Unstoppable Obama
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!
Loading comments…
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
It's not just that Obama has a different personal history than Clinton or McCain. It's that he derives his support from retail politics--very savvy organizing and financing at the grass roots level. Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld are consummate insiders; they are masters of the Washington power game. But they don't have a clue how to get anything done in the real world, outside the beltway. This is true more and more of our government in general, regardless of party. Obama knows how to take the fight into the streets, how to go "over the heads" of the Washington power brokers and directly to the people. That's the only skill that can possibly change this corporate-dominated power structure.
"was it when he triumphed in Virginia, a state still littered with Confederate monuments and memorabilia?"
Jesse Jackson won the same primary in the 1980s -- and of course Virginia is the only state that has elected an African-American governor. I'm not saying that Obama is not doing something remarkable, but it's not unprecedented.
MA has an African American governor, too.
http://www
Not unprecedented? So we have had another African-American presidential candidate that has overtaken an inevitabale candidate to lead in the primaries? Who was that, Bill Clinton? Get real.
I'm an Obama man myself, voted for him in the primary and will vote for him in the general election if nominated; hope he wins in November. As President, I pray that Obama rescues our hurting country from the bloody stranglehold of the war-makers who took our beloved nation into a unilateral war based on lies and deceit, resulting in the unspeakable murder of more than a million innocent Iraqis. Obama should begin this process by supporting the trial of ex-President Bush and his collaborators for war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Your expectations of Obama are far too high. If elected, he will continue the war and pardon Bush and his collaborators if they get charged with anything.
Im with you Pyrum. And it's unfortunate.
There is no doubt that Obama brings a breath of fresh air apart from a complete break from the current war policy.
But however good he may be as a president two questions that are currently buried in the current Obama euphoria will inevitably surface as the November election approaches.
The first is Obama as America's Black President.
The second is Mrs Obama as America's Black First Lady.
Is America really ready for either or both?
For the millions of voters that are desperate for a change in the "status quo"-type leadership this country has endured for YEARS, I promise you skin color will NOT matter when November arrives.
Well, "America" has something to think about doesn't it? And I think it begins with me and you. I'm all for America's Black President and America's Black First Lady. What about you?
A black man is still a man. Vote Hillary!
Ironically, it is the spectacular incompetence and corruption of the current administration, resulting in this country desparation for real change that renders your point almost moot -except among those who would rather put their foot through the bottom of the boat and sink with it rather than make the crossing to the other side with "the wrong kind" on board.
Yes, men are the wrong kind if change is what you want.
Why not?
And, if not, it won't be because I, for one, wasn't ready.
Senator Claire McCaskill (D) Missouri, elected for the first time to the United States Senate in November 2006, explained why she was supporting Senator Barack Obama to be President of the United States. She is the only one of the 16 female Senators who now is.
These are her words. “It was a little nudging from my 18 year old Daughter.” “It was Maddie in my face.”
“She, (Maddie), said, ‘How can you look yourself in the mirror, you’re a slug, you’re playing it politically safe, I believe in this guy, I’ll never speak to you again if you don’t stand up and have some courage.’ “
“It was pretty intense, she was right, it was like a cold bucket of water on my head, she was absolutely right.”
This is one of the new breed of Democrats we sent to Congress in 2006 to end the Iraq War. The war has not ended and this is what we got instead. Are your kids holding their breath unless you vote for Barack Obama? Are we making the right choice now?
Well I am one Missourian among many who worked for McCaskill with great hopes. Now she is one of those Democrats that have enabled George Bush to continue his insane war. Many of us will not work for her again. Frankly her gushing over Obama embarrasses me and let's all let our precious 18 year olds make our decisions for us. This country is so far away from transformation, we need lots of fixing of the Bush mess first.Hill
foreffecti
foreffecti
It just proves her daughter is receptive to MSM influence. No surprise there. I'm just surprised she listens to her 18 yo daughter.
Barbra's got it right when she refers to Clinton as a "technocratic elite." Clinton's also part of what we like to call the coastal intellectuals. The ones who laughed when Howard Dean won the Iowa caucuses in 2000. The ones who, like the poster above, believe that making policy in a Midwestern state for eight years "doesn't count." The ones who ran for cover to Illinois in 2004, to take up policy positions under Blagojevich, when Kerry lost in 2004, waiting for a sure Clinton nomination in 2008.
Don't give me 10-point plans. As a civil servant in the economic development departments of several major Midwestern cities over the years, I've seen 10-point plans. And I've seen hard-headed obnoxious policy types with their 10-point plans (from the left and the right) get nothing done because of their disregard for the politics of implementation. Give me a few good ideas, ideas about shelter, and food, and health care, jobs, education. And then give me someone who knows how to empower their staff, get the right people in the mix, surround themselves with bright people, and make the right decisions when those decisions need to be made.
