It was Bill Clinton that supposedly remarked "Republicans like to fall in line, Democrats like to fall in love".
This recently lead to George Will's remark that "Democrats have fallen in love, just not with Hillary". They've fallen in love with Barack Obama and there are no signs that this affair is just an infatuation.
If one studies the present back and forth between the Democratic front runners, that about sums it up. Hillary had one major strategy, and that was to out raise the Obama campaign by over two to one in order to build the aura of invincibility.
At this, she will fail.
I know this is just a guess at this point, but I put Obama either ahead in money raising by the end of March, or at least within 10-20 points. This will cause shock waves in the community and will foster a real horse race between possibly the first woman president, and the first African American president. I am guessing this from both the buzz on his campaign trail, and from recent comments by Howard Fineman (Chris Matthews - Mar11, 07) and others that Obama is raising money faster than anyone expected. In fact, his comment was that the Clinton people were complaining that every time they called a big donor they had already been called by Barack Obama HIMSELF. This is a big scoop. He is working hard and he wants to shock the establishment.
But does it matter? If, deep down, Hillary and Obama are more or less aligned on all the major issues, then... does anyone care?
The answer is yes, because this country is in urgent need of upheaval and Obama is the right man for the right time. I think it matters and I will tell you why.
Over the course of the next year, there will be much written about where the two stand on iraq, education, health care, welfare, minimum wage, abortion, etc.. etc.. but lets keep in mind what these questions are supposed to tell us.
Do we really care that a candidate agrees with us 95% on everything compared to 80% for the other one? No. This leads to over-calculated poll-driven politics. It also leads to a White House that has to run everything through the political advisers before making policy. That's exactly what we have now, Rove driven disasters. That is also the kind of White House that Hillary will create. The signs of it are already written on the wall from the way she is running her campaign.
Look at her Selma response. Look at her attack at the Geffen statement. Its politics as usual, and its the same old trap that leads to an electorate that can barely hold their nose by the time they finally make it to the voting booth.
Obama is different. Here is why.
There is no question that this man has thought about running for president for more than 2 years. Did this cause him to make a calculated political decision to support the war or "the resolution but not the war" or some such nonsense that came out of Kerry in '04, and Clinton in '07? No.
He said what he knew was right and he let the voters fall where they may. He was honest and he took a risk.
This is the kind of leadership America needs and this is what Obama represents.
If Obama were a conventional calculating politician, he would have waited. He would have taken a deal from the establishment, supported Hillary and would have run later with more experience in '12 or '16. He would still be young enough to run then, but he didn't. He recognized an opportunity, with lots of risk and he went for it.
Leadership.
How is he running his campaign? The same way. He's not afraid to shake the tree in Clinton's home turf in New York, and he's gathered major support in Hollywood. He is also not afraid to bring religion into his stump and into his campaign. This is something that definitely contributed to the Kerry loss.
Can he win in a general. Yes.
The way he is running his campaign shows it all, with a very important comment. If you listen to the way Clinton talks about republicans, she says things like "I know them, I can beat them".
Divisive, acrimonious, old politics.
Even her first major sound bite "I'm in it to win it" represents a mis-step in my opinion. Think about it. Is winning all that matters? Or is the struggle and the endeavor, the end goals most important? A candidate should be an agent for achieving results not an end in itself.
Here is also something to remember. What makes Clinton represent politics as usual is her methods, her words and her beliefs, not her sex. Yes, she would be the first woman president, but she would be more divisive than any male that came before her. Likewise, what makes Obama new and fresh is not his skin color. It has nothing to do with how "black" he is. It has everything to do with what he says, how he says it and what he truly believes.
If you listen to Obama he says of republicans "I will talk to them." "We are all Americans. There is no red America or blue America. There is the United States of America". That can win a general. Hillary's comments will pull us back into politics as usual. No one wants to be beaten down. No one wants their beliefs trivialized. No one wants another winner take all candidate. Everyone, now more than ever, wants a true political discourse and wants a true leader to be in charge.
Barack Obama is a leader. Barack Obama is new. He just happens to be black.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
he's not black, he was raised by his white mother and grandparents in Hawaii and Jakarta, but his dad is from Kenya..
Politicus Denovo,
Thank you so much for your blog. I really believe that it's important for people to foster, and participate in political debate. I'm sure you've heard that politics is "hollywood for the ugly," (there may be some truth to that) realistically, though, it's far more important than Hollywood can ever be. Poor Acadamy Awards nominations mean nothing. Poor Presidential nominations change the world.
In your assessment of Barack Hussein Obama, I must wholeheartedly disagree with you. Obama is an empty candidate who gives pretty speeches that mean nothing. While it may feel good to dream of a bi-racial unifier entering the White House and inspiring America to cross the partisan divide, Obama is definitely not the man to do it!
Firstly, you simply must know better than to believe a politician when they insist that they are unifiers- as much as you dislike George Bush, he ran as a unifier, and won in 2000 largely because of that. In fact, many of his critics derive their negative remarks about him from his image as "someone you can have a beer with." George Bush claimed in 2000 that his strength relied on his not having served in Washington, D.C. He appealed to Americans who hold your view because he hadn't been "tainted" by divisive Washington politics, like Al Gore. Regardless of whether or not you like Bush, I doubt you would characterize him today as a unifier. In fact, you find him quite polarizing. So, Obama's rhetoric is not new- and there is no reason to believe that it's meaningful.
