Obama's Idaho Awakening
Hailey, Idaho - Overflow voters fill the Blaine County Caucus site
Photo by Willy Cook, Courtesy Idaho Mountain Express
Ketchum, Idaho--Idaho isn't accustomed to this much positive attention. A week has passed since our very white, very conservative state went whole hog (ok, 80% hog) for Barack Obama. In the afterglow of a blowout Boise rally and landslide victories here, Obama's Idaho awakening is still being felt, if not entirely understood.
First, let's consider the record shattering voter turnout. The plot-heavy Billary-BamBam contest is rolling its dough with the curiosity factor--the "I was there" allure--nationwide, and in Idaho, the numbers are dizzying. For the first time in state history, all 44 counties held caucuses, some pieced together with a day's notice, and four times as many Idahoans showed up than in 2004. In distant Clark County, on the Wyoming, Montana frontier, six people voted, all of them for Barack Obama. Canyon County's caucus was 700 percent larger than its last. Boise's caucus filled the 10-year old Qwest Arena with its largest crowd ever as hundreds more voted on scrap paper outside. Anecdotes of nightmare traffic jams, voters walking miles through falling snow and counties running out of ballots were rife. It's as if someone touched down in our funny little Republican oligarchy and personally asked everyone to get involved in the democratic process.
Maybe Idaho's media-shy masses went all wobbly when the Hope-monger himself alighted on our turf, (even if he was just courting the coveted Basque vote). But as flushed and aflutter as we may have been, one rally does not produce the prairie-wide margins of victory Barack Obama took here. His 80% win here was a Super-Tuesday rout second only to Mitt Romney's 90% Utah crusade.
So why did Idahoans glom to Obama with such religious zeal?
The theories are as diverse as our state is not.
"It's the pent up frustration of living in a red state finally finding an outlet," said Jerry Brady, Obama's state co-chair and a fifth generation Idahoan who, despite his moderate, pro-gun, unity-advocating views, was successfully branded a wolf-snuggling, tax-freak liberal by Republican foes in a tight 2006 gubernatorial bid. Obama, Brady said, found in Idaho the "geothermal energy of politics, untapped but powerful once harnessed."
Idaho Democratic Party spokesman Chuck Oxley phrased it differently: "This is the political equivalent of throwing up in your mouth a little bit," Oxley said in the grizzled parlance of a veteran in the long fight against one-party rule. In 2004, Idaho gave George Bush Jr. 68 percent, his second largest plurality nationwide (second fiddle, again, to Utah's adorable groupthink). Idaho swallowed W. whole, and last week's uprising was a sign of the acidic Bush administration repeating on us, Oxley said.
Armchair pundits point to the state's rapidly changing demographics. Idaho has grown by half since 1990. Six cities became metropolitan zones in the past decade. Canyon County is the epicenter, gaining a third of its population in the last four years. The state's make-up is changing, they say. Change begets change.
But still.
Maybe what happened here was about more than demographics or Bush-spite. Maybe Idaho Dems, maligned in unfriendly territory and forced to make the best of it, saw a bit of themselves in Barack Obama. They saw a man who can do one better than fight the eternal Republican machine, a man who can work together with adversaries to get something done.
In Blaine County, Idaho's liberal anomaly, 1,200 people stuffed themselves into an auditorium fit for 575. When the ballots ran out, they voted on stationary lent by the local newspaper. Listening to a few Hillary Clinton supporters caucus for their candidate amidst such energy, one was reminded of the old Paul Simon tune, "Maybe I Think Too Much."
For the scrappy progressives out here in the sage and snow, it came down to the difference between thinking and feeling. Clinton presents unmatched policy acumen. Her proposals are sweeping and detailed. But people don't walk two snowy miles to vote for a proposal. They don't stand for hours in a stuffy room to show their solidarity with a policy. They did it because they felt, deep within them, that this time was different, that there is an enduring truth in his message of uplift and unity.
The disparity of feeling between these candidates is akin to that which separates a painting of a sunrise and the thing itself. From the former you get a sense of grandeur, a thin notion of possibility. From the latter, we awake, warmed and stirred to rise in response.
