It was sunny and cold in Springfield last Saturday when Senator Barack Obama officially announced his candidacy to become the next president of the United States. Watching the video of his speech online, I hoisted my beer at the screen and wished him well. The junior senator from Illinois is in for a bumpy ride over these coming weeks and months, if the press he's getting is any indication.
First came the interest -- "wow, who IS this guy?" -- that was sparked when he emerged onto the national stage at the Democratic convention in 2004. His speech at that event caught the attention of many, including yours truly, with its bracing rhetoric about overcoming the insidious polarization of the American electorate, about worshipping an "awesome God" in the blue states and not wanting the government snooping about in our libraries in the red states.
Then came the hype. I'm not usually one to make generalizations about the corrupting influence of "the media"; too often that's used as a cop-out to avoid talking about more substantive issues. But it was hard to miss the way that news outlets began using messianic, superhero language about the prospect of an Obama presidential candidacy. On the left, one got the impression that the reporters, producers, and pundits were trying to offer balanced coverage of "Obamania," while furtively clutching the keys to their hybrids like rosaries and breathing out strained little prayers: "Please...please..." (John Stewart, with characteristic astuteness, skewered the media deification of Sen. Obama on the January 29th installment of The Daily Show.) On the right, one had the sense that the O'Reillys and Scarboroughs and Cal Thomases of the world were gleefully making molds of Obama's feet and wetting down the clay.
And, most recently, we're witnessing the all-too predictable backlash. He's all charisma with no substance. He's "inarticulate," "incoherent," "bumbling," and "blubbering," as evidenced by a recent misstep in speaking about troops fighting overseas. Rev. Al doesn't like him. No candidate with a name like Barack Hussein Obama stands a snowball's chance in Mombasa of ever getting elected.
And on and on it goes. Speaking as someone who feels energized, excited, and inspired by Sen. Obama as with no previous presidential candidate, I'm determined to batten down the hatches and try to tune out the screeching din on the airwaves that promises to only increase in volume and intensity as the Democratic primaries draw ever nearer. I'd rather spend the intervening months listening to what the man actually says and watching what the man actually does than paying attention to all the media histrionics about what he's saying and doing.
I would, however, like to offer a counter to the main arguments that I've heard against voting for Sen. Obama. I do so because I'm troubled by the number of intelligent, informed, engaged, not-racist, not-cynical, not-apathetic Democrats that have voiced them to me. I don't believe that my feeble efforts will change any minds. Nor am I dismissing the validity of some of these arguments, some of which are quite sound. But since this is my little sollipsistic corner of the interweb, here are my thoughts about them.
He's too young. Because of his youthful looks, many people are surprised to find out that Sen. Obama is 45 years old. Laying aside for the moment the fact that John F. Kennedy was younger than that when he was sworn in, by what standard is 45 "too young"? In the business world, that's an age when junior executives become senior management. In the athletic world, by the time you're 45 you're either preparing for your graceful retirement or you're totally washed up, unless your sport happens to be cribbage. According to the U.S. Constitution, you can be ten years younger than that and still be eligible to become president. Perhaps we should consider passing a constitutional amendment that adds grey hair and neck wattles to the eligibility criteria for executive office.
He's too inexperienced. Okay, fair point. It would be great if instead of decade as a state senator, and later a U.S. senator, Obama had some executive leadership experience under his belt. Voters do seem to be more comfortable electing governors over legislators when it comes to picking presidents. But seriously, would another nine or 15 years of additional time clocked in Congress really bolster his chances of being elected president? If greater experience was a necessary condition for electability, why the hell did half (okay, a little less than half) the country vote for George W. Bush over Al Gore in 2000? John Kerry has experience out the wazoo. I'm not kidding, look at the man's face! That hangdog expression? That haunted, world-weary frustration in the eyes? That's all experience, baby. Yet when he ran, even more people voted for the other guy. Experience is fantastic, folks. But let's not get all carried away with ourselves about it.
He doesn't have a clear plan for Iraq. This is a concern I've heard voiced, not surprisingly, by Sen. Obama's primary rivals, including the ever-articulate Sen. Joseph Biden. Actually, Obama does have a plan for dealing with the increasingly horrific situation in Iraq, and if it seems to lack the sort of clarity or definition that we would all like to see, then show me a plan that does. The Iraqi crisis is ugly, thorny, and complicated. Disappointment over presidential candidates' Iraq exit strategies -- or, for that matter, that of the Iraq Study Group -- reveals an obstinacy in the face of this complexity. Any solution worth the paper it's printed on is by necessity going to be complex. Beware simple answers: just look at where clear, concise strategies like "stay the course" and "troop surge" have gotten us.
