I promise I didn’t rig our informal poll, but I won’t pretend that I didn’t like the results. I would have guessed ahead of time that most of the votes would go to Democrats, and most of those would go to Barack Obama, but the margins in both cases were larger than I had anticipated.
The most amazing thing is that Obama actually has a chance of winning this thing. While Hillary Clinton still has a substantial lead in meaningless national polls, Obama is leading in Iowa among likely caucus-goers, 35% to 29%; he is surging ahead in New Hampshire; tied in South Carolina; and could sweep all four early early contests.
There’s still a lot of time (although Iowa is only three weeks away), many chickens remain unhatched, etc. — standard disclaimers apply. And there is that little thing called the general election (where Obama is handily ahead of the Republican field). Still: there is a realistic chance that Barack Obama could be our next President.
But I don’t think that possibility has quite sunk into the national consciousness just yet. In particular, I think there is a moment yet to come when America sits up and says: “Holy crap, we could have a black person as the President of the United States!” For better or for worse — some people will be exhilarated, some will be appalled, some will be scared, some will cry tears of joy. Many pundits will say stupid things, many nasty smears will characterize the campaign. But regardless, it’s hard to exaggerate how extraordinary such an event would be — twenty years ago, a small percentage of political observers would have suggested there was a realistic possibility for an African-American to be elected President by 2050, much less 2008. The history of blacks in the U.S., with the legacy of slavery and the ubiquity of racism and the persistence of poverty, is almost too sprawling and complicated and emotional for any person to really grasp. It would not be hyperbole to describe the election of an African-American President as one of the most significant events in the history of the country.
There are plenty of valid criticisms to make about Obama, he’s certainly not perfect. It would be nice to have a real mandate for universal health care, for example. And, as historic as it would be, the fact that he is black is by itself not a very good reason to support him — having the first black President be a disaster could set the cause of racial justice back many decades. But even if he were a more typical Democratic presidential nominee — you know, a bumbling white Northeastern male who doesn’t use contractions — he would still be a great choice for President. He combines unusual clarity of vision with impressive legislative chops. The major Democratic candidates are not really that different in terms of policy platforms, so the question rightly becomes one of attitude and judgment — who do you want in charge the next time some completely unanticipated event affects the country? I don’t think I’ve ever been so happy to support a candidate.
Who knows? Obama’s campaign could suddenly go up in flames. Or he could get elected President and be terrible; these things are hard to predict. But if he does get elected, the magnitude of the event and what it means for America is difficult to overstate. We’ll have to see what happens.
Say, you folks (we really need a 2nd person plural in English!) will be interested in the following link about Hillary Clinton and religion (“HILLARY CLINTON HEAVY INTO RIGHTWING RELIGIOUS POWER CULT” ultimately sourced from Mother Jones, not a rightie rag.) The subsequent one is also interesting about election politics and candidates including Obama:
http://prorev.com/2007/12/hillary-clinton-heavy-into-rightwing.html
http://prorev.com/2007/03/myth-and-audacity-of-reality.htm
Overall, a very decent candidate, but his attitudes to NASA are disturbing, I hope they shift around. I don’t think Bush’s Mars plan is the greatest plan in the world, but manned colonization needs to be done eventually, so why not now? There was a huge loss when Bush cancelled the focus on JIMO, and if this happens with every presidential change there will never be any long-term major accomplishments.
To he who said Manned exploration isn’t science, it might not be. It’s actually engineering. It’s also good PR.
Overall though, his judgment is pretty good, and he’d help restore America’s image.
Meng – please go and research his various troubling statements yourself, I just did not want to put words in his mouth and I am very careful about that sort of thing. His statement was very clear and it was part of the little documentary channel 9 news was running on the religion being a startling point of focus this election, with all candidates doing some bizarre preaching. He obviously does not understand the separation of church and state, and that is more dangerous to science than it is to personal freedoms (because everybody in our individualist society defends their freedoms fervently, while science is left to the whims of legislation).
