the Obama Organization, and the movement, keeps growing, learning, adjusting. Complain about his Federal Earmarks and they're published. More focus on Asians and Hispanics..done...looking for a detailed economic program....published. The movement is organized and responsive. Noone ever said it would be easy...and he repeats how much effort is involved and tieing youth opportunity with community service. But believing that all white folk (like me a senior suburban white guy) will show their color in the voter's booth is just another act of denial...insisting people don't change. No, they adapt. If Obama wins the nomination, what will Hillary do? Pull more women into the movement? Obama lives family values and it's visible ..he still goes to parents night at his daughters' school and his wife is warm to him in public. Can he step up to the national security and terrorist issues, beyond Iraq? Can he step up to the Oil, Insurance, and Pharma lobbies and work for change? Will he engage the international community in the Middle East, Pakistan, Russia, China, India,the EU, etc? Can he develop a rational immigration policy that engages Mexico and others? Can he stimulate America's entrepeneurial spirit and overcome lobbyists of the status quo? Can we and the world believe in a new shing light on the hill? The current administration with all its experience has put leadership integrity, seperation of powers, anti-terrorism, and economic stimulation in a quagmire. Yes, America will have a choice, not black or white, but hope and inspiration versus and fear mongoring and manipulation. McCain feels he can restore integrity to the repubs, but he's already buckleing to the conservatives by endorsing torture...of all people. The answer is if Obama is derailed, it will be by the Democratic machine, not the Republican machine. The question the Dem's should ask is can we keep the unification process going until at least 51 % of the nation joins the movement? Yes we can.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 02:27 AM on 02/18/2008

Remember that Bush only needed 51 percent of the Supreme Court.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 12:00 PM on 02/18/2008

I'm white. I'm a liberal. I'm a woman. But, unlike my white liberal brethren, I believe Obama is stoppable if he wins the nomination.
However, before I continue my opine let me say:
I support African-American voters in the Obama camp. You deserve your first viable opportunity to elect an African-American president. You've earned it, your ancestors died for it. And you owe it to your children to secure for them this moment in history.
But someone has to ask the following of my fellow white liberals who get dewy-eyed for Obama:
Would you be this excited about the first potential African-American president if the candiate was ...
... Al Sharpton?
A moot point indeed. Black leaders like Sharpton make white liberals uncomfortable. Be honest, my white liberal breathren ...
... Barack is your perfect "some of my best friends are black" candidate. Al is not.
While Sharpton gets in your face about the racism that still exists in America, Obama reassures you, "That's the past."
And you love him for it.
But after all this feel-good intoxication delivers the first Democratic nomination of an African American candidate ...
... Obama will lose to McCain.
Obama's ultra-liberal votes in the Illinois State Legislature will be the red meat the GOP needs to motivate their extreme right wing.
- Obama voted against allowing licensed gun owners in Illinois to carry their weapons outside their homes. The NRA will go after this with a venegance.
- Obama voted against allowing doctors to attend fetuses who survive abortion. The religious right will demonize Obama for this.
- Obama voted against death sentences for gang members who commit murder as an initiation into a gang. Three words: "Willie Horton" ads.
With this ammunition, the GOP will squeak out a win for McCain.
We know it's probable. But we risk it because Obama makes us liberal white folks feel America is no longer racist.
That is, until the GOP proves us wrong.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 04:55 PM on 02/17/2008

AMEN! Thanks for the brilliant analysis.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 01:53 PM on 02/19/2008

Seriously, did you just post 'Al Sharpton' and 'Barack Obama' in the same sentence???? That, alone, made it clear to you that you were a Hillary supporter. There's something about Hill and Bill that keeps people tied to the past. Only a person not yet ready to get beyond identity politics could have posted that. What a joy and comfort the race-baiting of S. Carolina must have been for you.

Despite the national polls showing Billary neck-n-neck with McCain (or losing) and Obama winning, the 'panic button' had to be hit one more time 'eh? I get it... I just won't be joining it.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 06:13 PM on 02/18/2008

It's proper (and IMO necessary) to be anti-death-penalty in Illinois because we have ample proof that the system is rigged here. Remember, this is the state where 13 or 14 death row inmates have been proven factually innocent (as in, their DNA did not match the crime scene, someone else confessed, etc.) including some notorious cases where the Du Page country prosecutors were actively railroading some suspects (who were lowlifes but not murderers). When he issued the moratorium on executions and commuted all the death sentences (to life, not freedom), ex-Gov Ryan noted that about 50% of murder convictions in IL get reversed on appeal. (Gov Ryan is a criminal and is deservedly serving time, but he was correct on this.) Under those circumstances, how could any remotely reasonable person take any position except that the state of IL has lost its right even consider executing anyone. Of course current gov Rod Blagoevich (D) has decided to pander to the bloodthirsty execution fans.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 02:47 PM on 02/18/2008

That was dumb. Obama would not win because of the GOP. The truth is OBAMA WILL WIN BECAUSE OF THE GOP!

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 02:10 PM on 02/18/2008

Yet the fact that nearly half of voters polled say they would never vote for HRC in November is LESS compelling to you?

It's understandable that you are afraid to hope for the best case scenario: President Obama. But this is real deal. Next January, when he is sworn in, you will feel much better!

