Why Wait Until The Election To Start Leading?

Four years ago, a slight 51% of the electorate decided for the rest of us that we didn't need leadership so much as protection -- from heartland-targeting terrorists, trial lawyers, gay newlyweds and other imaginary bogeymen. Now that the 8-year leadership gap has exposed so many signs of an empire in decline, America is desperate for it and the message grows louder and clearer with each passing day. After Bush's recent comments on Iraq, sacrifice (his golf game?) and last Thursday's hypocritical tirade about appeasing the enemy, the volume of that message has now reached 11. And for candidates there is no better time to lead than in the most historic election year in recent memory, when they have the attention of a nation with a failed, lame duck president.

Barack Obama has demonstrated that leadership time and again. When the Rev. Wright controversy broke in early March, Obama could easily have run for cover, hid behind his spokesmen and shrugged off the affair with a quick sound bite, a smile and a photo op. Instead, he stepped forward and led the country courageously into a long-overdue dialogue about race relations. He didn't claim to be the best leader. He just led, and America followed.

When his closed-door comments about "bitter" voters leaked to the media and caused a national firestorm, Obama addressed the issue head-on. Of course in order to lower the flames he had to find a way to rephrase his message, claiming that he'd chosen the wrong words. But ironically, the West Virginia primary proved his original statement was right all along. Media reports and exit polls from the state showed that West Virginians, leery of a positive economic message coming from a 46-year old black man named Barack Hussein Obama, clung to religion (insisting he was a Muslim despite the truth), patriotism (Rev Wright, flag pins) and race (fear of a black president) when choosing a Democratic candidate. And many of them are prepared to choose McCain in November for the same reasons, whether it serves their interests or not.

Are we as a nation prepared to allow this demographic, which gave us eight years of George W. Bush, to pick our president for us again? Hilary Clinton thinks so, and she's willing to bet her own money on it, along with the future of the Democratic Party. She, like Bush, runs for the comfort of those who line up squarely behind her and quickly writes off all those who don't as being elitist latte sippers from "boutique states" (as if there is such a thing). Is that leadership? Half of her supporters vow never to support her opponent if she loses the nomination. Is that a sign of a nation well-led?

The "white blue collar voter" is the most highly coveted one in American politics. Year after year, candidates spend billions reaching out to them, jockeying for their vote by any means necessary -- pandering, posing, frightening or outright lying to them. For their part, those voters' willingness to believe lies over the truth has gotten us into the mess that we're in now, and we're still pandering to them? [For the record, I was raised blue collar and have worn plenty of hard hats in my time, so don't call me elitist.] If they won't listen to reason and can't be courted, then they need to be outnumbered, and this is another area where Obama has taken the lead. His campaign is orchestrating the largest voter registration drive in history, one that rivals the Apollo project, with volunteers working in every state in the union, leaving no stone unturned in the quest to get record numbers of Americans of all types involved in the political process through inspiration rather than fear.

Fear continues to be the Right's only viable weapon in this contest, and they intend to bombard the public with it this fall. They'll play the national security card, as Bush already has this week. But Obama has the upper hand here as well. He knows he has a better understanding of Middle Eastern geopolitics than the president, and has a golden opportunity to get this country talking honestly about it. Look for a groundbreaking speech on foreign policy in the near future.

John McCain has recently attempted to break with traditional Republicans on combating climate change, but his party is so far behind the eight ball, and his own proposals so short of his rivals that he appears to be following more than leading. It isn't likely that he'll get an endorsement from Al Gore any time soon. And what kind of message are his supporters broadcasting to the public? The same one they've blasted countless times already: Be afraid. Be very afraid.

If McCain pulls off a victory in November, it won't be the fault of Barack Obama, or Hillary Clinton, or 527 groups or Karl Rove. It will be because the majority of this country has lost its nerve. Because it will have rejected a chance to fearlessly reclaim its destiny and greatness by throwing out government that no longer serves the people or the planet, and chosen instead to remain cynical, prejudiced and scared. But that's not going to happen, because right now America's leaders, whether they occupy an office or not, are spending this election year leading the people, reasoning with them, casting aside years of political loyalty to support Barack Obama, not because he's the nicest guy, the best speaker or the best fighter, but because he is simply the best leader.

Comments

[blaqntelligence]

Darin Murphy said: "If they won't listen to reason and can't be courted, then they need to be outnumbered, and this is another area where Obama has taken the lead. "

You hit the nail square on the head. For some, there is nothing Senator Obama can do to win their vote, including dancing in blackface.

When you can't go through the wall, you can go over, under, or around the wall.

[Sursum]

Darin, you have once again hit the nail on the head. It's about leadership, stupid. That should be the new slogan.
What would it take for the USA to embrace conservation and alternative energy (as we should have been doing for the past 30 years)? It would take leadership.
What would it take for us to re-tool our health care system from a "disease care system" to one in which we reward our citizens for getting and staying healthy? It would take leadership.
What would it take for us to lead the world in diplomacy, in stewardship of the earth, in fair as well as free trade? Yep, leadership.
There's a reason I and thousands like me are working so hard for Obama. It's because we have a leader who inspires us, and who trusts us to take right-headed action, by giving us the tools and the platform for organizing. Obama doesn't claim to have all the answers perfectly worked out. Instead he tells us that we as a people can figure out a way through our challenges if we work together with a focus.
And you're right -- our first challenge to find every single voter in the country and make sure they're registered. Then give them solid information instead of hysterical screaming from TV news so they can make a clear-headed choice. I'll bet there are more white blue-collar workers who will vote for Obama if they just get accurate info about him.

[altohone]

In the last few days, I have read many posts and countless comments insisting Hillary lost because of sexism.
I question whether this flood of opinion is a coincidence

I can easily see how this may be manipulated to prevent a Democratic victory this year... TO GET WOMEN TO VOTE AGAINST THEIR INTERESTS.

Obama may well have to lead on the issue too, if Hillary FEEDS this rather than addressing it.
In my opinion, it would be far better for Hillary to nip this in the bud.

Instead, she is insisting that party rules be ignored and that the results from UNCONTESTED elections in Florida and Michigan are counted even though those results would have been different had candidates campaigned there... and names were actually on the ballot. To this day, the corporate media has refused to point out the role of Limbaugh voters (literally hundreds of thousands of votes in Hillary's category).­.. letting the other party help choose our nominee.

I'm not seeing reality being acknowledged or party unity being stressed, and it seems intended to maintain the power of the status quo.
Rather than acknowledge that voters rejected Hillary due to her DLC policies and voting with Bush, fake excuses are proffered to prevent a focus on policy.

I hope the superdelegates are aware of this and act quickly.

[davedave]

if it all plays out as it should (as it must.....) mccain should have as much chance of victory as the washington generals do against the globetrotters.

the republican party had many opportunities to criticize itself and govern. it squandered that scenario with the idea that governing in lockstep is more important than governing well. centrists of both parties and the left have that skittering, slidey feeling that things are horribly wrong. that feeling will translate into votes against mccain if he isn't running against the people he needs to elect him.

its a nightmare picture for the republican base-- they realize they can't fix it....time for grownups to take over.....

btw: my senators are kyl and mccain, chuckleheads of the first water.

d