He's too black, or "America isn't ready to elect an African-American president." I hear this a lot from folks, including most African-Americans that I've spoken to about this, and I have to confess, I'm not really sure what it means. America wasn't "ready" to elect a Catholic president either, back in 1960. America wasn't "ready" for the desegregation of public schools or the armed forces. America wasn't "ready" for women's suffrage. I'd venture to guess that there are pockets of America that still aren't "ready" for the Emancipation Proclamation. Racism will always be a sad and painful part of what America is, but that doesn't mean that we should just throw up our hands and wait for some ambiguously defined "America" to come around. America will only be "ready" for a black president (or a female one, or a Jewish one) when America elects one.
He's not black enough. Not being African-American myself, I'm not particularly well qualified to address this, but it strikes me as a pretty thin argument. When I read stuff like Debra Dickerson's Salon column about how Obama hasn't had the "black experience," it makes me wonder just what experience we're talking about. Are we truly so limited in our perspective to restrict our definition of the "black experience" to that of people "descended from West African slaves," as Ms. Dickerson suggests? Are third-generation descendants of East African immigrants not truly black Americans? Are the only real "black" people in our country the descendants of southern sharecroppers who traveled northward during the Great Migration? I'm not black, but I recoil from such racial purity tests. For a more informed rebuttal of such arguments, read Marjorie Valbrun's great piece in today's Post.
Here's why I'm planning to vote for Barack Obama: he's intelligent, energetic, and inspiring, not to mention electrifyingly charismatic. He speaks with the gravity of a person who has thought long and hard about where he stands (his recent gaffe about U.S. troops notwithstanding). Whether he's discussing American foreign policy or the domestic economy, his positions are lucid and logical. He's not ashamed to talk about his religious convictions, yet also doesn't give the impression that he's using them to pander to any particular crowd. He established an impressive track record as a state legislator, working on some of the toughest issues that face U.S. cities. He speaks emphatically and movingly about healing and reconciliation, about reaching across political and religious and social divides to reveal an America that is stronger, better, more hopeful, more united.
Least important, but significant nonetheless, is the fact that he's the only presidential candidate to whom I can in any way relate personally. He's neither a self-made millionaire, nor an old money Skull and Bones alumnus, nor the scion of a political dynasty. His heritage is of particular interest to me: Sen. Obama was born in Hawaii to an Anglo-American mother and an East African father and lived in Indonesia; I was born in Austria to an Anglo-American father and a Mexican mother and I also lived in Indonesia. When he was in his twenties, Obama helped connect low-income urban residents to job opportunities, which resembles what I did in my twenties as well.
The parallels are only superficial, of course, and end there. Obama excelled in school, graduating magna from Harvard, where he had been the first black president of the Harvard Law Review. I was an indifferent student who graduated with a middling GPA from a state school. But still, I like the notion of being able to vote for someone whose background and life experiences enable him to strike a chord with all types of people: rich, poor, urban, suburban, liberal, conservative, native-born, foreign-born, black, brown, white . . . even a mutt like me.
A lot can and will happen between now and spring of next year. Obama could stumble on another John Kerry-like line about the military that ends up totally alienating him from 'Red State' voters. He could be completely outspent by the well-financed Clinton or Edwards machines well before people even start going to the polls. Campaign oppo types could unearth some skeleton from his past. He could do a photo op in a tank. But for now I'm planning to vote for him because, as Brian McLaren said about his candidacy in a recent blog post, "I feel more hopeful and inspired than I have in a long time."
Great great post! Thanks for going to the trouble to include all the links.
Posted by: mikel | February 16, 2007 at 11:39 PM
Hey, these are all great reasons. And those intelligent, informed, unapathetic democrats you speak about? They use, "He's too young" as an excuse?
I'm still holding out for Mario Cuomo. He's been my choice for sixteen years. I'm still waiting. Still waiting.
Posted by: dogfaceboy | February 21, 2007 at 06:59 AM
I'm one of those voters who would rather see Obama wait to run until he had much more experience.
But you make a key point about the fact that he is *electable* now -- due in no small part to the amount of media attention he continues to receive -- and there's no guarantee that the same would be the case if he worked for another ten or twenty years before running.
I don't vote for candidates because they thrill me. I have yet to encounter a candidate who CAN thrill me, so if I waited for that, I'd never vote!
Posted by: Megan | February 21, 2007 at 12:48 PM
@ Mikel - ::waves:: Good to hear from you! Thanks for stopping by.
@ dfb - I hear you. I had high hopes for Cuomo in '92, but I'm afraid his time may have come and gone.