Follow Michael Ames on Twitter: www.twitter.com/haikudose
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
I really enjoyed reading your story about the Idaho experience. Well written.
Nice writing, Michael. I'm still trying to make sense of it all, too, but you've come close here.
As for Yeller Dawg, your 'tude (assuming it's real) is exactly why Obama is winning so many states. We're tired of being ignored. Clinton was the only one of the then-eight Dem candidates at the Yearly Kos convention last summer who would NOT commit to campaigning in all 50 states.
Obama may not win the general in Idaho, but he'll come closer than anyone since LBJ won in '64, and I'd wager that he'll get 40%+, which Dems outside Boise races rarely do. And he CAN win just about everywhere else, so he won't need our measly four electoral votes.
Frankly, as a Democrat I think we should support our choices for president in a more civil way, and who ever gets there first to win the nomination, lets galvanize and tag team that nominee, to the White House...instead of the backbiting and belittling that I have been seeing in allthes posts.
"But people don't walk two snowy miles to vote for a proposal. They don't stand for hours in a stuffy room to show their solidarity with a policy."
Certainly this is how I feel as an Obama supporter, and why I think he can ignite change in this country. At the same time, I can also understand why old-school liberals, who equate populist movements with groupthink, would find them threatening.
No matter how many fervent people declare they will vote for Hillary if they have to, their declarations can't draw others to the same conclusion.
Blacks, poor whites, struggling middle-class people of all colors and ethnicities, men, women, and all shades in between have been marginalized by the identity politics of the establishments both left and right. They see in Obama a voice that can include them rather than exclude them, a voice that might make a difference in their lives.
Many of these people will simply not vote if they are offerred the Hobson's choice of Hillary. Although I'm not one of them, I know that they can't be blamed for feeling marginalized and staying home. Why abandon them to give the Clinton's a second chance?
Idaho was represented by Frank Church, a fine liberal legislator. Liberal excess led to their turning right, but the excesses of the Bush governing style can lead them back.
You write "A week has passed since our very white, very conservative state went whole hog (ok, 80% hog) for Barack Obama."
I think it's important to point out that an illegal immoral pre-emptive war of choice is not "conservative".
We aren't conserving lives, treasure, American values or freedom.
By the same token, the "left" is also far more "conservative" in our policies for energy independance, global warming, pollution, and species protection. We seek to conserve the earth and all it's creatures.
Progressive taxation and policies seek to conserve equality and the conservation of the American dream.
The corporate media, the GOP and DLC, and pundits all use the term "conservative" incorrectly... their definition in fact is diametrically opposed to the dictionary definition.
"Conservative" Democrats are considered to be supporters of right-wing neoliberal policies when in fact the opposite is true.
Likewise "conservative" Republicans supposedly dominate the GOP, when in fact true conservatives have been purged and replaced with neocons who are anything but conservative.
It's time we take back the word "conservative" and destroy the myths in American politics that have turned the word into meaningless adjective.
Don't worry, in the general election your "very white conservative" state will keep it's true color..RED!!!
So are we Liberal conservatives now? How about we just throw out the terms and come up with new ones?
How about PROgressives and CAVEservatives?
Didn't you listen to what Clinton said Michael???
Idaho doesn't count and dems there don't count. It 's a red state.
Texas counts.
California counts.
Idaho, WA don't count because you have a bunch of activists voting....see You don't count per se in the grand scheme of all things Clintonian!
Snap out of it. Idaho will vote Democratic in a presidential election when donkeys fly out of Obama's butt. If he gets the nomination, I hope he doesn't waste one minute or one dollar in Idaho.
He already has, yellerdawg. He was here - in Idaho - in Boise. And he had several campaign headquarters set up around the state as well AND if he gets the nomination, they will reopen.
Sure, Texas and Ohio are both red states, but they're "SPECIAL" red states.
"The disparity of feeling between these candidates is akin to that which separates a painting of a sunrise and the thing itself. From the former you get a sense of grandeur, a thin notion of possibility. From the latter, we awake, warmed and stirred to rise in response."....this says it all....i will vote for hillary if she is the nominee.....but, i'd rather be inspired......
"warmed and stirred to rise" Oh my god. He's a a candidate for public office. Not the Messiah.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