Adolf Hitler claimed to be a unifier- he united the Germanic peoples of Europe living in Switzerland, Austria, Holland, and Germany; however, he was incredibly polarizing (as well as insane).
In your contrast of Obama and Hillary Clinton, you extol Obama for the manner in which he speaks about Republicans. You quote him as saying, "I will talk to them...We are all Americans." It is statements like this that leaves most Americans scratching their heads in confusion. He "will talk to" Republicans? So what?! Of course he will, they're half of Congress! What candidate running for any office says, "I will ignore my opposition"? No one. When he "talks" to Republicans, does that mean that he will be open to convincing on issues like abortion? Taxation? Global Warming? I highly doubt it.
Being that he also promised to unconditionally meet with leaders of rogue nations like Iran, Cuba, and North Korea, it isn't much of a compliment that he will engage Republicans (Americans) in conversation!
"We are all Americans." Again, of course, we're all Americans. Nobody is claiming otherwise. Yet, you call his simple-minded musings, bold; and fawn over "Him" as if he transcends mortality simply by attesting to "the audacity of hope".
You go on to quote him, "There is no red America or blue America."
This simply isn't true.
Red and Blue America very much exist. Illinois, California, New York, and Massachusettes, are all parts of Blue America, meaning, they traditionally vote for liberal politicians and values. "Piss Christ," the 'artistic' piece where crucifixes were submerged in urine would never have seen the light of day in Alabama (Red America). The taxes responsible for Chicagoans paying more than Californians for gasoline (and the proposed tax hike endorsed by the Democratically run Cook County Board)would have sent politicians packing in Indiana (Red America).
As well, a giant, white, cross prominently standing in downtown St. Louis, Missouri would have been taken down by local ACLU chapters in Blue America.
Yes, it sounds sweet to think that politics and values don't divide America, but in reality (a place Obama doesn't spend enough time) it's not true.
I agree to your minute point, though, that "That can win a general." Too bad Obama hasn't won the Primary yet.
Overall, you pose the question in this piece, "...[D]oes it matter" as in, does it matter that Barack Obama can 'shock the establishment' by eroding partisanship? You answer, "yes," because of his 'leadership' qualities and because he isn't as driven by power as is his vile opponent, Hillary Clinton.
At this point, I must address Obama's 'leadership' qualities which he not only lacks, but he also hasn't been in the Senate long enough to display. Barack Obama has made a (short) career of speaking in platitudes, and answering complex questions with daft answers seemingly meant to be uttered above the sound of crescendoing cymbals and trumpets. The man may in fact be a deep thinker, but he certainly hasn't shown it, and nor have you. Obama's claim to fame was a single keynote speech. Since then, liberals have decided that because he is young-looking, black, articulate, and non-confrontational, that he is fit to be the leader of the Free World! It's preposterous!
America faces many real challenges that Obama has not adequately addressed (nor has he been pressed to). Debates about illegal immigration, gay marriage, abortion, social security, Islamic terrorism, and civil liberties rage on and will continue to do so until someone steps up and is willing to say and do something substantive. Refusing to wear an American flag on his lapel is not brave. Bowing to pressure from the Human Rights Campaign regarding Donnie McClurkin's personal convictions is not brave.
He isn't fit to be president. Perhaps he should write Hallmark cards.
Mr. Hunter,
Thank you so much for your response to my blog. I do truly appreciate your interest and the fact that you did - at least summarily - read my post.
I do feel compelled to inform you, however, that you are mistaken with regard to, and almost completely ignorant of, the content of my post and the subjects that it is addressing with regard to political matters in this country.
Obama is certainly not an empty candidate. Including a host of social issues such as social security reform, health care reform, immigration reform, and many others too numerous to mention, Barack Obama has not only been detailed and thoughtful in his approach but also innovative and reasonably bi-partisan.
If your confused by this statement, I can clarify if necessary.
Firstly, your comment regarding ill fated unifiers has no basis in my stated opinion, nor any relation to the politician under discussion. Barack Obama has actually made several statements with regard to family planning (your "abortion" bogey man) that were very skillful and quite unifying in their content. Again, if you are confused, I can clarify for you.
Your comments stated in the fifth paragraph of your hastily penned rebuttal is completely malformed based on any rational concept of the modern American electorate. There is a growing and solidifying middle in this country that despises the demagoguing nature of simplistic analysis such as "red" and "blue" states. Lets remember that these divisions are about a nanosecond old in the history of this country and may evaporate again just as quickly. Jimmy Carter - in 1976 won the majority of the "red" states against a moderate republican opponent that held mostly "blue" states. Ronald Reagan, a "reddie" by any measure won California by a landslide as did Nixon before him. My point is that you are living in an ignorant history-less delusion if you think that the Bush-Gore/Bush-Kerry divisions (and they are really just that recent) will persist much longer. An additional point not to be neglected is that most people are uncomfortable being branded this way. This allows a candidate to win converts if they do not alienate voters unnecessarily by using divisive language.
