home
about
archives
|
THE EVOLUTION OF AN OBAMA SUPPORTER: PART TWO
06/02/2008
A few days after the 2004 presidential election, a friend and I were commiserating. We realized how futile it was to complain any more about the tactics of the Republican Party, their dishonesty, their smear campaigns, and the ultimate insult – the swiftboating of John Kerry. We had seen the progressive movement grow over the past four years and were certain, at the start of the 2004 campaign, that the nation would not return Bush to the White House where the Supreme Court had installed him four years before. Yet we had been so wrong. We realized that those of us who dreamed of a better America - one where problems were actually addressed by government, where the war in Iraq would end, where health care would be affordable and universal, and where elections were not simply games where anything goes and all honesty is abandoned - would have to wait four more years to vote for a president who would build that America.
My friend said she was pinning all her hopes on Barack Obama in 2008.
Barack Obama?
I barely knew who he was. Like many Democrats I had been impressed with his convention speech, but he had just been elected to his first term in the Senate and he was only 42 years old.
He doesn't have enough experience," I said. "He might make a run for the presidency in eight or twelve years, but four years is too soon."
"Just wait," she said.
After her prediction, I paid more attention to this gifted man. And though I saw presidential greatness in him, I still thought a campaign for the presidency was years away. Also, I knew Hillary intended to run in 2008 and would be a formidable candidate. I simply couldn't see this young Obama being a giant killer.
My friend moved away and we lost touch, but over the years I kept hearing her words. She knew something I didn't.
When Obama declared his candidacy I was intrigued. But I wasn't convinced. I still thought him too young, too inexperienced. Then after a few speeches that brought me to tears (my husband as well, a man who never tears up) I knew I was watching something that was beyond explanation, a phenomenon, a rare individual who rises up unexpectedly once every fifty years or so and changes everything. And though much of why I and so many others do support Obama is beyond adequate explanation (and beyond all explanation to many Clinton supporters), I will attempt to explain it with whatever feeble words I can find. Still, there are some aspects of this moment in history that are beyond analysis, that have more to do with destiny, or fate, or a force of nature that cannot be described adequately. I have learned over my sixty years, that when a phenomenon like this emerges, little can be done to stop it, not even someone as powerful and talented as Hillary Clinton.
First, however, I will start with the tangible, with things that can be explained. As I mentioned in my previous essay, Barack's approach to issues is quite similar to Hillary's. I won't go over that again, but I will emphasize two differences that I think are significant in that they are examples of Barack's entirely different philosophy of governing: his opposition to the Iraq War and his willingness to meet with adversaries and rivals.
At the time the Iraq War was being planned by the Bush administration, before Congress actually voted to give Bush the authorization to carry it out, there was enormous pressure on the media and elected officials to fight terrorism in any way the president deemed appropriate and necessary. The majority of members of Congress went along with the plan and voted to allow Bush to go to a war that was based on false information. But not everyone did. One of six Senators who read the classified NIE report, and passionately urged his fellow Senators to read it before they voted, was Bob Graham, who ultimately voted against the war authorization. Hillary Clinton did not read it and, as mentioned in the previous essay, voted for the authorization. I understand the pressure she was under, and I know she does say now she wishes she could have that vote back, for which I applaud her, but as commander in chief you don't get do-overs.
Barack Obama was not in Congress at the time, but he was an elected official in Illinois. Hillary Clinton mocks the speech Obama gave at an antiwar rally in 2002, but let's shine some light on that. Here, in part, is what he said:
"What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.
What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income - to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear - I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.
But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars."
These sentiments expressed by Barack in 2002 were completely in line with my sentiments, those of Howard Dean, and many in the progressive movement. I supported Dean in 2004 because of it, and my opinion hasn't changed. Dean paid a price, as did all candidates who opposed the war, but Barack did not back down.
