Just a few months ago, Hillary Clinton was seen as the inevitable Democratic nominee. She has run a strong campaign, and been an impressive candidate; but much has changed in a short time.
Instead of finding a clear path to the White House, Clinton has run into the rather extraordinary movement set in motion by Barack Obama. This has confounded not only the Clintons, but many pundits and politicos as well.
In reflecting on all of this, I am reminded of a haunting line in one of Bob Dylan's more memorable songs from the 1960s ("Ballad of a Thin Man.") It was written in the midst of the upheavals of that period, as the civil rights and anti-war movements, and the just-dawning cultural revolution were converging into a social movement.
The transformations that were occurring went beyond legislation and politics. Reacting to the "grayness" of the period and the stultifying fears of the Cold War, the movement boldly rejected accepted social norms and awakened, especially among the young, a new idealism full of hope.
This was unsettling to those who remained outside of the dynamic process, unable to grasp its transformative power. It was to this bewilderment that Dylan addressed his memorable taunt: "Something is happening, but you don't know what it is. Do you, Mr. Jones?"
Which brings me back to Barack Obama.
When I first wrote about the Obama phenomenon a few months back, I noted that his appeal was characterized by a rejection of cynicism and a call to idealism ("speaking to the angels of our better natures"). What is clear now, months later, is that the threads of Obama's appeal and inspiration, woven together, spring from a powerful philosophy of change that has resonated across generational lines. It is a philosophy of redemptive self-empowerment that calls for collective action to recognize address and resolve long-standing social problems - in Obama's words, "to heal the nation."
For Obama, change will not come from the top-down. Winning an election, by itself, is not enough, since it only provides leadership with a fraction of the leverage needed to make fundamental change. Institutional roadblocks, such as partisan gridlock and the stubborn self-interest of entrenched lobbies and interest groups, are not affected by a mere change at the top.
Profound transformative change, like that ushered in by the New Deal or created by the vision of the New Frontier/Great Society, can only come about because of the powerful demands of mass social movements that both pressure for change and create the conditions for its realization. When Barack Obama says, "We have been waiting for so long for the time when we could finally expect more from our politics, when we could give more of ourselves and feel truly invested in something bigger than a candidate or cause. This is it: We are the ones we've been waiting for, we are the ones that we seek" - he is both empowering his supporters, and challenging them to become the instruments of radical transformation. And it has worked, at least so far.
Alienated by the failures and crass cynicism of the Bush administration, and the partisan triangulation of the 1990s, many have felt compelled to act after hearing Obama's call for change. Hundreds of thousands of volunteers have been organized, either working directly in the campaign or making calls on its behalf. Well over $100 million has been raised from over 700,000 donors. (In just seventy-two hours last week, $7.5 million dollars were raised from 40,000 donors.)
I've traveled to other cities to see the impact this movement has had on real people. I have been struck by vignettes which, for me, tell the story so well. There was, for example, a fourteen year-old Pakistani girl in New York who handed me a letter, asking me to pass it on to Senator Obama. In the letter she referred to him as "the hero of my generation" and offered to volunteer in his campaign, describing it as "my campaign." Or the taxi driver here in Washington who told me that Obama makes him believe, "for the second time, that the promise of America is real" (the first time being when arrived here fifteen years ago). He told me that he is organizing other cab drivers to work in the campaign on election day.
The momentum that Obama has recorded is measurable, and appears to be growing. Just two and half months ago his campaign was viewed with skepticism, and dismissed. Even two weeks ago, after setbacks in New Hampshire and Nevada, the conventional wisdom was that his momentum had been stopped. He was still 20 percentage points down in national polling. Now he is dead even with Senator Clinton, both in polling numbers and in delegates amassed. "Something is happening."
There are two additional observations to be made.
First, ignoring the reality of this still-emerging movement comes with a risk to Democrats. Obama was right when he observed at a press conference last week that, should he win, Clinton's voters would support him; but should she win, his voters would not necessarily support her. The movement he has unleashed is not focused on just winning. That is too limited and too cynical a goal for his supporters. They do not seek to power for its own sake, they seek to bring about fundamental change.