When Obama ran for the Illinois Senate, Democratic party leaders told him to concentrate on winning Chicago, to disregard downstate voters. But he did not. He reached out across the state, rural and urban, white and black, old and young. He listened. His ideas and plans come as much from listening as from arms-length research. He knows more about the pros and cons of ethanol production than most politicians, not because policy wonks have told him more, but because he actually talked to farmers.
He says "this is what we can do together" rather than "this is what I will do for you." And that approach will make him much more successful at advancing a democratic (small d) agenda.
- a voter from Ohio, Illinois and Wisconsin
Ron Paul voters to back Obama? Well, it makes plenty of sense. Both are anti-war, pro-Constitution and speak for the regular people trying to survive the daily onslaught from the corporations and the government. People who support these two candidates are deathly sick of the Bush fascist crime syndicate. That's why Clinton is fading fast. She fails to grasp the plea from the voters for a clean break from the NeoCon crazies still clinging to power. Obama will crush McCain.
Obama will not get the democractic nomination, Clinton will, and it makes no sense whatsoever for Ron Paul supporters to turn to Obama. Anyone who thinks the Council of Foreign Relations, 32nd degree Freemason and eighth cousin of Dick Cheney Barack Obama is somehow significantly different from Hillary Clinton is delusional. Sorry, but Obama is not the Savior of politics America is hungry for. If he were, he wouldn't get any press coverage and would've been banned from debates.
"Change" in and of itself is meaningless. It has the same force as being BIPARTISAN
anything new takes guts. It takes the willing-
ness to make some very unhappy. Most of the
advancements whether from FDR to "The Great
Society" to "civil rights" did not have their
roots bipartisanship. Everyone on the opposing
sides (say in civil rights) did not sit down and say they would forget the lynchings and
murders and all be be warm and fuzzy. Someone
will lose. It may be power, money, control or
often these are interwoven. We have far,far
to go. (All hail to Speaker Nancy Pelosi and
a stronger partisan House of Representatives !!)
First, I just want to be a gushy fan of Barbara: I've been reading you since "The Worst Years of Our Lives" and I'm a reader of your own blog. And since I check Huffpo frequently, this is all good that you post here.
Second. I like women. I would be as excited about an Ellie Holmes Norton candidacy as anything, if there was one. I loved Pat Schroeder in the 80's. Search Sissy Farenthold to see women of wonderfulness candidates. I'm just not for Hillary. But am't I a Woman
If you are really a woman, then you are a disgraceful woman.
Why can't women support each other? Is it genetically impossible? Are you just programmed to tear each other apart?
God, as much as I know we need women to see a real change in this country, you women who refuse to support Hillary make me sick to my stomach!
Yes i agree the unstoppable Obama but what about his fabulous wife Michelle?
This is Condoleeza without the strapadicktome problem.
I'm looking forward to having a strong, powerful African-American First Lady.
The TRUTH is, we must teach our children to LOVE.
When Bill Clinton trash his presidency with scandal, putting self-gratification ahead of family, society, country, and the world, he was preaching self-love, narcissism, and self-seeking. That is setting the worst example any leader could to harm a world of youths and their tomorrows.
Does Bill care about anyone?
When Hillary dismissed the scandal as if it were no big deal, She was protecting HER candidacy and both of their images. Were she to be concern about today's youth and their (moral) education, she would have dismissed Bill instead.
Where is her (Hillary) sincerity?
Bill and Hillary, if only you would hold children close to your hearts, you should have no room for lies, wrongdoing, and self-gratification. And only then would you see wisdom, compassion, and courage!
Bill and Hillary, you cannot fool all of the people all of the time. Our nation's youth is smarter than you think. By voting WISDOM, COMPASSION, and COURAGE in OBAMA, they have thus dismissed the self-seeki
So be it that the nation's youth sees HOPE and UNIVERSAL TRUTH in OBAMA:
"Love each other or perish."
"From caring comes courage."
"LIVE THE CHANGE YOU WANT TO SEE IN THE WORLD."
"There are three classes of men; lovers of wisdom, lovers of honor, and lovers of gain."
Obama: lover of wisdom
McCain: lover of honor
Clinton: lover of gain
Obama appears to have greater appeal to highly educated Americans. WHY?
Highly educated people are those who have acquired imparting of knowledge, positive judgment and well-developed WISDOM - consisting of ideals and principles that govern all actions and decisions to maximize the LONG-TERM COMMON GOOD, and so are the highly educated Americans.
It is for LONG-TERM COMMON GOOD we EDUCATE our YOUTH, and so be it that the highly educated seek PURPOSE in LONG-TERM COMMON GOOD. This is called COMMON SENSE.
So be it that the highly educated seek WISDOM and its TRUTH in their choice of a president!
If you seek not WISDOM in a leader, what then, do you seek? If you hold not TRUTH, FAITHFULNESS, and SINCERITY as your first principles, what then, do you hold?
