Why Obama Will Go All the Way (And Presidential Films that Support the Claim)

Much of the reason Maureen Dowd of The New York Times is so scathingly funny is that there's usually some potent, blunt truth behind her clever, jibing prose. So, while we laugh, we also take her point, which is often, on reflection, all too serious.

And sometimes her pronouncements are fundamentally simple, as in her column published the day after the final debate between Hillary Clinton and the Democratic party's front-runner, Barack Obama.

What Dowd captured so well was the idea that our most inspiring (and often most effective) presidents simply seem "comfortable in their own skins." These are the gifted individuals who give off a rare, subtle signal to Americans: one of self- possession. Self- possession projects leadership, which in turn reassures and inspires voters.

So when, in desperation, Hillary showed her claws the other night, I think it sounded her candidacy's death knell. Bright as she is, she came off like a spoiled child who could not understand why nobody wanted to attend her birthday party. And by contrast, the unflappable Obama seemed only more presidential.

What of this building Obama phenomenon?

Various people have accused him of being too young, untried, and less specific on meaty issues than the supposedly divine Ms. C. While Americans want and deserve sound strategy and action on the mess created under Bush, smart Presidents, FDR and JFK among them, used prose and charm to present broader views on policy without being so specific as to limit their flexibility to implement initiatives according to emerging conditions. (Roosevelt was a particular master at this, and though wily and secretive when necessary, he served his country well.)

Beyond leadership, assurance, and wisdom beyond his years, why will Obama win in November? I know I'm not the only one to note the parallels between the Obama drive and the candidacy of JFK. In 1960, after a decade of Cold War hysteria and a beloved though aging -- and ailing -- president who lived out part of his retirement in office playing golf, the country was ready for dramatic change. JFK would be our youngest elected president, our first Catholic president, with not as much to show on experience at the federal level than then vice president Nixon. He had in fact spent a good portion of his Senate career preparing to run for president.

But he excited the youth base, and soon, like Obama, many of their parents. There was idealism, vitality, and charisma emanating from the man. And he won, not by much, but close only counts in horseshoes. And without doubt television helped him win, just as it has helped Obama against Hillary, and will continue to help him when confronting the aging, phlegmatic John McCain, who may come off even more snide than Hillary.

Once again, outstanding political movies, in attempting to mirror the reality of that dizzying world, often portray this quality of presidential inner confidence, or lack thereof, with dead-on accuracy.

Even going back a while, if you watch John Ford's elegiac Young Mr. Lincoln (1939), you see the essence of that martyred president's inner calm melded with a keen and curious mind, and that elusive, God-given ability to get people to trust and respect him. These qualities were already in evidence when Abe was a small-town lawyer, legislator, and debater, and they would carry this gangly, unlikely soul of humble birth to the highest office in the land. Recently, on an AOL poll, he was voted our best president.

The groundbreaking political documentary Primary (1960) was prescient in taking us behind the velvet rope of the road to Camelot, making the viewer feel like part of a movement, and showing JFK aggressively campaigning like a born machine politician, helping to dispel the candidate's rich, playboy image. One indelible image: early in the campaign, the candidate is standing on a street corner, and an older woman passes right by him, refusing to shake his hand. He would have had my vote in that single moment.

More uncertain and embattled presidents are portrayed to excellent effect in two political thrillers of the early sixties, when the paranoia of the 50's still lingered. In 1962's Advise and Consent, you see a shaky Franchot Tone struggling to carry the burden of office in the face of unexpected scandal, while clearly failing in health ( perhaps a throwback to Ike, and his bad heart). Next, in John Frankenheimer's crackerjack Seven Days In May (1964), Fredric March, only slightly more vigorous, must endure the insult to him and the office of having a military coup attempted during his presidency- by a ruthless, rock-hard Burt Lancaster, no less.

Counterpoint: Henry Fonda, a quarter century after playing the young Lincoln, portrays a sharp, cool-under-fire President confronting Armageddon in Sidney Lumet's still unnerving Fail-Safe (1964). There the viewer has no doubt that the right man in sitting in the Presidential chair.