In 2002, when anyone with a political future in Washington knew that their stand on the Iraq War would be used in every future campaign they waged, Obama knew his stance was a risky one. If the war went well, if WMD were found, his future would be dim. He, not Senator Clinton, took the riskier political position, and did what he considered to be the right thing. He spoke up against a war that he believed was wrong. And he was right.
He is also right in his willingness to meet with countries long considered adversaries of the United States. Hillary is more traditional in this respect, more like McCain. But Barack has worked consistently to listen to others with whom he disagrees, and to find some meeting place. He is willing to at least try this with countries and leaders with whom Bush would not meet with the goal of preventing military conflict and promoting a peaceful, stable and nuclear free world. We know how things have turned out in the Bush administration, so Obama's very different approach seems worth considering. These two policy differences would be reason enough to choose him over Hillary Clinton, but there is more.
Obama's campaign has been brilliant, his staff top notch, his strategy nearly flawless. He runs a tight and harmonious ship, with a consistent message. This is good preparation for running an administration, and his managerial abilities here should reassure us that he can control a large operation. Hillary's campaign, on the other hand, has made major mistakes and been all over the map in its message.
Barack unites his campaign staff in much the same way he plans to unite the country. He presents a calm, even temperament, listens to everyone, and then makes the final decision. He sets a tone which he expects his staff to follow, and by and large they do. Barack has the kind of temperament we would want in a president. He is not ruffled easily and handles crises with dignity and aplomb.
His ability to unify the country also comes across in his manner of campaigning. Choosing to stay positive rather than go negative, even when Hillary's campaign went after him on the Jeremiah Wright and William Ayers issues, and used racial references to undercut his electability, he did not fight back on her terms. He used humor a few times and her supporters may have taken offense, but not once did he mirror Geraldine Ferraro - who said he would not be where he is except for his race - by saying Hillary would not be where she is because of her gender, or because of her husband. Nor did he mirror Hillary herself - who said she had the support of "working people, hard working white people," her campaign surrogates insisting Obama could not win the white vote - by saying Hillary could not win the black vote.
When Obama says he wants to unify the country, he starts by refusing to use negative smear tactics against his opponents and by sticking to the issues, even when he is being smeared by others. He will defend himself vigorously when attacked, and will use his opponent's record and words in that defense, but he does not bring up the typical Republican type peripheral issues.
What I find interesting is that, in spite of Obama's refusal to go negative against Hillary, many of her supporters have great animosity towards him, some saying they will vote for John McCain if he is the nominee. I find this incredible. Being a woman of the generation that is expressing such sentiment, I find this an irrational interpretation of the Obama campaign. The media may have displayed sexism, the media may have acted unfavorably towards Clinton, but for the most part Obama has not. (Yes, his comment in one of the debates that Hillary was "likable enough," was awkward and insensitive, but hardly sexist. It was wrong, but it was also quite unusual for Obama.)
I can only conclude that many Hillary supporters of my generation see her as a surrogate for all the hopes for full equality, and all the anger and desire for revenge they have carried around for years against husbands, bosses, and other men who treated them badly. Obama, the man, got in the way of the female champion they had been waiting for, and they cannot forgive him for it. Partly because of his inexperience and youth, and partly because of his race, they think he cannot win and therefore is denying Hillary her chance. I understand this, I simply do not agree with it.
My hope and belief is that Obama and his wife Michelle, a strong woman in her own right, will speak to these women, more importantly listen to them, address their issues and work to re-unite them with a Party they threaten to leave. I have confidence that this very gifted man will do that and I wait to hear his words and see his actions in this regard.
Barack's amazing speaking ability will help him win back some of Hillary's supporters, as it has helped him win over voters with many other groups, but speaking ability alone is not enough. Combined with his obvious intelligence, his managerial ability, his sincerity, his temperament and his dignity, it is indeed powerful and I will address it again at the end of this essay. But the most important aspect of the Obama candidacy, the one that convinced me more than anything that he is best candidate, is his message of change.