Secondly, it is important to note that while Obama has been the inspiration that launched this movement, it will have the power to drive him. Expectations for change, once created, cannot easily be let down.
It's more like a woman I recently intervewed who was the founding volunteer Obama coordinator in Washington state's second-largest county, a white female Iraq war vet, voted for Bush in 2000 and written in Colin Powell in 2004 before becoming outraged about Iraq "I've always leaned conservative," she said, "but Obama's announcement speech moved me to tears. The Audacity of Hope made me rethink my beliefs. I felt like he engaged me with respect, and then convinced me. He inspires me with his honesty and integrity."
Obama is engaging people who haven't come near Democratic or progressive electoral politics in years.
I'm all for optimism, hope and change, but the 'great unwashed' get ONE chance to be heard -- in November. From that point forward, it's an insiders' gunfight... and we've all seen how thoroughly impotent public opinion is, as a renegade president continues to defiantly run amok in the face of an historically low 30% approval rating.
I'll cast my lot with a president who's smarter, quicker on the draw -- and a better shot -- than the obstructionist dead-enders the GOP will certainly leave behind in the Congress after the votes are counted.
Kumbaya.
... not sure why a Clinton supporter would expect the invitation at all, but that's another story.
You ask what the country (or Obama) will do for you?
Some would say that's got things backwards.
March onward, true believer...
If Obama isn't nominated by the Democratic party and doesn't run as an independent (which I think he should), then I'll consider Hillary and McCain and decide to vote for one of them, or neither. But the idea that I, or very many of Obama's other supporters, would just swing our support to Hillary because she's in the same party, is an assumption that reveals a serious misunderstanding of the word "transformation".
I'm sick and tired of being told by the Party to just shut up and vote as instructed - that it is my duty to vote for any Democrat put on the ballot.
I don't hate Hillary, nor have I decided that I cannot vote for her in a general election. But I'll be damned if I'll vote for her just because she's the Democrat and that's what I need to do.
:)
I was really moved and I sure hope all this inspiration doesn't go to waste w/Hillary getting the nomination.
Obama's association with Wright is a good thing. It's the way American politics SHOULD be done. It's the way politics should work in a truly free society. You're free to think and say what you want (within the limits of other people's freedom), and I'm free to resist those things that I disagree with. And we're both free to associate with each other in spite of having different perspectives on things.
What's wrong with that?
I know a little about this pastor who is one of his mentor's and it is an ugly little truth.
It seems that the individuals supporting Obama are doing so to justify and support their labels as liberals or enlightened individuals, but Obama is playing the race card, pure and simple and I don't like it. As MLK says, a person should be judged by their character and abilities, and not the color of their skin..but Obama is being supported by a lot because he can preach like a good black minister and he is black. I don't think he has the experience, and I don't think that he has the policies, and playing the race thing sickens me.
Don't tell me he isn't playing the race thing. I was in a restaurant having lunch about two weeks ago and there was a large party of African-Americans sitting behind me just frothing at the mouth over Obama, but not a single one had brought up a policy or issue he promoted or supported. When I asked them if they knew his policy about health care..not one could tell me..the same with Iraq...and the same on several issues. What it boiled down to was..what one finally admitted, and that was that he was a "brother".
Well I don't care if someone is a brother or a woman, white, brown, yellow, or what, I vote for their ability and their policies and I make it the number one priority to KNOW WHAT THAT IS.
Obama's race is the least relevant issue in this debate, I can assure you.
It all started when he first ran for office in Illinois. Alice Palmer, the long-serving incumbent and friend of Obama's, endorsed him for her state senate seat while she ran for national office. When her attempt failed, she asked Obama to step aside so she could continue in her seat. He refused, and with little time to gather the required signatures to run, she did her best. Obama than repaid his friend by pulling a "Bush" on her; he challenged all of her signatures and had her taken off the ballot. He also did the same to other candidates, in order to clear the way for himself. Obama's comment on the incident, "I liked Alice Palmer a lot. I thought she was a good public servant. It was very awkward. That part of it I wish had played out entirely differently." He acts like he had nothing to do with the incident. "Yes we can" play dirty politics against our prior friends and mentors! See: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-070403obama-ballot,0,1843097.story?,page=1
I agree. I'm sure many well-meaning people support Obama, but just like when Bush was more popular, if you in any way shed unflattering light on Obama's record, the responses can be every bit as bad as those coming from the far right. I had really hoped that the Democrats would be above such vitriol.
