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

[Lemeritus]

I envy you, Chris. I see the big train boarding and all the happy people getting on, but I just can't join the Obama Express. He almost had me at hello (for all the reasons you've expressed), but I'm lost to doubt -- is he really the change we want, or just bright and shiny? Won't the mess left behind by Bush require experience and craft to clean up? Will we end up electing a one-term wunderkind only to have the Republicans return after 4 years, surly and smug?

I want to KNOW. With Obama, the more I know, the less I know.

To all of you on the train, God Speed! I wish I could be there with you, but for now I'm just going to have to run along tracks for a bit.

[whimsicalpig]

I am furious over the fact that we are now forced to pick the least worst of the 3 worst candidate the democrats had to put up.

Hillary was wrong all along and edwards would never have picked up any support to the right of center, BUT

Obama is a crap shoot. I don't believe anyone has seriously looked at what makes the man.

we have only been given the facade of a matinee idol.

Sure everyone is exhausted after the last 7 years, but we could be running head long over a cliff.

the press wanted the drama of a woman vs a black man contest.

what ratings that would provide.

they pushed 2 names every night every day,

hardly a mention of edwards and only the least amount of a nod to the "second tier" candidates as they were so dubbed by the talking bobble heads

the domocrats should be riding high after the bush trainwreck but instead we enter this campaign season with more than a sense of possible doom.

[julianne]

Maybe you're talking about HuffPo boomers and not the rest of us. How many battles did you go through in Vie Nam? How many years in a labor camp did you spend for smoking pot? How much blood have you tried to wash out of your clothes? How many violent political protests have you ever been involved in? The campuses today are corporate dead zones as is the political and economic culture. People are living under inhuman psychological and material stress in a corporate state with the largest penal colony in the world. It's not the boomers, it's the financial and industrial oligarchs brought up in the U.S. and given everything, but who can never take enough. They're worse than the English. You know, the one's who killed John Kennedy and Martin Luther King and fielded the present freak for us to vote for. The international gangsters and hubris ridden warmongers who, ultimately, carry around guys like George Bush and Bill Clinton in their pockets, who own the nation's bank, energy, media, and the huge, tax-exempt political foundations from which all wars flow. And lets not forget our monomaniacal friends in Israel and all their racial destiny and crazy artifacts. And of course, a big hand to a significant majority of the last two generations of cruel, pinched, bootlicking white boys and girls from Dixieland who give so us many of our swaggering political monarchists, theocrats, and global-corporate- fascist killers.

[Mrozek]

Earthquake !!!

The political establishment is old in the US!
Most of Europe leaders are 35-55.... McCain is dreaming... just like Hillary...
McCain is 72Y old, Senator Byrd is 90Y old, Sen Kennedy 75Y... Hillary is 60Y old.... who are these people...? Is this politics or retirement home?? These people are totally out of touch...
Need a new generation of 40~50Y olds in politics... need Obama!!!

[Qbear]

NH Democratic voters have to choose between boarding the Love Bot or the Titanic...close call


Buh hahahahaha

[Roxanna]

I feel Hilary Clinton has many good qualities and personally would love to see a woman president. Unfortunately Hilary has too much baggage attached to her, that of Bill Clinton. He may done good things for this country but also did a lot of selling out.There marriage clearly looks to be one of power and wealth, rather than ethics and integrity. Hilary, I believe would have done sooooo much better had she distant herself from Bill...

She has played too the center looking for votes not taking stronger stands on this "waist less war" alienation and credibility with the rest of the world. Then of course there are her close association with Hedge funds.. All of this spells out ineffective to the American Public....

Iowans clearly showed the issue on the war is extremely important and they do not want the same old same old. Experience, what does that mean?What has that taught us? We have had plenty of experience in Vice President Dick Cheney. Do we need anymore????

Many in the country are tired of rhetoric and a ineffective congress. They want "Fresh New Change"... and that is how Obama is looking.
He brings a worldly element of both black and white together which this country needs.

