Can Obama's "Soft Power" Still Play Hardball?
The following piece is published on Witness L.A. as well as OffTheBus.
A bare two months out from the first of the presidential primaries, the pollsters, plus the majority of the media, have all but called it for Hillary---and her recent prevarications and school-marmish lectures during the last Democratic debate seem not to have damped the prognosticators' resolve.
Yet, in the midst of this persistent Hillary's-the-One fever, two major articles have come out over the weekend that each, from very different perspectives, declare that it is Barack Obama, not HRC, who ought to be the candidate of the moment.
The first, written by centrist Republican writer/pundit Andrew Sullivan, appears in December's Atlantic Monthly. In it, Sullivan declares that America is desperately politically divided and that Obama is the one person on the contemporary stage with the understanding and the desire to truly heal the fracture. Whether one agrees altogether with Sullivan (who initially favored the Iraq war, among other failed administration policies), it's a well-thought-out analysis that makes for provocative reading.
"At its best," writes Sullivan, "the Obama candidacy is about ending a war--not so much the war in Iraq, which now has a momentum that will propel the occupation into the next decade--but the war within America that has prevailed since Vietnam and that shows dangerous signs of intensifying, a nonviolent civil war that has crippled America at the very time the world needs it most. It is a war about war--and about culture and about religion and about race. And in that war, Obama--and Obama alone--offers the possibility of a truce."
Then, on Sunday in the New York Times Magazine, reporter and author James Traub, presents the argument that, despite the common perception that Hillary is the best prepared of the Democratic field to handle the tough realties of a post 9/11 world, a majority of the Democratic foreign policy specialists believe that, in practical fact, it's Obama, not Clinton, who has the approach and the temperament most suited to deal with America's international challenges--from Iran to globalization.
Traub writes,"'There are maybe 200 people on the Democratic side who think about foreign policy for a living,' as one such figure, himself unaffiliated with a campaign, estimates. 'The vast majority have thrown in their lot with Obama.' Hillary Clinton's inner circle consists of the senior-most figures from her husband's second term in office -- the former secretary of state Madeleine Albright, the former national security adviser Sandy Berger and the former United Nations ambassador Richard Holbrooke. But drill down into one of Washington's foreign-policy hives, whether the Carnegie Endowment or the Brookings Institution or Georgetown University, and you're bound to hit Obama supporters.
Traub also talks of "soft power" -- a term popularized by Harvard professor Joseph Nye to describe the capacity to gain support through attraction rather than force -- an approach that Traub suggests is the strength of both Obama's candidacy and much of his foreign policy outlook--as opposed to what Obama describes as Clinton's "paint-by-the-numbers" toughness.
In the end, the pair of articles and the viewpoints they espouse may amount to little more than a couple of aerial water drops set down on an already blazing wildfire (yes, it's a California analogy)---in other words, too little and too late. Maybe the American people have already decided.
Then again, political winds can switch directions when least expected, so when handicapping elections it is tempting to look for auguries in strange places. For instance: When Obama made his surprise appearance on this weekend's Saturday Night Live broadcast, the startled audience cheered for him as if he was a rock star---or a winning politician. Would they have cheered with the same delighted abandon had the unannounced guest been Hillary Clinton? Maybe. But somehow, I don't think so.
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
One of the huge differences of Barack Obama and the other Democratic and Republican candidates is that BARACK OBAMA INSPIRES AMERICANS TO BE BETTER AMERICANS. He knows we all must really sacrafice in the coming years to get back on the track of greatness. No other candidate gets people to look accross the asile and respect another point of view. No matter what the subject, issue or policy...unless Americans, Republicans & Democrats, men & women, straight & gay, black & white etc. learn to really work together OUR COUNTRY IS DOOMED! This is why Barack Obama is the right person at the right time. AMERICA IS IN BIG TROUBLE AND THE SOLUTIONS WILL REQUIRE 100% COOPERATION. You have to ask yourself...who is the Leader we need right now?
I'm sorry but Gulianni, Clinton, Romney,...and the rest cannot bring the same integrity, honesty, candor and leadership to the table as Barack Obama.
