Hoping For, and With, Obama [Updated]

Update: Well, Hillary won New Hampshire, not by an enormous amount, but she won it. Some of what I wrote below was based on what "seemed" to be happening with Obama, and the fact he had been ahead in the polls in New Hampshire.

But the polls were wrong, and clearly the American voters want to keep looking at the candidates; and in the morning light (and after looking at some of the angrier comments to my post), I think that's a good thing. I plead guilty to having offered Obama a coronation too early. (And I've learned "coronate" isn't a verb. Can't we make it one, lol?) I still am very interested in his candidacy, but I, like the rest of you, am going to watch and see what happens in the future weeks. So congratulations to Hillary Clinton. Oh, and I also like John Edwards by the way.

Oh, fellow baby boomers, please don't be offended. I'm a baby boomer also, I hardly meant to suggest baby boomers should drop out of life or work or politics. I just found the image of 16 years of baby boomer Bill Clinton (who I like) and George W. Bush (who... well, you know) made me long a bit for someone younger than the 60 year old boomers. I didn't know that there was a definition of baby boomers that goes up to people born through 1964. Though that's a definition made by the U.S. census bureau. And it doesn't "feel" right to me. Looking at the boomers now in their late 50s and early 60s, all of us formed by the 1950s and anti-communism and the Vietnam war, do they "seem" the same generation as Obama? Not to me.

* * *

Barack Obama did not have me at hello. Though I was certainly interested in his candidacy. And was watching him, paying attention.

The day of the Iowa caucuses I had heard that the polls showed Clinton-Obama-Edwards in a dead heat, but then I'd started to hear that maybe Obama was pulling ahead a bit, or maybe Edwards was, or maybe both.

I didn't watch the coverage until 11 or so, but when I turned on the TV, I was startled and then happy when I heard Obama was predicted to be the winner, and by a fairly large margin. And apparently independents were going for Obama in a big way. I felt myself enormously relieved to hear that he was winning, and that he had been drawing independents.

And then when in a couple hours, he indeed was the winner, with Edwards second, and Hillary third, I felt more relieved.

And then I heard Obama's speech that night after his win, and he got me. He didn't have me at hello, but he had me with that speech.

And with the feeling he was new enough and broad enough in his appeal that he could expand his popularity to independents who were sick of Republicans but not in love with traditional Democrats.

And it was such a RELIEF to see Obama and his wife and their two young children up there -- it was hard for me not to flash on John F. Kennedy and his wife and their two young children in 1961 (when I was 12). It seemed a relief to be looking again at a candidate who was in his 40s, and had that energy.

I'm a baby boomer, and I think Bill Clinton did a lot that was good with his presidency, and I think George W. Bush is a disgraceful, dangerous president who should be impeached (with Cheney; and there's still time). But in any case, I'm tired of the baby boomers. We've had 16 years of two of them, and enough already. I'd like the next generation down, which is what Obama is.

I hope that Obama wins New Hampshire tonight, as the polls suggest he will.

I do agree with some of the pundits who point out the media is rushing to coronate Obama a bit too much, too fast.

And yet I also agree with those on TV who are reacting to some "new feeling" in the country around this particular candidacy. And reacting to the size and enthusiasm of the crowds who come out to see him.

For me I felt a kind of flash point with Obama in Iowa -- I had been split between Clinton-Obama-Edwards, considering all three of them; and I also secretly wished people would give Biden, Dodd and Kucinich a real look, and thought it unjust they wouldn't.

(And how I love Dodd for single-handedly threatening a filibuster to stop that bill giving phone companies retroactive indemnity for spying on us all illegally. And he succeeded in stopping it for the time being. And I hope he'll do it again if he needs to, and others will join him.)

But the flash point was -- it's wrong to do the Bush, Clinton, Bush II, Clinton II thing, no matter how gifted and intelligent Ms. Clinton is. (There's lots that's admirable and brilliant about her. But she is -- or seems, but probably is -- incredibly calculating in her positions, and the American public is correct to see that in her, and to distrust it. I also worry about her war positions.)

It felt like a flash point because I didn't know I felt this way until Obama won in Iowa and I saw him there with his younger family, and I felt this relief and hope.

And the relief and hope also came from the fact that, so far, he is drawing in independents. I really want our Democratic candidate to draw in people outside traditional Democratic voters.