[escobar]

I find the generational conflict theme grossly inapropriate.
This is a uniquely American idea from the marketing of pop music, stylish clothing, and cars. It started when everyone got a tv and radio in the house in the 50's.
The senseless wars we have suffered with since WW2 widened the divide because the WW2 generation had a lot of justified, "Blind faith". Many couldn't believe reality and still can't, even when they go to Wal Mart and buy sneakers made in Vietnam or China today.
Useless invlovement in Korea, Vietnam, the central American wars, and this mid-east situation isn't a product of a generation. It trancends generations.
Iraq and Afghanistan are brought to you from much the same sources as the Vietnam war. It is all for nothing but money in the end.
Kucinich and Kerry are very different from Bush.
The idea of a new image rather than the battle weary political survivors, Dodd and Biden is important. They would do more good to remain in Congress.
Same generations always have different politics.
Even Romney has 19 year olds as interns.
I wish WW2 generation George McGovern were 27!
Obama is stands for a new start and seems to know what life is like for the average person.
The idea of dividing Americans on generational gaps is a method to sell stuff.
Those who advocate neo-con ideals are linked more by politics and economic status.
America is divided enough..too bad the author couldn't find a more articulate way to draw readers.
This generation thing is a tansparent and tired gimick.

[Janco54]

Spot on Chris! As usual.
History in the making. Something to finally feel good about. Is he perfect? No. But, "glass houses" and all that.

[cuthbertallgood]

I am far from sold on Obama yet. I've got qualms galore. Qualms are a civic duty I think. Devotion I'm not sure fills the same shoes. In fact, the devotion thing in the Obama campaign I find disturbing. Even if I wind up in his corner, I'll not be looking all fawnishly at the man, I am my own hero, and a politician is always to be inspected, even suspected, never given the status of anything more than a servant who holds all your keys. Obama's asking for a job, not volunteering to be a saviour.
But I will say the chain of sameness and alternating names is out of the question. I am not yet with Obama, but I have never been with Clinton and could not have been, Lord help me, even if she had the Kucinich platform of my dreams. Even the hint of familial sucession should make Americans run the other way. I tried to tell Republican pals not to vote for Bush way back in those primaries, for that reason alone. They should have listened.
I don't see the two families as in continuations of each other at all. The Clintons have been important in building the very Party that Obama is now using to his advantage. They are not the Bushes. They are great Democrats. Hillary a big let down in the Senate, but sorry, that goes for Obama as well, if you are honest. He's been no outstanding opposition in that chamber, no orator for change there.
But alternating familes is not just acceptable. It is the sort of thing that would have made the Founders spit in the street. It matters not who the families or candidates are.
In my book the alternation of families smacks of royalism, and even a smack is too much.
So I've always been opposed not to Hillary, but to her election to the White House. I'd be opposed to her election even if she was the perfect candidate. This office should not be passed like a baton. Ever again.

[csavage]

Obama is a walking cliche-his philosophy of governance may end up being as directed by his advisors as Dubya's is. Both are dangerous people.

[flatus]

The good news is that if this country can withstand Shrub 'n Snarl for eight grueling, tiresome, scary, expensive, crime-laden years then I guess Obama will be ok.

[flatus]

Is it not just a little disturbing that we seem to flock like high-school-popularity-seeking-lemmings to latch on the the latest hottie?

[Ariadne]

Coronate is not a word. At a coronation, someone is crowned.

[langstonhughesfan]

What's so crazy is that Hillary didn't mind it when she was the one being "coronated." I kept hoping that the pundits would stop assuming the race was over before it even began. And now...now that Obama has the momentum, she's whining that the race isn't over and wanting everyone to wait for her. The sad part is that I don't even mind Hillary. I feel sorry for her a lot of the time, when her picture looks crazy on this site or yesterday, when she just lost it. But it's just too bad that people have had enough of her and need to believe in something again. This experience thing is very overrated. Obama has a law degree from Harvard. He clearly won't be "clueless" if he wins. He is SMART, which is essentially what is necessary. To assume that the only experience of any value is that which comes from Washington is foolish and arrogant. I totally agree with Chris Durang (though Obama had me pretty much at hello). I just have to ask Hillary supporters: Do you really, honestly want 4 or 8 more years of NOTHING happening? Because she's just so hated by the right that she'll get nothing done. Do you really want the paparazzi following Bill around, waiting for him to be caught in some motel room? Cause that's what's going to happen. They will follow him everywhere, and he WILL slip up. THAT will dominate our headlines. Who needs it? Like I said, I don't hate Hillary and I think she's a great mom to Chelsea, yada, yada, but it's just time for her to move aside.

[SouthpawSass]

Mr. Durang, I hate to be the one to break this to you, but Obama is a baby boomer.

The Baby Boom ended in 1964, started in 1946. Obama was born in 1961... He's the tail end, but he's still part of the baby boom that you're so tired of.

Just thought you should know.