OBAMA '08
*because America needs him NOW!
Thank you for your insightful article highlighting the positive characteristics of Senator Obama's candidacy.
I have a feeling that Obama's arguments will hold the preferred position in the long-term future of the Democratic Party and US foreign policy.
If Democrats do not wake up in time to realize that Obama is the best candidate, they will be up for many days after the November 2008 election night still going through "hanging chads" in search of an elusive presidential victory. The establishment candidate will have a long and very uncertain election night. Could it be that Democrats are sadistic and just love political punishment by overlooking the most inspiring candidate each electioncycle? I am beginning to believe so.
The American people have NOT decided - yet. Centrist pundit support for Obama is indeed remarkable -- thank you Celeste!
I know that we have a generation or two who have not grown up with very good male, role models. I hope they can recognize that beating someone over the head, verbally or otherwise, does not a man make.
Until Obama steps up to the plate and concludes that he IS the winner, and again asks us for support, he will not be seen to be a winner. He must show that he is willing to sacrifice for us if we sacrifice for him. He must say that we are people like him and he is not above us, and that he needs us to win. He must do this publicly and often.
I want to believe. So does America. Give us hope or get out of the way and give us Hillary.
Obama never had an origonal thought. He trades on being cute. One only needed to watch the last debate to see that he could only function when there was a leader to follow. Once Russert gave him the question and the cues as to how to answer, he started to debate. Even then, he was going for the personal rather than political despite his vow against negativity.
There isn't a spit's worth of difference between Hillary and Obama. They're both "win-win" supply-side DLC-type WTO-NAFTA Neo-Dems--Clinton Democrats out of the mainstream of the Democratic party of FDR, Truman, and Kennedy.
Real Democrats like FDR espoused Keynesian demand-side economic theory and believed that we the people should run our government to protect ourselves--the working class--from the depredations of the industrial cartels and the global capitalists who own them. From the greed and malice of the capitalists true Democrats wrested labor laws, unions, consumer protections, Social Security, and the first steps on the road to a single-payer national health insurance program: Medicaid and Medicare.
In sharp contrast, "centrist" Clinton Democrats like Hillary and Obama espouse supply-side economics and believe that we the people should should not be able to regulate industries freely, but that instead we must subject our decisions to interference and corruption by the very industrial cartels and global capitalists against whom we need to defend ourselves. Clinton and Obama say that we the people must "compromise" with these entrenched and malicious cartels, which under Bush have controlled their policy areas to increasing harm to the working class. Clinton and Obama tell us that syndicates of companies that are striving to game the political market to exploit and victimize workers and consumers are ENTITLED to write laws and shape policies and that it is unfair to exclude their brutal money and muscle when trying to shape policy that will best promote the general welfare and protect the working class.
Clinton voted for a treasonous and cartelist war. Obama was not in the Senate when the vote was taken, but given his cautious behavior and consistently "centrist" stance since, it is obvious that he would have "played it safe" by countenancing Treason.
Unlike Clinton and Obama, Dennis Kucinich is a true Keynesian Democrat who will fight the cartels, who voted against the war, and has called for the President's impeachment.
Learn more about these candidates' actual policies and their implications before rashly voting for another supply-side President.
I've also been troubled (more like mad as hell) about the msm annointment of Hillary as the front runner and probable democratic nominee. Though I am a fan of her husband, she doesn't possess his intelligence, let alone his ability to connect with the people. The main issue with HRC is, at least a perception of a candidate so beholding to the party that serious reservations about her doing what's best for the country and not just the party must be considered. Frankly, political double-talk is all I'm hearing from her at this point.
Obama, on the otherhand, strikes me as a man not altogether spoiled by D.C. politics and as someone possessing the temperament and thoughtfulness to reach across the aisle and begin working through the issues confronting us today.
Of course I may be wrong in my analysis, but one thing I do know is perception IS reality and while nothing is written in stone my perception of Obama is dramatically improved over those of the other candidates.
Great piece. I enjoyed reading it, thank you. It is about time MSM began paying attention to Senator Obama. He has the message and the ideas America and the world need today, not eight years from now. Thank you for a good piece.