When the Bush-Kerry 2004 race finished, the vote was approximately 51/49. (Though I still believe Ohio was stolen, but that's about the electoral college and not about the split in our populace.)

And it seemed that 51/49 was how this conservative/liberal split stays in our country, with lots of real and serious disagreements. A very close split with the conservatives seemingly in the lead by those few points.

And with Bush being so unpopular, one has to realize his bad poll numbers are not just from liberals, but from evangelicals who feel let down, by fiscal conservatives furious with his spending (I agree, especially about the price of the pigheaded, wrong war), by people angered by the thorny problem of immigration, etc. etc. Some of the people fed up with Bush still don't like traditional Democrats.

So when I thought of Hillary Clinton being the nominee, I believed Hillary could possibly win in the general election, but I had a feeling it would be by a few, harrowing points. Another 51/49 split. Another hair-trigger election.

And for the sake of our country, I would so love to have the win be much larger. And for more people to feel good about the Democratic candidate than just all the usual Democrats. And with Obama (though it's admittedly early) that seems possible.

I was very moved by that speech he gave. The clips on the news don't do it justice -- it helped to hear the whole thing, because it built. And it was inclusive and was choosing to move past the red state/blue state divide. As he said, he wants to be president of the United States. Not the polarized states of America.

I'm very excited by the possibility Obama could become president. I so hope it comes to pass, and that it ends up being as good for the country as it seems right now it may be.

* * *

A bit of a coda about Hillary Clinton. She was complicated, funny and moving at the Saturday debate when she was asked about the fact that voters, in polls, just don't find her likable. And she said "Well that hurts my feelings" -- and it was wonderfully complex, because it was true, though she was also being a bit humorous in saying it, and also it was an impossible question to answer. The moment had pathos in it, but it also had a spark to it. It was very likable and human. And the camera caught Chelsea smiling in the audience at her mother's response.

And I heard the news about her getting teary in some of her responses yesterday, and that also humanized her. I mean, the candidates are all so exhausted, who wouldn't get teary? I have though also heard some of the attacks she tried on Obama yesterday, via Keith Olbermann's Countdown and via Arianna Huffington's post. And Hillary dangling the hypothetical attack by Al Qaeda at the beginning of a new president's term - and what? how she'd be prepared, and he wouldn't? -- that seems a very right-wing way to try to win a point. So I must say I haven't admired that.

But watching her in that Saturday debate, I felt the oddness of fate and timing. I remember when she suddenly moved to New York in order to qualify to run for Senator from New York, all of us in the country knew it was in preparation for running for the president. Though why not? She was going out to seek appropriate experience. And by all reports, she's been a very good Senator. And she's also worked with many people across the aisle too, which is impressive.

And if there weren't a sudden Barack Obama who showed up (or if he had chosen to sit this one out, as much "conventional wisdom" suggested he should do), her chances for winning the nomination and maybe the presidency were pretty high.

But with this other possibility -- Obama -- she seems an imperfect choice, not in synch with the zeitgeist. (And we all know how very hard it is to get in synch with the zeitgeist, I struggle with it every morning.) But that image on Iowa caucus night of Hillary surrounded by Bill Clinton and Madeline Albright indeed jumped out, as many in the media pointed out; it seemed like coming attractions to the past.

I guess I feel bad for Ms. Clinton for the bad timing (unless, of course, she surprises us in the coming weeks, and/or Obama makes any super bad mistakes). She's smart and worthwhile, but I don't think the time is right for her.

Comments

[Skepticat]

Watch it dude - you're talking about MY GENERATION (people try to put us down ...)

The problem is not that your presidents were baby boomers, - but that they were POLITICIANS.

[WillBFair]

Hillary is the more qualified. I just wish young people would value her competence over Obama's rhetoric. But many people can't tell the difference between argument and vague abstraction. Hopefully, it's not too late for them to figure it out.