Now both Hillary and McCain have mocked this message. Hillary says she has been enacting change for years while Barack has only been speaking about it, an arguable charge, and McCain's campaign refers to his bringing "change you deserve," which means nothing. So it is important to examine some of the aspects of the change Barack is talking about.
Already, Barack has brought about change in the way campaigns are run. With his use of the internet to organize, gather support, and raise money, he has shown how campaigns can be different, how they can reject the money of lobbyists in favor of small contributions from citizens. His tactics, as well, have been revolutionary. Many candidates say they will run positive campaigns, but when they start to lose support, they go negative. This is what Hillary has done in her "kitchen sink" strategy and it is, no doubt, what McCain will do and is already beginning to do. But no matter what has been thrown at him, Barack remains, and has instructed his surrogates to remain, positive. Barack's campaign represents a triumph of hope over fear, truth over spin, and positive over negative.
Barack is also determined to change the electoral map and win with new states, different states than the party has relied on for decades. If Barack can make a dent in the South, or win many states in the West, it will not only change the map, it will change our entire view of ourselves as a nation. No longer will we be Democrat and Republican, blue and red, coastal states and fly-over states, but we will be, as Barack says, a "united states."
Barack's campaign also abides by the rules laid down by the Democratic Party. However flawed those rules may be, however much they may have disadvantaged one candidate and advantaged another, he played by the rules to the end. He did not demand the rules be changed, nor try to convince superdelegates to accept a new metric for who is the real leader after the primaries.
Barack intends to change how we do foreign policy after eight years of Bush. He plans to reach out to nations, including adversaries, in order to create understanding and work towards a more peaceful world. His supporters are under no illusions that this will always work, but with a Republican candidate who follows a Republican president, both of whom rely on the military for their main foreign policy, Barack's approach to use diplomacy first is a change worth making.
The most important change I see in a Barack Obama administration, however, is one in which the conflicts of the sixties are finally relegated to history. For the past four presidential elections, we have been re-fighting the battles of the sixties, from civil rights to women's rights to controversial wars, judging our candidates on where they stood during those times. A McCain vs. Hillary contest would continue that divide with two traditional Washington establishment figures. McCain, Vietnam war hero vs. Clinton, Vietnam war opponent. McCain, militaristic male vs. Hillary, feminist.
Obama represents a move away from the sixties, giving us the first opportunity to replace leaders from the baby boom generation with someone who did not participate in the drama of the sixties. Not only does Barack want to enact change by moving past the divisiveness of race, gender, and Vietnam, he embodies change just by who he is. Barack is a man of mixed race, embodying both black and white. He was raised in and out of the United States, and sees himself as a citizen of the United States, but also as a man of the world. He was raised by a white family, and adopted a black family, the family of Trinity United Church, in order to immerse himself in the culture he did not know and might not always agree with, but needed to understand.
Barack represents a profound change in generations, what John F. Kennedy once called the "passing of the torch," and after four consecutive presidential elections fighting the baby boomer issues of the sixties, he wants to lead the country beyond this cultural quagmire. It is time to end Karl Rove type tactics, swiftboating, militarism, racism and misogyny. It is time to once and for all end the bitter divide over a war that was neither won nor lost, but that cost 58,000 lives. It is time to unite men and women, black and white, and let go of the smoldering resentments of the past. It is time to get some things done in government, things that have been delayed for far too long because of the way we run presidential elections as manipulative and dishonest games that put someone in office because of their ability to divide the country just enough to satisfy their thirst for power.
To me, the only person who can actually begin to do that is Barack Obama.
Now, to a final issue that I hear raised against Obama supporters: their reaction to Obama's speeches, and why his oratory is actually a positive attribute that will serve us all well.