@ Megan - I hear you too. As I get older, I find that while my expectations get lower, my hopes get higher. Looking at the field of candidates, Hillary Rodham Clinton speaks to my low expectations. Barack Obama speaks to my high hopes.
Posted by: Kev | March 11, 2007 at 01:20 PM
Well my reasons for opposing Obama are not the standard ones you cite. I oppose him because I think we need real change. Obama is quintessentially an establishment politician. He likes to sound like he's different, much as George Bush did in 2000 (who succeeded in getting my vote with things like calling for a more humble foreign policy, and I don't intend to be suckered like that again), but actually he's very mainstream.
I'm consistent life ethic. Obama, like the other "first tier" Democratic Presidential candidates, is consistent death ethic - he's for the war system (you have to look beyond positions on one particular war), abortion (even to the point it's arguably infanticide), and the death penalty (he admits it's ineffective, but nevertheless says we need it for "vengeance").
He may be more exciting than other establishment politicians, but he stands for the wrong things just like the rest of them do. We need someone with a real vision for change.
And if I have to again write in Joe Schriner - http://www.voteforjoe.com/ , I'll do so. He may not have a chance to be elected, but he stands for something good. IMHO, I'm throwing away my vote if I vote for one of the major party candidates who stands for the wrong things.
Posted by: Bill Samuel | March 16, 2007 at 10:19 PM
Bill, thanks for reading, and for your comment. Ironically, the fact that Obama is an 'establishment politician' is one of the things I like about him. His articulated positions on the various issues you mention are actually pretty close to my own.
Posted by: Kevin | March 27, 2007 at 04:45 PM
How about the fact the Barack Obama supports the use of violence against those that legally cannot defend themselves?
The aquisition of tax money is done via the threat of violence against a citizen. Protecting your own property is against the law. Thusly, the collection of tax money is done by using the force of arms.
I'm against violence.
Posted by: somasoul | June 17, 2007 at 02:46 PM
great post - you've clearly outlined why Obama is the best candidate out there...get the word out...Obama for President!
Posted by: singlewhite | January 16, 2008 at 03:30 AM
(speechless @ great arguments)
Posted by: The Press | January 28, 2008 at 07:28 PM
Barack H. Obama
Strange time we live in that a man who proclaims hope should move a nation with a single word. Even stranger times that a man who voted in support of partial birth abortion, murder of a living being, proclaims hope to get a vote and denies the voice of the most innocent among us.
God help this nation.
Posted by: Ben Glatzel | February 26, 2008 at 11:22 PM
A cheap and useful tool to get Barack some undecided Men and women just days before the PA primary.
On April 19th and 20th a local Catholic church and school conducts a fishing derby. This fishing derby gets numerous fisherman and women out on a creek for 2 days of fishing.
You may ask how would this help advertise for Barack. Well here is how when you sponsor a fish for 10.00 or more. You get to name that fish whatever you wish. Some examples of fish we already got sponsored are For Change Vote Obama and Barack Obama in 08. Them are just examples you can use whatever name you wish.
The derby works like this every fish sponsored has a tag on it. It is then released into a creek where numerous fisherman and women spend 2 days trying to catch these tagged fish. Once the fish is caught it is turned in and the person to catch it if there not already aware of the fish name will learn it upon turning the fish in. Which would put Barack name in front of there eyes when there not around a TV or radio to hear ads the campaign is running.
So lets make the Casey endorsement work for Barack by helping this Catholic church and school. Lets get these last minute undecided voters that we lost in Texas and Ohio days before the election.
To sponsor a fish in Barack or to learn more about this event visit http://www.stleosfishingderby.com If you decide to sponsor a fish for 10.00 or more click on the sponsor or pledge a fish on the left hand side. It then will take you to a new page where you can either pay through paypal online or print and mail the sponsor sheet back to them.
If paying through paypal look for the name your fish box on the confirmation page you should see this on the page were you would submit your purchase if you were buying something online through paypal.
When you sponsor a fish please posthere and let me know!
Thanks for reading were working to deliver PA to Barack and I hope you will please sponsor a fish in Barack’s name to help our efforts on the ground.
Posted by: Maggy | April 05, 2008 at 01:09 AM
I am there 100% for Barack Obama, he is a vision for change. He believe that our nation hasa hope people! how much do you want? He has some exiciting ideas about the war system, it's not pathetic, he makes a great point.We as citizens of america need to analyze before we just assume thing. VOTE FOR BARACK OBAMA FOR PRESIDENT.
Posted by: nashaw | August 11, 2008 at 08:37 AM