[Garee]

Here the Democrats go again! My money is on another unelectable(Obama)receiving the nomination and we will be in for 4 or 8 more years of Republican gloom and doom(think 9/11).
These Dems have been shooting themselves in the foot for so long you begin to think they've all been hired by the Republicans.
Obama needs to quit talking about the young vs. the "old" and start including us all in the solution to problems that have been around since the 60's. Health care, the environment, equal rights for all, a good education, a decent job, a secure old age, safe and secure borders, a sound infrastructure have been issues since the days Obama scorns-the 60's. I've heard them all since Johnson, promising a "new" day, a "new" way, a "new" whatever. Nothing is new kids, nothing changes when less than half the electorate get out and Obama can promise anything he wants. In 4 years time we will still be discussing the issues of today. Sorry to be such a cynic but I've heard it all and the young of today are listening to nothing more than the new version of the same song.

[maidyalook]

I hear people say that they are inspired by Obama. Inspired to do what? What are you willing to give up? What are you willing to sacrifice? What does it mean to be inspired right now, in these troubling times, in this bad economy, in this terror ridden world? Are you willing to place all your happy feel-good feelings in one basket and hope that he has experience, or enough experience to get us through truly horrendous times, because I"m not ready to give up someone with years of experience, for someone who makes me get all tingly and giggly.

[StephenDedalus82]

I've had it.

Who is Obama? Why does no one care? Why does no one care that no one cares?

His positions are pretty much identical to Hillary Clinton's. So, let's vote for the guy with less experience! Including virtually zero foreign policy credentials. I know, we'll just hope world peace into existence.

I didn't even like his miraculous DNC speech. I cringed when he said "we have gay friends in red states." Gay friends? Hello, we ARE gay in red states. I found it insulting, but not nearly as insulting as his campaigning with known gay bashers. He doesn't inspire me. I guess the more vague you make your speeches the more young people get entranced. Yeah, I wrote like that when I was in junior high. This is the American presidency that's at stake not student council. Seems like a lot of 18 year olds don't understand the distinction.

Finally, Obama gets a free ride from the press for god knows what reason. Certainly not because they're on the side of change. While Hillary's every breath is recorded and scrutinized by the talking heads, Obama is treated as the messiah and nobody rolls his eyes on camera except Bill Clinton--who's then bashed by the same media for calling Obama out on his phoniness.

Let's hope the electorate gets back to reality before the delegates are all spoken for.

[starboymikey]

One big problem is that in most states, only registered Democrats or Republicans can vote in their own party's primaries. Iowa and NH are among the exceptions, where voters can cross party lines to vote, and where independents can also make their voices heard.

For this reason, primaries such as these are considerably more representative of the shape a general election might take, were it now November.

What makes the primaries so flawed, and a big reason we always seem to get the worst choices possible, is that the eventual candidates are almost always selected by their party's most orthodox component ... those who typically vote the straight Democratic or Republican ticket.

But as we know, it is typically moderates and independents who swing a presidential election to its eventual winner. But in most states these very voters, unless they declare a specific party affiliation, are kept from voting in primaries.

It is therefore not illogical to assume that if all states had a rule that any voter could cast a single primary ballot for a candidate from either party, the eventual nominees would be at least somewhat more representative of candidates people would actually prefer to vote for.

I may be proven wrong, but my guess is that the many independent voters casting ballots in Iowa and NH are skewing the results away from the two people who will eventually be their respective party's choices: Clinton and Romney. Unfortunate, since they are both machine candidates all the way.

[RockerfellerFile]

I'm guessing Mr. Durang has had a few "flash points" in the past few years. He doesn't fill in the details on just how many speeches he has listened to from Senator Obama. Frankly, I expected Mr. Durang to get teary-eyed at his own comment: "And for the sake of our country, I would so love to have the win be much larger. And for more people to feel good about the Democratic candidate than just all the usual Democrats. And with Obama (though it's admittedly early) that seems possible."

Be still Mr. Durang....

I have seen most every speech given by Sen. Obama and have tried mightily to get past his initial arrogance of the audience (Other than himself, who is he clapping to when he walks into the room?) and his what-kind-of-question-is-that? attitude to most questions from audience members.

I have heard Obama remark "Churchill has said this is the fierce urgency of men" and "time for change is now" and "you have the chance to change America" and agreeing to the claim that this is the "cult of Obama" so many times, I find myself choking on the gilding of his oratory.

Obama may be the 2nd coming of JFK, and for that, we might be thankful. But, when Obama's inflated ego begins to lose some air, I look forward to his responding to real questions of our time with more than just an "I'm glad you asked that. I want to let everyone know that the time is now to address this and every issue we face with a new and fresh approach to leading America in the 21st Century!"