Hillary and McCain supporters will frequently accuse Obama supporters of "drinking the Kool-Aid." They see us as so mesmerized by his powerful speeches that we are incapable of analyzing what he says and does and making an intelligent judgment about not only his ability, but also his electability. They see no value in being a powerful speaker, in that many evil men, such as Hitler, Castro, and Stalin have been known for their oratory. To this I say there is a difference between forceful speech and inspirational speech. Hitler, Castro and Stalin were forceful speakers, propagandizing their followers and backing up their words with violent enforcement. Obama's oratory is completely different in that he asks people to help him make the changes the American people want, and he paints a hopeful, inspirational, yet realistic picture of what we the American people can do together.
The most essential thing that comes through in Obama's speeches is hope. In a country that has lost hope, this is a crucial thing. Obama as president will have a huge task ahead of him, not only to implement crucial programs like universal health care, but also to repair the economic, social and international damage that has been done to this nation during the presidency of George W. Bush. He will need the ability to persuade other nations to begin working again with us, and he will also need to inspire the people of this country to work with him, at times making sacrifices, in order to repair the damage that has been done. He can accomplish this only by getting people to listen to him, and to his hopeful vision of the future.
Obama's speaking skills are not insignificant. They move people not only to support him, but to come out and vote in record numbers, to work hard for worthy causes, and to believe in America again. Persuasion is part of the presidency, an important aspect of the "bully pulpit." Barack does something great presidents have always done. He speaks in a language of emotion, a language that touches the heart of his listeners. He speaks in a way that makes people want to listen. Obama uses his powers of persuasion brilliantly. We haven't heard an orator like Obama in a long time and, especially after George W. Bush's mangling of the language, it will be so refreshing to have a good speaker in the White House, not only to mobilize citizens to become involved in important work, but to present a sophisticated and positive message to the rest of the world. That message will be: America, the shining beacon of liberty and peace and goodness, is back.
We Obama supporters are under no illusions about how hard it will be to win this election. We know it will be an uphill battle for a young ideological man who must run against an older Washington insider whom the press loves. Furthermore, the country is ideologically divided, and Obama will be facing both overt and covert racism as the first viable African American candidate. Yet, we persist in believing not only that he has the skills to win, but that an Obama win would transform the country. The first African American president, the son of a black father and white mother, with one foot firmly anchored in each world, could finally psychologically unify a nation that has been racially divided – sometimes bitterly - since its birth.
As I write on the day before the final primaries, and anticipate that some time this week Obama will secure the nomination, I sincerely hope that Hillary Clinton will be gracious and will seek to bring her followers to a new understanding of what is at stake this election. I know how disappointing it must be for her as well as for all those who truly believed it was her moment.
To them I can only add this: sometimes things happen that we have no control over, and in hindsight we see that this is how it was meant to be. Hillary might have been the nominee, and the first woman president, had Barack not come along. But he did come along. Something in him, or in fate, or in the stars, or in the will of God – we will never know – determined that this was his time. He may not win, and that would be a disaster for all of us. But there is no way to be certain Hillary would have won either. All of those old accusations and scandals from the nineties could have been resurrected to turn people against her, and McCain could have demolished her in the general election. Clinton may be popular with some Democrats, but she is literally despised by many Republicans and Independents.
I believe Barack will win. I believe we will see him take the oath of office, his wife and children by his side, and as a result the nation will rise to a new level of greatness. An Obama victory will do something that has yet to be done in this nation, elevate a man of color, a man whose race was once deemed worthy only of slavery, to the highest office in the land. Should this happen, I look forward to hearing one of the greatest inaugural addresses ever to be delivered, and to seeing the soldiers in Iraq come home, and universal health care enacted within two years.
There is really only one person who can ensure that this doesn't happen, who can defeat Barack in November, and that is the woman who has opposed him in the primaries. Only Hillary can keep her hopes for 2012 alive by not working to reconcile her supporters to the candidacy of Barack Obama. For all of our sakes, for the good of our nation, I pray she does not do that.
All content © 2005 outragedcitizen.com
|