In conclusion, I am very appreciative that you took the time to read the title of my post. Too bad you could not absorb more of the content, or for that matter, think your way out of a paper bag.
It's really sad (and telling) that you laud Barack Obama for being above "divisive" politics, yet because you disagree with me, you resort to insulting my intelligence. Nowhere in my response to your post did I insult you. In fact, I very respectfully disagreed. While I knew that I ran the risk of personal attacks for simply stating my opposing view, I decided instead to read all of your posts thoroughly (despite your charge that I simply "read the title of [your] post") and comment. What incentive do I, or anyone who doesn't agree with you, have to return to your site and debate with you? I do believe that there are major differences between liberals and conservatives, one of which is that liberals more easily launch personal attacks on those they disagree with. I'd hoped you'd prove me wrong- I hope, now, that you strive to. By starting and advertising a blog, you have invited people to read your work, and comment negatively or positively to it. It's not only absurdly arrogant to claim that those who disagree with you "...could not...think [their] way out of a paper bag", but it's also incredibly rude.
(Moving on...)
Firstly, I believe Obama is an empty candidate, and I supported my theory with some of the very quotes that you provided in your post (hardly the ability of someone who just 'skimmed' your work). You disagree with my conclusion, but you offer no evidence that Obama has said anything substantive. Is it too much to ask that even in rebuttal you prove your conviction? You say, "Including a host of social issues such as social security reform, health care reform, immigration reform, and many others too numerous to mention, Barack Obama has not only been detailed and thoughtful in his approach but also innovative and reasonably bi-partisan." Sell this to me; because I have never heard him address these topics in-depth.
Secondly, my mentioning "ill fated unifiers" very much had relevance to your post; because you contrast Obama to Clinton by constantly referring to Clinton as "divisive." You say in criticism of Hillary, "If you listen to the way Clinton talks about republicans, she says things like 'I know them, I can beat them'. Divisive, acrimonious, old politics." In another section you say about Clinton, "...she would be the first woman president, but she would be more divisive than any male that came before her." After praising Obama for "talking" to Republicans, you go on to say that "Hillary's comments will pull us back into politics as usual."
It's evident in your own writing that Hillary = divisive, politics as usual; and Obama offers an antithetical approach- unity.
That being said, your charge that my criticizing the vacuous claim of ANY politician who purports to be a unifier, as being irrelevant to your argument is false.
And finally, Ronald Reagan won a 48-state landslide victory which crossed over both red and blue states. That does not, however, mean that red and blue states are ficticious. As American politics evolve, so too do politcal divisions throughout the country. In, and before the 60's, the South was refered to as "The Solid South," because they overwhelmingly voted Democrat in every election. Before the South shifted, Southern Democrats were called "Dixiecrats." State loyalties to certain parties are not really a new phenomenon, though they have shifted through the years. I'm not completely sold on the idea that a "moderate" America is forming, however, I do believe that the inability of both parties to represent their constituents has left many voters frustrated and skeptical of a single-party solution.
I did have more questions to ask you about this post (and the others, being that I joyfully spent my day reading them all). However, before I spend more time writing what you call "hastily penned rebutal[s]" that are more than 3 times as long as your post, I would like to see if it's worth it.
Do you have the intellectual honesty to praise political discourse and demonstrate it here on your blog, or should I expect more baseless insults, attacks, and hypocrisy?
Hoping for the best.
-J.
****Correction**** My comment was NOT longer than your original post, "Why Obama Matters". I mistakenly compared the length of my comment to the length of your post, "Obama's Secret Weapon."
Mr. Hunter,
Please do not post responses to my blog in the future.
You are not intellectually honest, nor does the depth of your knowledge expose an individual that would provide a minimum of edification during the debate process. You have continued to ignore the content of my responses and instead continued to sully my literary space with your ignorance and lack of contemplative skills.
Please, seriously, go read something about anything.
The fact that you've heard of the Dixiecrats does not impress me. Nor does your analysis of Reagan. Ronald Wilson Reagan won two national presidential elections, the first one was not a 48 state landslide. Only the second one provided that much repeated example that most history-less plonkers such as you like to regurgitate into the national dialog.
So far, you've managed to do only one thing right, and that is to admit that there is no red america and blue america. If you don't believe me, go look at the electoral maps of the presidential elections of this century. The only arguable constancy of the patterns that you will find is that the south tends to vote as a block. This block did switch after the election of 1960 largely due to the civil rights bill and the southern strategy of the Nixonian party. Despite this, Carter in 1976 solidly won the south, and Clinton in 1992 and 1996 won significant electoral votes there. As well, Reagan won the entire west and most of the northeast. So, if there is a red america and blue america then the definition of red and blue has flip flopped in this century and has only solidified in the elections of the last 15 years. This is somehow a constancy that we are forced to deal with in American politics? No. Only for the tragically unimaginative. An Evangelical Southern Democrat could
easily win the South, just as a Rockefeller Republican could win California and the Northeast.
Think about it.
Post a Comment