Mr. Durang, I don't agree with you when you say, "I'm very excited by the possibility Obama could become president. I so hope it comes to pass, and that it ends up being as good for the country as it seems right now it may be." But, I'll try working on it.

[JacktheBlogger]

JFK vs. WJC vs. BHO - these three are often being compared in this 2008 election season, so a short bio might be in order:

John F. Kennedy served in the U.S. Navy from 1941 to 1945, including a tour of duty in WWII, during which he received the following decorations: Navy and Marine Corps Medal, the Purple Heart, Asiatic-Pacific Campaign Medal and the World War II Victory Medal. JFK represented Massachusetts in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1947 to 1953 and in the U.S. Senate from 1953 until 1961. So yes, JFK became president at 43, but he had 18 years of solid experience before being elected commander-in-chief!

William J. Clinton had a BSFS from Georgetown University, was a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford, and obtained a JD from Yale - all before he turned 27. Bill Clinton was Attorney General of Arkansas (1976-78) and Governor of Arkansas (1978-80, 1982-1992). So yes, Bill Clinton became president at 46, but he had 14 years of solid experience before being elected commander-in-chief!

Barack H. Obama is a graduate of Columbia and Harvard Law School. He served as an Illinois State Senator from 1996-2004 and is now serving as a U.S. Senator since 2004. He has about ten years of non-executive experience and could become our next CIC at 46!

Change is a good thing, but do we need to change our expectations as well?

[brianbull1]

An Obama nomination will go a long way to finally release the DLC'S death grip on the party infrastructure. They know it ,and they're bringing in the big guns Carville,Begala,&Podesta to save their asses.
That fat-cat boys club is as lethal to this country as the Bushies.

[boomer1949]

So let's see...Chris is 58 and Arianna is 57...does that mean anyone over the age of 46 has one foot in the grave?

I was in 7th grade when JFK was assasinated, and I'll remember that day until the day I die. I've also witnessed the abomination of the last 7 years. How GWB assasinated our Constitution, and I'll also remember this until the day I die.

Barack IS a boomer, but playing to the next generation -- our children and grandchildren.

[werbenjagermanjensen]

I intitially bought the "Obama is too young and inexperienced" meme but one thing he's proven is that he does have the maturity to be President, which among other things is grotesquely lacking in George W. Bush. Hillary may be able to project authority and competence but I don't trust her ability to think, say and do the right thing, be it deciding whether or not to authorize the use of military force or possessing enough of an inner censor to hold back that rude joke you just thought of about a convenience store clerk named Gandhi.

And come to think of it, Obama isn't such a newbie. Before he was a presidential candidate he was a bestselling author, the subject of his book being his own life story. I have a feeling that all those readers who created such phenomenal word of mouth for "Dreams from My Father" are playing a key role in moving his candidacy forward.

[frustratedinohio]

The republicans love Obama too.

I wonder why???

[realitytrumpsbull]

Whoever gets the job has their work cut out for em, I hope he/they/whoever are ready to come hot and heavy with the fiscal policy stuff, 'cause they've got some serious housework ahead of em.
Let's check the ol' national debt today:
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np
Far OUT! It actually DROPPED, briefly. Briefly.
But, it's going back up. Up, up, and awayyyy...
7 january:9,199,557,987,743.58

[MikeDu]

I understand the same political Svengali who's handling Senator Obama's campaign was also the force behind another charismatic black democrat neophite taking over Romney's seat in the Massachusetts governor's office. But Deval Patrick's first year as governor should be studied as an object lesson for a possible future Obama presidency. Patrick stumbled at the starting gate with some foolish gaff about buying a fancy new governor's limo and he has yet to regain his political footing. Patrick's only notable campaign to date has been a wrong-headed push to get big-money casino gambling into the state! Hardly the inspiration leader we thought we were electing.

My point is the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I honestly don't know if Obama would be another 'Kennedy' or another 'Carter' in office. He'd certainly be inheriting a gawd-awful mess the from the idiot Republicans. If you vote for him just be sure you're convinced he's up for the job.

[laurenc]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/8/142912/9902/305/432931--all I can say, Mr Durang, to you and the many many men who blog at Huffington Post, is to read this post, written by a young woman, with an open mind. My God, do you really want Leiberman's mentee? do you really want conciliation not action?
because that's what you're recommending.