Then you see the genius of FDR as an image-maker in absentia in the stunning
documentary, The Eleanor Roosevelt Story"(1965), a DVD that should be shown in every American classroom. Eleanor was widely known as her husband's eyes, ears -- and legs. Though her outspokenness could rankle her husband, no doubt FDR understood the image value of showcasing a First Lady of such intelligence, dignity and heart. Hillary Clinton of all people even provides the film's post-commentary, citing ER as one of her role models. I'd argue this revelation was not reflected much in that last debate.

Then the sea change that occurred with Vietnam and the Nixon era inevitably brought a more cynical, jaundiced view of our political system. Case in point: a bitter, post-resignation Tricky Dick gets brilliantly portrayed by Philip Baker Hall in the late Robert Altman's lacerating Secret Honor (1985). Hall flawlessly executes a one-man show: his Nixon, bitter and alone, rails against enemies real and imagined, with his only props being a rapidly depleted bottle of Chivas and a host of security cameras that guarded the Nixon compound in San Clemente.

Ironically, as Ms. Dowd readily acknowledges in her piece, even with his exhaustively documented peccadilloes, Hillary's own husband Bill had that "comfortable in his own skin" persona; specifically the ability to connect with ordinary middle-class people emotionally. You watch the fascinating The War Room (1993), and not only do you love the candidate himself, but also his primary handlers at the time, the acerbic James Carville and youthful, razor-sharp George Stephanapoulos. Yes, you even admire Hillary as her husband's closest behind the scenes confidante in the election. (It appears now she does her best work behind the scenes).

I truly believe that Obama will go all the way in November. Maureen Dowd is right: the candidate is comfortable in his own skin. And he represents a much needed agent of change which could help restore the national prestige which the Bush administration has steadily squaundered for seven long, painful years, both here and abroad. In all, Obama is feels like the right candidate at the right time.

And with this prediction, I discover I feel a lot more comfortable in my own skin too.

Comments

[kellygrrrl]

effortless effectiveness

calm consistent concern

intelligent integrity

[IntrepidReader]

JasonEverettMiller writes:

"
Every single person who is voting for Barack is making an informed and intelligent choice based on a campaign that has been going on for more than a year now. We have examined both candidates and, by large majorities in many states, think that Obama is that man."

Do you really believe that? I'd be willing to bet serious money a lot of Obama supporters are just like the guy who couldn't name one thing Obama has done but think he's great just the same. I would further say that's true of how many American voters are about any candidate they support--they latch on to an image or a buzz word and are content to examine no further.

And Jason, your large minorities consist of some percentages of eligible voters who bothered to turn out to vote in primaries. In other words, a percentage of a small percentage. Even as the media has breathlessly discussed high voter turnouts, the actual numbers are not so impressive. In Wisconsin, only one out of three eligible voters took the time to participate. In Iowa, the number of voters caucusing was ridiculously low, I have read only one in twenty eligible Iowans took part in the Democratic caucus. What I'm saying is that it's absolutely not true that large majorities in many states--or for that matter, any states--have yet to embrace Obama. What is true is that a majority of those who participated in the primaries have favored him in many instances, but it's well known that primary voters are usually more agenda-driven than the electorate in general, that the voters who are most committed to their preferences will take the time to vote.

By all means, support your candidate and urge others to join in that support, but realize that most of America hasn't joined in yet, and may never do so. Keep in mind that Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry all easily swept to their respective nominations with a majority of primary voters support, but none of them became president.

[midcenturymod]

I can't believe any Democrat is still reading her after the hit job she did on Al Gore. She is just so clever and witty and now the whole country is paying the price.

[Guitarsandmore]

Let"s not make Charisma and confidence the only criteria upon which we decide who will be the next president. History is rife with examples of tyrants and dictators who were so sure their path of sacrifice and treachery was the best choice for country and empire; and people died.

Even the leaders we still admire today have killed many Americans in the process of protecting them. Kennedy was sexy, smart, confident, arrogant, and we followed him into the Vietnam war with a net result of 58,000 dead American soldiers; all for a good cause no doubt. Lincoln presented with self confidence and America followed him into the civil war which is estimated to have killed 500,000 Americans; also for a very good cause.

