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

[nastywolf]

Lofty, inspiring rhetoric! That's what we need. Who cares if, in five years from now, after all the wonderful speeches and the hordes of optimistic youthful activists rallies, when we look back and see that nothing of substance happened, that nothing changed, that the GOP minority held fast and strangled Congress once again...th­at we find a reconstituted neoCon movment controlling the levers of government.

The NeoCons took five big steps forward in pursuit of their agendas. They will be forced to take one or two steps backwards in 2008. But in 2012, from that solid beachead the neoCons will leap another five steps forward...­.and then it will be too late for America.

America's not in a Fight For Change. Its in a fight for survival. One more optimist with a good speaking voice will be just another JFK-like footnote in the NeoCon's rewriting of American history.

[grapesofmath]

I find this whole alleged issue of experience extremely tedious.
Look at what multiple decades of years of combined experience has gotten us with this current administration!
I would point to Abraham Lincoln, by any account one of our best presidents, who did not have years and years of experience.
Obama has over 8 years of so-called legislative experience, 11 years of experience as a CONSTITUTIONAL LAW lecturer. He is a seasoned political and social activist who started from the grass-roots.
I will end this by repeating myself and saying that experience delivered us Nixon, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Tenant, and the list goes on....all of these poeple have some good aspects to thier careers, but it would be hard to argue we as a nation improved under thier experienced control.

[Camel54]

Durang is dead on regarding the timing not appearing to be right for Clinton. If you look at the turn-out for the primaries and you listen to what the people are saying it is not just a change of party everyone's looking for. It's a change of the TYPE of person elected to the presidency. We are fleeing away from the people who are really great at doing what's always been done and we are looking for someone who will do it differently. You guys need to see that the experience issue is actually helping Obama because the public wants a new experience. They want to see the White House differently. They want to feel differently about what our government says, how they say it and what they do. Clinton, for all her positives and all her talent and her intelligence is the same, tired old narrative. We're looking for the shift from poesy to free verse. From R.W.Emerso­n to J.Joyce.

[LightBrigade]

I'm one of the lucky ones that has a signed book from Obama. Heard his speech, when he was practicing it last year and I got to shake his hand. My impression in the words of Hank Hill "...he had a weak handshake.­"

Unfortunately, his handshake has been a precursor to his campaign, what with Oprah and John Edwards wiping his bum.

I'mm wondering when it will be a good time to put the book on ebay.

[GMFORD]

Good on ya!

Any one of our candidates has more integrity, more honest and better politics than the entire republican slate put together. Whoever will win in November with a tidal wave of support IS the best candidate.

Plus, since Biden dropped out I've decided to throw my lot in with my grandson who will be voting for the first time. If his candidate (Obama) wins in November, he will believe that the political process CAN work for him. I don't want to see him cynical at 21 years old.

[nigelst]

James Whitmore gave a great speech in support of Senator Obama the day after Iowa.

Here's a transcript:

http://www.nigelstewart.org/archives/2008/01/james_whitmore_1.html

And here's a YouTube vid of an emotional excerpt from that speech:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LuOHAvJAeqM

I was also skeptical over the summer and fall but in the last several weeks leading up to Iowa I've been turned into a strong supporter.

[daveny]

As a New Yorker, let me just state unequivically that while Hillary isn't by any stretch a BAD senator, she certainly isn't a great one. She works much harder to campaign, than to actually server her constituents here. Everyone in NY knows if you need something done, you go to Schumer's office. Unless you're a potential large national contributor. In which case, sure, call Hill.

[ESerafina42]

Yeah, that last THIRTY years of the "greatest generation" went so well, didn't it? Vietnam, Watergate, the Reagan years, the first Bush recession. The problem isn't with the generation - it's with the individuals.

[davenav]

Obama simply does not have the experience. We need a president that can hit the ground running, not someone who's going to have to spend a lot of time learning the ropes.

Also, I think too much is being made of Clinton's voting record. Demanding that she apologize is the stupidest thing we can do. The republicans would use that against her very successfully.

Also, the next president is going to have to oversee the prosecution of the previous one, in all likelihood. So the idea of a fresh start is pure lalaland.

We need a tough-as-nails Democrat president -- and that means Clinton.

[tommygolstch]

Obama can't win the presidency in this country at this time. If the democrats decide to commit suicide, which isn't unusual, then prepare for President Huckabee - the ultimate nightmare.

[Pippen]

Why can't we agree on a Clinton/ Obama ticket then we can all get what we want and beat the republicans! Obama does NOT have enough experience or a laudable voting record and is clueless about foreign affairs during a time of war. Clinton is brilliant and less huggable then the voting public seem to want their female candidates to be (gender bias). So give Clinton 4 years and then let the young Obama have his shot at legend.

It's the best outcome in the face of the swiftboat nazi's who are grinning with blood in their teeth to attack the dem front runner as time ages.

We can't take another 4 years of republican souless reign.

[gappytoofcondi]

Obama is a wonderful speaker. Love his energy and the promise of change. However, what is his position on ANYTHING? He does not have much of a record as a junior senator. He missed a lot of important votes during the last year. Too busy campaigning.
Also, hear rumblings of his affiliation with a Chicago real estate dealer. Anyone to help me on what this was about?
Still have issues on his electability in the South, then the general election.
Edwards has been very clear on his positions regarding the middle class and the large corps/lobbyists on K street. Would love to see a head to head debate to see where Obama sits on these issues.

[RnR]

And I've got news for you ... all the talk about bringing everyone together is soft sell for "republican lite".

We don't need a kinder gentler George Bush - we need a meaner rougher JFK. But then again, look where it got him ...

[jeanniem]

Chris, had I your gifts as a writer, I would have written this post. I find myself web surfing, seeking out just what you have stated, to validate my experience is what I suspect, a uniquely rare and broadly based sense that what Obama offers is genuine, real, and worthy ... and very possibly the means to address the deep despair at what our country has become.

This phenonemon is tapping into our experience at more levels that I can begin to tap in this forum. My hope is that with the leadership of Obama, we can actually succeed in reframing the terms of the debate, a discussion that does not require a right wing think tank decoder ring.

Thank you, Chris, and thank you, Barack Obama.

[lwaxanatroi]

Oh, the irony. Remember Carville in "The War Room" tagging George Bush senior with the line, "he's yesterday"? Poor Hillary went from inevitable to "yesterday" in Iowa. I loved that cartoon that showed her as a grim-faced little girl clutching a doll while everyone fawned over the new baby--Obama, of course. On the other hand, Uncle Teddy won't live forever, and the Dems will always need a lion in the senate. You don't hold Daniel Patrick Moynihan's seat for nothing, girl. After you lose your bid, get back to work and make us proud. We need you wherever you are, and the presidency, despite the opposition's plans to turn it into a dictatorship, isn't the only game in town. And look on the bright side: once you stop running for president, you can turn down all that dirty money and say and do what you really believe in.