If you are a parent, an educator, or a community leader, and if you seek not such LONG-TERM COMMON GOOD WISDOM, you care not about the children, family, community, society, country, or THE COMMON WORLD.
How can we let our children follow such self-gratifying Clintons??
"LIVE THE CHANGE YOU WANT TO SEE IN THE WORLD."
This is what the highly educated are going for.
Oh yes, highly educated people gave us the great losers of our party. Stevenson, McGovern, Ted Kennedy, Kerry, Hart, Gore, to name only a few. All that common good crap worked very poorly for the communists of the world. Get real. The ivory tower halls of ivy folks gave us Bush too. I can only assume all this sudden worship of the over educated comes from the quads of Harvard in their snobbery and excitement at the hope of finally beating Yale to a potential presidential candidate. In the meantime, lets leave all the common good rhetoric at church. I don't care how the candidates make a bunch of crazed followers feel.
Lets have some answers to what the next president will do. How will that candidate fix the damage done to our governmental departments from incompetant appointments all the way down to the mailrooms, how will they stop the defense department's bottomless black budgets, end the war and its costs, see we all have healthcare, save our economy, protect our current social programs, aid our veterans, and save our housing and banking systems from immediate disaster? It will take a lot more moxie and experience than rhetoric to get even a portion of it done in the two years of democratic advantage the candidate will come in with. After that 2 yrs., it is all stagnation no matter who is elected.
"I would simply be uncomfortable being in a campaign that would be inevitably attacking Barack Obama," said McCain adviser Mark McKinnon in an interview with NPR's "All Things Considered
That said.
OBAMA WILL BEAT CLINTON AND McCAIN BECAUSE NO EDUCATED PERSON WANTS TO ATTACK HIM.
"Only once in a very long time does politics become more than politics, that is something more than partisan struggle, vote bartering, or arena of ambition..
... on rare occasion, old arrangements and conventional wisdom come unstuck. This happens in periods of rapid if not revolutionary change. We find ourselves now in one of those periods. The forces of globalization, information, eroding sovereignties, and transformation of war ensure that traditional leaders and conventional politics can only muddle through at best and fail badly at worst."
"Therefore, the good of man must be the end of the science of politics."
"There will be no end to the troubles of states, or of humanity itself, till philosophers become kings in this world, or till those we now call kings and rulers really and truly become philosophers, and political power and philosophy thus come into the same hands."
So let it be that our YOUTH sees HOPE in UNIVERSAL TRUTH:
"Love each other or perish."
“From caring comes courage.”
"LIVE THE CHANGE YOU WANT TO SEE IN THE WORLD."
GO! OBAMA!
As you fans of Obama quote his speeches here, and they don't read as well as they sound when read on the telepromters by Obama, you do realize don't you that he does not write them. They are not his words. They are the words and sentiments of professional speech writers, not the golden words from his heart to his head. Just the words of hired political hacks read by an actor who doesn't even memorize his lines. That is why he hates debates.
None of the candidates has written his own speech since Adlai Stevenson in the 1950s and possibly some candidates earlier than that. The smart candidates hire talented professional speechwriters. What comes to mind immediately is Ted Sorenson for John Kennedy and Peggy Noonan for Ronald Reagan (I think she was the one who came up with the "Morning in America" theme for Reagan). All the candidates use teleprompters. I don't think Obama hates debates; he probably sees how phony they are. The real great debate in the 20th century was Nixon vs. Kennedy where there were real questions asked and the candidates answered them, and where there weren't the celebrity pundit "gotcha" questions. As of this writing my understanding is that Senator Obama will debate Senator Clinton twice.
I second that thought...
Thank you! The candidate who speaks from the heart, although not always in a well-polished way, is Ron Paul!
JFK didn't write his own speeches, either. And Hillary Clinton doesn't write hers. Big difference between the two, though, wouldn't you say?
Why can't Hillary's speechwriter take her thoughts and put them into words that evoke positive feelings in people, even inspiration?
The problem is, her thoughts aren't that inspiring to begin with. "Experience," "solutions," "ready on Day One...". There's just nothing for anyone to connect with there. She sounds like she's interviewing for a job as a mid-level government bureaucrat. It would be tough to be her speechwriter considering the material you'd have to work with.
"no intelligent person wants to attack him"?? BS!
No closeted racist liberal wants to attack him. I'll attack him, and I'll put my education up against his anyday. He's an "empty suit".
You go fdwcrm!
Funny, for an "empty suit", he's sure mopping up up the place with Hillary.
The analysis of Obama's popularity was beautifully and eloquently stated by Ehrenreich. Charges that Obama is not substantive simply cannot or will not read. Rarely has there been a more substantive person in public life.
We will be fighting wars from here to eternity as anyone with half a brain can see. We will all make a grab for the last of the www.lifeaf
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