Hitler mesmerized the German people and convinced them all to invade Europe to protect the homeland; the net result of that debacle was some 40 million people dead worldwide. They thought it was a good cause. Without the Charisma and oratory skills Hitler used to hypnotize the crowd, there would have been no world war II.

Before we are seduced by confidence and charisma again, let"s make sure we are following a leader who has the ability to negotiate peace. It can not be that each generation has to sacrifice thousands of lives to the God of war in order to secure our future. I refuse to accept that plan as part of my future. Who will lead us into peace and prosperity without war and more sacrifice? Why can"t we admire and respect the leaders who have managed to rule through tough times without starting a war?

[JasonEverettMiller]

You are clearly not living in the same world as the rest of us nor have you read the same history. Kennedy was in the process of drawing down our presence in Vietnam, which he inherited from Eisenhower. Johnson escalated that war.

Obama is Hitler now? This is just too absurd to comment on.

Every single person who is voting for Barack is making an informed and intelligent choice based on a campaign that has been going on for more than a year now. We have examined both candidates and, by large majorities in many states, think that Obama is that man. That decision is based both on his charisma and character, his intelligence and history of advocating and implementing progressive changes at all levels of government.

He is hardly en "empty suit" as your comment suggest. His long years of experience in both DC and Illinois informed his answers in this 52-minute, uncut interview with the editorial board of the SF Chronicle that was very illuminating, even for an Obama supporter: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/article?o=0&f=/c/a/2008/01/18/MNSNUH8DR.DTL. That should satisfy even the most ardent Hillary supporter as to the depth of his knowledge and command of all the most important issues facing our country.

We know our guy's resume and are stunned that someone with that background could be elected president. He has the right kind of experience and the right kind of natural ability to inspire us to do some truly marvelous things with this country. No other candidate even comes close.

[Guitarsandmore]

Let us hope, no let us demand and insist that Obama inspires America to follow a plan of peaceful advances in foreign policy, energy independence, economic gains, and healthcare reforms that will benefit all Americans and cost us no lives.

I didn"t say Obama was Hitler. I said if the only basis of your criteria is that the new president must have Charisma and confidence than you could get stuck with a Hitler. This is an entirely different statement and you know it.

Clearly, it was Eisenhower (a Republican) who decided US policy would be to defend Southeast Asia and sent aid to the French. After the French left South Vietnam Eisenhower sent aid to the South Vietnamese.

In 1961 president John F. Kennedy sent 3,000 U.S. "advisors" into South Vietnam.

January 12, 1962, in Operation Chopper, helicopters flown by U.S. Army pilots ferry 1,000 South Vietnamese soldiers to sweep a National Liberation Front stronghold near Saigon. It marks America"s first combat missions against the Vietcong.

Also in 1962, under Kennedy, Operation Ranchhand begins using agent orange to clear brush and jungle away so that the Viet Cong could not conceal themselves.

Go here and see the truth:

http://www.landscaper.net/timelin.htm

http://www.english.uiuc.edu/maps/vietnam/timeline.htm

http://www.pbs.org/battlefieldvietnam/timeline/index.html

[IntrepidReader]

If we're going to talk about movies, how about The Manchurian Candidate?

Specifically, the 2004 remake where instead of communists, it's a global megacorporation that created him.

[MoMoDo]

Maureen Dowd beat you to it. From her February 27 column:

"Hillary and her top aides could not say categorically that her campaign had not been the source on the Drudge Report, as Matt Drudge claimed, for a picture of Obama in African native garb that the mean-spirited hope will conjure up a Muslim Manchurian candidate vibe."

[MoMoDo]

Maureen Dowd has done a good job of documenting the increasing desperation of the Clinton campaign. Hillary is now going to Strangelovian lengths to spread fear. I put up a photoshopped image of her channeling Peter Sellers.

http://dowdreport.blogspot.com/2008/03/madame-strangelove.html

[newslamp]

God endorses Obama.

[wilhelmR]

At 3:00am when the phone rings....Hillary will call for the "Soft Press" to help her out.