The people saying here that candidates “have to” show their religious belonging in the name of practicality (’cause they won’t be electe otherwise) are missing an important point: your candidate is either lying or really is a nutjob. When some rumor about him being a muslim “plant” who is “planted” to take over the US surfaced on the internet, he was quick as hell to give a speech about his church and his pastor, and how his heart belonged to Jesus. He didn’t bother – as a true president of the free world’s beacon would – to mention that nobody should be asking about his faith to begin with, because we live in a free country where church and state don’t mix. He never bothered to mention that stupid, racist comments about muslims being naturally inclined to “take over” the country were insulting to the millions of mulisms living, studying, and doing science in America. It was all about jesus.
Both the voters and the candidate need to understand that the candidate’s faith does not have any authority whatsoever over anybody else in this country, or the country will come to ruins. This is America, not the friggin Taleban. I will not accept a liar or an idiot as my president. The world, and science, have suffered enough.
@Adam: I am completely aware that Obama has redeeming qualities besides being Black and looking good for diversity. I’m also aware, as you are, that plenty of people are letting the diversity card cloud their judgement wrt who is the best person for the job, getting stuck on the fantasticness of the symbolism. This, I have a tremendous problem with. It’s tokenization at its worst! This is like saying we should all be glad Condoleeza Rice is Secretary of State because she’s a Black woman in a position of power. To her I say, thanks but no thanks. Give me the old white guy who isn’t bff with Bush, and he has her job.
As for evaluating who cares more about the people at the bottom, I have no idea. But I think Edwards has better plans. And I think he is more honest about where he stands as a man with money in relation to confronting poverty. This is clearly a subjective evaluation and without an infusion of data that I was unaware of or that you were unaware of, we are unlikely to change each other’s minds on this point.
I will add, though, that Edwards has been a lot more honest about how money that was spent on these outrageous wars should have stayed home and supported Americans who needed it. You can call it name-calling or whatever, but Edwards is right — the Democrats currently in office have done an absolutely pathetic job defending civil liberties, the veterans (yeah! let’s send them to war and cut their benefits!!! good going, ), and blue-collar workers.
Btw, I am totally with everyone who thinks we should dump all of this manned missions to mars and the moon stuff, so to whomever worried that s/he was alone in that sentiment, you’re not! I also really hope that if Obama is the next president, he works out his incredibly foolish idea that cutting the science budget will actually help education. Someone needs to bring him up to speed on the tragic state of science education in the US.
@Chanda :
My reaction comes primarily because I’m sick of reading in comments across the web that if Obama weren’t black, he wouldn’t be a big deal. You obviously didn’t say that, and you’re right, that sort of tokenization does devalue the debate. While it would be very cool to have a woman or a black person as President, the first concern is whether or not the person is a good candidate. For me, Obama is who I want to see as president, all the way. For you, not so much. That’s cool. Maybe I should stop reading the comments in CNNs ticker – I’d probably have a much cooler head if I did so.
For the nasa thing… While the space program was one of the hooks that got me interested in science as a kid, if we can manage to have schools that don’t suck, I could probably live with a decrease in the space program. That being said, I would much prefer the money being recovered from the war machine.
I find it very interesting that, just in the last week or so, I have seen a very sudden upsurge in (relatively) serious political debate across a large variety of venues – my work, friends, very diverse online communities etc. I am very, very pleased that much of this debate (including that I see here) is, largely, focused on issues rather than the tedious “inside baseball” meta-commentary that passes for election coverage in most of the media, including most online sources.
While there is some snarkiness afoot in this thread and the other discussions, and unsupported statements and allegations concerning various candidates, there aren’t a bunch of flamey, trollericious ad hominem attacks on other posters. One could actually read and learn things if one wished to do so.
I find this very encouraging. People are really thinking about who to vote for this time.
I am as far from a sequestered anything as can be imagined, btw. I come from a serious progressive organizing background: friends of my family were murdered by the Klan in the 70s for their political activities. I have a cushy hi tech job now but have worked everything from construction to bartending.
