I like that. In fact I like that a lot.
Here’s why.
His race takes race out of the equation. Seriously. If you doubt me consider what happened to Bill when he brought race up. It wasn’t pretty, unless of course you think Bill with socksmouth is pretty.
I like the idea of those who get by stirring up garbage having to be very careful about not only what they say, but how they say it. Even in code, code like in Huckabee singing to the choir, they have to be careful because if they venture into race it’s no longer about Obama or their topic at hand. When they bring up race it all of sudden becomes all about them and racism.
That’s a good thing. It’s a very good thing in fact. You see if it wasn’t for the Hillary haters I’d probably be for her. I know it isn’t fair to not support someone you would like to support because of their detractors. But that’s the way it is with Hillary and me.
I figure Obama’s blackness is a lot like grandma’s presence in the locker room. We have to act right. And that ain’t a bad thing, not a bad thing at all.
Well, he’s blacker than Hillary. ;-)
On a larger note, though, I’m thinking the Democrats are making their classic self-destructive mistakes all over again, turning Obama’s charisma against Hillary’s bench strength instead of in support of it.
The first time the liberal/progressive party has a truly formidable black and female dream candidacy and, of course, neither one can take this ride in the back of the bus, not the woman, not the black man, it just wouldn’t do.
Non-political logic would suggest, given the Cheney precedent of the strong VP, having the older Clinton lead the ticket while the less-experienced Obama played a strong second, troweling over her negatives with his charisma with the clear expectation of succession that would likely buck historical odds; the reverse would simply be an unacceptable loss of face for a woman who has already lived in the White House for eight years.
But Obama and his supporters are having none of it–the political Fates will not allow it, I suppose–dismissing Clinton and effectively lumping her in with Bush and McCain as fellow travelers wholly in the past, if not wholly in principle. Without an equally effective bench team to field, the Robert Rubins and such, all Obama has for the home stretch is his Children’s Crusade of hope. Perhaps he can recruit the post-campaign organizational talent he needs with such charisma alone.
But with the Republicans rapidly closing ranks around McCain, I think this ongoing competition may prove to be a more dangerous gamble for the Democrats than they realize, and, again this may indeed be more fated inevitability than gamble.
In an election year environment in which Homer Simpson would have a betting chance, they can still easily lose it all.
I was ambivalent for a while re: Obama vs. Clinton (and actually even vs Edwards and Richardson).
But look at the sort of campaign Clinton has run — why should we believe she’d do a better job running an administration? Oh yes, there is the “how to get things done in Washington” factor I suppose, but obviously Obama is a quick learner and he’s just run a better campaign. The management of money, the organization in the various states, the use of the internet, leveraging free press effectively …. it is too simplistic to credit his success to just his wonderful gifts as a public speaker.
I agree with Harvey — an African-American president would be a powerful symbol and opportunity to shake up the political modus vivendi (more like muddle-along-endi) on race.
Shake up–how? Right now, racially, Obama’s just another Non-Threatening Negro, the racial heir to Tiger Woods, in turn racial heir to Colin Powell. Twenty years ago, with Bernie Mac or Yaphet Kotto running as a JFK/RFK-cum-Jimmy Carter you might have had a racial modus vivendi-shaking phenomenon. Today an Hispanic will do just as well as an (racially/politically speaking, rapidly obsolescing) African-American, if not better, thank you, and, in point of fact, that has been the “racially” mv-shaking phenomenon of this campaign: broadcasting internal American politics in Spanish. In practical racial terms, though, racial accommodation will continue to occur by the only method it ever has: how you get along with your next door neighbor; what you think differently now about the guy who stops to help you with a flat, or the asshole who rear-ends you in traffic.
My point was not that Clinton has not episodically actively run a worse campaign than Obama’s largely uncriticized one; my point–which admittedly did not address Harvey’s racial point at all–was that with but a little foresight the Democrats could have forged an incredibly powerful offering of Experience plus Hope, cloaked in extremely powerful, broadly spanning identity-political incarnations. Now all they may end up with is Hope, a contest they at best can spin as the Fresh New Kid against the Decrepit, Tempermental Old Man Who Might Chase You Off His Lawn. But the Old Man is really not that much different from the Old Woman they’ve now spurned, and so all it will take now is just one U.S.-threatening incident for voters to decide The Kid won’t suffer by sitting out another eight years and putting on a little throw-weight, just until things get straightened out.
Robert, you’re making a common mistake conservatives seem to find impossible to avoid these days. You’re comparing apples and oranges, or more accurately, cats and cows.
Conservatives are herd animals. Liberals aren’t. I offer talk radio as evidence of the genetic difference between the two species. You’d have better luck herding cats than you’d have getting all the progressives in a chorus line.
Your “Obama isn’t black enough” position is b.s. Especially when you consider that less than fifty years ago one drop of black blood in your system was enough to label you too black to be anything but black.