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 09:51 AM on 02/18/2008

Susan says: "Would you be this excited if the candiate was Al Sharpton?"

No, he's been an activist too long--he's a "specialist" and Obama is more broadly focused.

Susan says: "... Barack is your perfect 'some of my best friends are black' candidate."

Some of my best friends *are* black. So?

Susan says: "While Sharpton gets in your face about the racism that still exists in America, Obama reassures you, 'That's the past.' "

There's still racism and we'll still need people like Sharpton.

Susan says: "Obama will lose to McCain."

Doubt it. Bush has destroyed the republican party. There are only fragments left, and some of those fragments (e.g., Ron Paul republicans) will support Obama.

Susan says: "Obama voted against allowing licensed gun owners in Illinois to carry their weapons outside their homes. The NRA will go after this with a venegance."

If Americans weren't so utterly sick of lobbyists right now, maybe I'd be worried.

Susan says: "Obama voted against allowing doctors to attend fetuses who survive abortion. The religious right will demonize Obama for this."

He voted "present" because of the way the bill was written. Legislators often vote "present" to block something so that it can be rewritten. He explained why he was unhappy with the bill--it conflicted with other abortion legislation over the definition of "life."

Susan says: "Obama voted against death sentences for gang members who commit murder as an initiation into a gang. Three words: 'Willie Horton' ads."

Here's why he voted against those death sentences (in Obama's words):

...here are some crimes...so heinous that
the community is justified in...meting out
the ultimate punishment. On the other hand,
the way capital cases were tried in
Illinois...was so rife with error,
questionable police tactics, racial bias,
and shoddy lawyering, that 13 death row
inmates had been exonerated.

Susan says: "...Obama makes us liberal white folks feel America is no longer racist."

I'm pleased he's being judged by his merits and not by his skin.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 09:27 PM on 02/17/2008

Planned Parenthood asked Obama to vote "present" on the save-the-fetus bill because it was trick legislation. Were they wrong to make that request, and was he wrong to honor it?

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 02:52 PM on 02/18/2008

Ozamerican:I know WHY he voted as he did. Guess what -- I agree with Obama's positions.

You miss my point - these explanations will not matter to extreme right-wing voters in November.

In general elections it takes only broad strokes to paint someone as an ultra-liberal and the GOP will get the NRA-supporters, Pro-lifers and Evangelicals out to vote for McCain.

This is how GW got re-elected - by a slim margin.

Our country is in a complete mess. We are on the precipe of huge problems colliding all at once. We can not afford to lose to the GOP.

Obama and Clinton are virtually identical on the current issues. But the GOP has no new attacks to launch at Hillary. Only the same old accusations which have become white noise.

Turning their sights on Obama will be fresh red meat they can toss to red staters.

We need to admit it to ourselves that there are a lot of people who are looking for an excuse to vote for McCain and keep the Democrats out of the White House.

Yes, I support Hillary for these and other reasons. If Obama is the nominee, I will vote for him but I don't expect him to win over McCain.

And truly -- this is the real fight - winning the WHite House. Not winning the nomination.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 10:00 PM on 02/17/2008

No, we lost in O4 because Kerry didn't have the balls to fight over Ohio. That's all, go read the damn newspaper writeups that show you that Kerry actually won Ohio and didn't fight it out. And about that? I'd rather have Obama, who is, like he said. "I'm skinny but I'm tough" than Hillary-I'll-fold-instead-of-voting-for-what's-right-so-it-doesn't-make-me-unpopular AUMF vote, bankrupty vote Clinton.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 03:50 PM on 02/20/2008

"We need to admit it to ourselves that there are a lot of people who are looking for an excuse to vote for McCain and keep the Democrats out of the White House. "

But that's what campaigns are all about: one side looking for reasons to keep the other side out.

But none of the potential attacks against Obama that you've outlined come anywhere near the attacks that will be aimed at Hillary, should she be the nominee.

She says she's been vetted, but there are millions of new voters in both parties who weren't old enough at the time to fully understand the sex scandals, Hillary's role in those, Whitewater, travelgate, castle grande, vince foster, the "looting" of the white house, etc., etc., etc., nor the ethical/legal implications. She'd need to be re-vetted to the satisfaction of these voters. She'd never survive.

Those were the good ol' days, when the talk was all about what America was going to do with a huge surplus generated by bubble-generated corporate tax revenues (the "peace dividend"). It was like the money truck was driving up to our shores every morning and dumping a massive load, and there was the optimism and wrecklessness that comes from sudden prosperity. Americans let the Clintons get away with anything and everything in the White House. It was our own fault, really. But it was in the spirit of the times.

Young voters today don't have those same rose-color glasses. But they need to understand what happened and draw their own conclusions... and they will. So, no, Hillary hasn't been fully "vetted." It's just a reality. And the republicans will make sure her "experience" gets another full review.

So my point is that the list of potential attacks against Obama that you've provided pretty much pales in comparison.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 05:14 PM on 02/19/2008

well, prepare to be floored when President Obama takes the podium in January. I'll bring the smelling salts - then we'll all go out for martinis.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 04:55 PM on 02/19/2008