Finally people are starting to wake up and pay attention to what Obama says, and at least listen to his ideas, even if they may disagree.
Good work, Senator...keep on moving, we're with you.
Enjoyed your article and I agree that with Hillary it is all perceptions that are enabled by the press. She is not more experienced and not better able to handle foreign policy.
I read both articles but, even as excellent as they are, will not see much publicity because it is not about Hillary.
This has been the biggest hinderance to all the candidates. They are not Hillary so they don't get the air time or press that is favorable on a daily basis like Clinton does.
Add to it the Inexperienced tag the press saddled him with, though it is not true, as you noted, and this has his campaign stalled out while clinton's has rose.
she is the worst candidate and will be another disaster for this ailing country.
Obama's ability to address issues and not fall into the trap of politics is EXACTLY what America needs. Hillary may be a masterful politician, but we don't need another president who is a just a good politician. What we need is someone who can sit down at the table and begin to address our problems in a systematic, nuanced, and thoughtful manner.
America desperately needs a president who can move beyond partisan politics and the issues that divide us. We need a president who can focus on our common goals and bring our nation back together. To succeed against the challenges that face us, we must stop tearing ourselves apart.
Which candidate can best heal the nation's divide? I think it is Obama.
I think that the power of the Obama candidacy on the ground is far underestimated. Not only that but the anti-Hillary vote which is entrenched will unite to defeat her. This last debate was Hillary's Gettysburg and the use of surrogates to play the gender card is only going to speed up her degradation. I anxiously await the next debate. Of course, it's all about Iowa. A win for Barack in Iowa will catapult him into victories in NH (with Independents) and in South Carolina as well. This race is proving to be anything but a coronation.
"...a majority of the Democratic foreign policy specialists believe that, in practical fact, it's Obama, not Clinton, who has the approach and the temperament most suited to deal with America's international challenges--from Iran to globalization.
Straub writes,"'There are maybe 200 people on the Democratic side who think about foreign policy for a living,' as one such figure, himself unaffiliated with a campaign, estimates. 'The vast majority have thrown in their lot with Obama.' Hillary Clinton's inner circle consists of the senior-most figures from her husband's second term in office -- the former secretary of state Madeleine Albright, the former national security adviser Sandy Berger and the former United Nations ambassador Richard Holbrooke. But drill down into one of Washington's foreign-policy hives, whether the Carnegie Endowment or the Brookings Institution or Georgetown University, and you're bound to hit Obama supporters."
----
Finally people are starting to notice this! Hillary is surrounded by the kind of thinking that got us into Iraq. And how involved were her people in bringing about the invasion? I think they were a lot involved, even though they may want out now. Hindsight's easy, huh?
Hillary would be a good domestic policy president, but I am afraid she would be a disaster in foreign policy. I can see us continuing to threaten Iran, upping the anti, engaging in more "bring it on" antics like Kyl-Lieberman, creating more terrorists....
Something must change. Soon. We can't keep interfering in the affairs of other countries in order to profit Americans. We need to hand the baton to the next generation, who have a better understanding of a post-coldwar world. We can't let these backward-thinking and looking people determine our future in the world.
I find it distressing that Hillary's nomination seems to be considered a done deal. I also believe that neither she nor Obama can win a general election, because no matter what Americans may tell a pollster, once they have that ballot in front of them, they won't be able to bring themselves to vote for either a woman or a black man. I have talked to many men, college-educated, middle class professional men, who have said to me (a woman), "Oh, I could never vote for a woman for president." The US is far behind the rest of the world in this regard.
So, operating on the theory that Democrats would actually like to win this election, I don't understand why John Edwards isn't faring better in the polls. He meets the most basic qualification, i.e., he's a white male. He is smart, charismatic, and his positions on health care, Iraq, and the economy seem to me to be more sensible than those of the leading candidates.
Do the Democrats secretly want to lose the election? And do the Republicans hope with all their hearts that Hillary will be the nominee, so that they drag out all the same old Clinton stories again---Vince Foster, travel office, Monica, Whitewater, blah blah blah?
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