With Obama, there is at least the HOPE for change, there would be NO HOPE with Hillary.
"35 years of experience" - at spinning, at prevaricating. No thanks. I saw that movie already. I voted for Perot twice, and still think he would have been better.
I know Obama will understand if I get him the Hallmark budget card for $1.99.
She stopped lying about Obama'a record - not because it is wrong to lie - but because it became a political negative in one of her 'in house' polls.
She says we should vote for her because she has withstood more attacks from republicans than anyone in history. Congrats on the that to the Clintons, however, why should America be put back into this war of theirs with the republicans?
Obama is the one and only. He will be 'attacked' only to see the attack hurt the attacker. He can not lose to the republicans.
The Clintons will go into the convention losing in delegates 'voted for' and they will try and steal it with superdelegates. This is who they are.
If she gets the nomination I will vote against her - like all real liberals should. We would rather be lied to by republicans than be lied to by someone from our own party.
The only chance the Democrats have is to nominate Obama.
Better people skills, better ability to reach across the aisle, and create real change in domestic and foreign policy issues. For Christs sake, Hillary's views on war and diplomacy are indistinguishable from the GOP's.
Rather, Ziggy B. is going to be a GREAT adviser on middle eastern and world politics. If ANYONE had listened to him from the BUSH administration, we would not be in this war, and the Palestinian Israeli conflict would have been ended early enough to possibly preclude the attacks on 9/11. You see, even Bill Clinton said, during a Charlie Rose interview after 9/11, that the Israeli Palestinian conflict is the "philosophical underpinning of middle eastern terrorist recruitment". regardless of that, Hillary backed Bolton's nomination, (he is a rabid Neocon) and supports having Jerusalem be the undivided capitol of Israel, which would effectively mean forcibly removing the Palestinians from east Jerusalem, and ensuring that the conflict which has driven world terrorism for decades continues for 4 MORE decades.
AIPAC, a group of ultra right hawks whose views do not conform to the views of most Jewish Americans or Israelis, Pays Hillary a lot of money and gives her broad support. She, in return, has kowtowed to their desires on Iraq, Iran, and Lebanon, and the Really hawkish idea of keeping all of Jerusalem as capitol of israel, each with disastrous consequences for the US, Israel, and the middle east in general.
Keep in mind, if you care about Israel, the PRIME MINISTER of Israel( and most Jewish Americans and Israelis) is far to the left of Hillary's AIPAC driven views. For instance, he recently said that if Israel does not give up its settlements, Israel will end up like south africa, agreeing with the premise of Jimmy Carters book, Palestine, Peace, not apartheid.
Hillary condemned Carter for this view. So, Her AIPAC affiliation has led her to be wrong about Iraq, Iran, Lebanon (also now considered a TOTALLY avoidable disaster), and wrong about the settlements, puting her FAR to the right of the israeli prime minister and people.
GO OBAMA!!!!
do you have a non-sexixt mind?
Hillary finds support among those who expect a president to do all the work and effect all the policy prescriptions so that they can go about their own narrow pursuits. Obama finds support among those who realize that in a participatory democracy, the only way to achieve desirable, sustainable change is to get busy oneself.
Obama's critics here on Huffpo don't understand movement politics. They are satisfied with the Clintonian "it takes a president" politics. The problem with that is not just that they'll get what they deserve but that we will get it too.
With Obama, we'll get whatever we work hard and sacrifice for.
BUT -
I'm for Obama! There IS something happening here, I've been swept up in the movement and have loved seeing how it is touching the hearts of young people the way JFK touched my heart when I was 10. Obama's approach is what we need at this time. Yes we can!