Bill, I believe Obama as President issues a statement to the status quo in Washington like no other. It’s an in your face rejection of politics as we’ve known it.
The closest thing I can compare it to would be the election of Reagan. His election was a statement about how we’d rather have an phony playing a phony saying what we want to hear than a phony playing an authentic saying what we want to hear.
I don’t believe anyone who is capable of voting believes Obama as President is going to make the world all of a sudden become paradise. I do believe that those who are voting for Obama believe that his presence in the White House is a notice from the mortage holder that things had better change or else.
Harvey, I do agree with you on one or two points.
It also looks now as if you’ll be getting what you are wishing for, at least as far as the top of the Democratic ticket goes.
But “or else”–what? If and when Obama is elected, what else are you suggesting is there that will not already have been done?
Robert,
Seven years ago Dubya squeeked into office and assumed the position of having a mandate from the electorate. Congress bought into it and we got shafted coming and going. What enabled Dubya and his buds to get away with this was the myth that he represented what the majority of Americans really wanted.
Bear in mind the conservatives on the hill are no different from the liberals up there. The liberals sat on their hands and bit their tongues because they bought into the myth Dubya and buds sold so convincingly.
So if Obama blows McCain out of the water like it’s suspected might happen and the Senate falls into the hands of the liberals, again, as expected. Do you think for a minute the conservatives on the hill won’t act just like the liberals did when they felt their interests weren’t the interests of the electorate?
Do a little math for me. Add up a democratic landside on the hill and in the White House. What do you get?
I get change.
Let’s add a multiplier to make it interesting. Let’s mulitpy that change by Obama being the democrat elected President. I use the term multiplier because his being elected isn’t a statement from the electorate that they want change. It’s an earthshaking scream from down deep where it’s felt coming and going.
Obama carries the message of desire for change in the loudest form possible. Consider for a minute all the potential candidates for President from both parties. Think about what they offered the voters of this country. Then sit down with the message that all those capable people were passed over. They were rejected because the public wanted to send a message to Washington. The best way to send that message was to elect a young black man named Hussein President.
With the multiplier I see real change.
Well, Harvey, I must say your exhortation does indeed explain Obama’s meteoric and incandescent trajectory, but that was never my question, merely whether the investment in that alone was sufficiently wise for the Democrats to prevail in November.
In all honesty, though, it’s hard to see how any candidate could resist the intoxication of his own individual momentum in favor of a larger strategic perspective.
Such a fait accompli, once accompli, though, then precludes Hillary as Obama’s V.P.; having already spent eight years in the White House, she has no reason to accept living at Number One Observatory Circle. She can either try again in four years (in eight she will be, uncharitably, because she is a woman, too old) or reign until retirement as a Teddy Kennedy grey eminence.
But this also leaves Obama in the curious position of either choosing a different woman as his/the Democrats’ V.P.–Hillary was wrong for the ticket, but now this woman is right; and, so, who might that be? Jennifer Granholm, maybe?–or, if he doesn’t, of accepting the dubious role as the one who victoriously closed out the Democrats’ most likely chance to date of putting a female candidate in the White House.
So, pending some possible reversal next week, and assuming the press remains as dependably supine, legs akimbo, as it has been to date, who would you foresee as the best or most likely V.P. candidate for Obama to choose?
My hunch is that McCain would pick Huckabee to mollify the social conservatives, although if there is another likely Republican pairing let’s hear it.
So, to finalize his audacity of hope, Harvey, who would be Obama’s best pick as a running mate against a McCain-Huckabee, or the opposition ticket of your choosing?
That’s easy Robert. Hillary.
I see Hillary for a couple of reasons. The most important one of course is based upon the old addage about holding your friends close, and your enemies even closer.
Hillary as his running mate would help in the election itself and it would enable him to silence her and her allies in the immediate future.
Of course the reasons she shouldn’t accept a ride on the ticket are the same ones why he should have her there.
I suspect that after the Cheney/Dubya debacle no matter which party is in the White House there’s going to be an impetus to return to the traditional roles of President and Vice President.
I wouldn’t be so hard on the press if I was you. The very nature of the job requires inate romanticism and a love for the story. Most of them have never got to live historical moments before. Getting caught up in the moment isn’t a crime, it’s human nature.
A compelling reason for Hillary to accept the VP slot is simple: in 8 years (4 if things go chaotic, as they did for Bush I), despite her age/image, she becomes an “incumbent” nominee for president.
I have a boulder of salt here, should anyone need a bit… but I’ve also been “staff” in an election campaign (municipal city-council seat), and I feel confident in offering that as a solid speculation. ;-)
No idea who the Dem veep nominee will be, but did anybody else see the pictures of McCain and Lieberman together in Israel? I could see Lieberman taking another shot at veep.