I won’t vote based on symbolism. I love the idea of an african-american or woman president, but only if they’re the best possible candidate.
Ahmed, why should I put the effort into finding your poorly described statement when it was you who was trying to make the point? I can’t just take your word that he said something bad if I can’t evaluate it myself and given the vagueness of your description of the quote, it would be nearly impossible for me to find it among the multitudes of statements made by the candidates.
Now, on the Muslim issue, I agree that that shouldn’t be an issue, but in all seriousness, it is. There has been an active rumor campaign that purports that Obama is a Muslim, which he is not. Personally, I would not mind if he were a Muslim, because I don’t believe that that should be a criterion for the Presidency, nor do I believe that race or gender should be criteria. However, that does not mean that the American people as a whole do not treat it as a criterion, because while separation of church and state is inscribed in American law, there is no prohibition of individuals using it as criteria.
Given the nature of elections, it is important to respond to false statements as forcefully as possible to silence rumors. That is all Obama was doing.
If, in your penultimate sentence, the “he” were changed to a “she” ( I’m thinking Hillary), what effect does that have on the “magnitude” of the event?
If only it weren’t that particular female, riding that particular legacy into power.
Anyway, forget Obama’s skin color for a minute. Look at his background and the effect it would have on how the world sees the U.S. power structure. Obama’s father is Kenyan. He spent his childhood in multi-ethnic Hawaii, and spent his pre-teen years in Jakarta, Indonesia. IIRC, his grandmother still lives in a small village in Kenya. Electing Obama is the strongest possible message we could send that we’re no longer an insular, cowboy superpower… that we actually understand there’s a wider world out there, that we have to get along with.
I’ll vote for Hillary if that’s the way it goes, but this isn’t just about electing a black man. It’s about electing someone who actually knows something about life outside the U.S. borders. He can probably even correctly say the word “nuclear.”
folded path says : “ït’s about electing someone who actually knows something about life outside the US borders.”
Child’s play!
And isn’t he the guy who wanted to invade Pakistan. Um, pre-Musharraf coup! Maybe now it’d be a good idea 🙂
some more good readons to slow down : http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2007/12/14/barack-obamas-apologies-for-punjab-gate-but-blamed-his-staff-homophobia-gate-wasted-lives-gate-but-hes-refused-to-apologize-for-other-gates/#more-1158
Judith
Pingback: Snow, Go Away! (15 December 2007) « blueollie
Who cares about his positions on religion and NASA funding? Will he support impeachment of Bush and Cheney for presiding over horrible things like this? No? Then vote for someone who will, because the gravity of the situation demands it.
Why should we have to guess regarding the Democratic candidates’ views on religion? Why aren’t these candidates asked direct questions regarding religion, the bible, evolution, etc.? I understand that they are likely to give us answers that are politically expedient (as do the Repubicans, of course) but at least we would hear what each candidate would like us hear.
@Ijon:
I voted for Kucinich in the last primary, and I wish I could vote for him again. But it happens to be that a vote for Kucinich is actually a vote against a candidate, John Edwards, who is struggling to win but might have a fighting chance if people make the effort to go out and vote for him. I’d rather try to help someone who isn’t a total disaster has a fighting chance and needs the help than send a symbolic message in the ballot box. On the other hand, there isn’t a rule that says I have to donate to only one candidate 🙂
Generally speaking though, I think you’re right. Cheney and Bush deserve not just impeachment but also jail time for what they’ve done. It’s unfortunate that the chances of the next president taking them to task for it are pretty much nil because I think an example should be set: abuse your power, kill lots of people, and it will be punished.
But they haven’t even thrown Alberto Gonzales in jail yet! Sigh.
Sean,
I’m a Republican, so naturally I view Obama as a total loon politically.
Putting politics aside, however, I still have — as a black man myself — a bit of a problem with Obama. Admittedly it’s somewhat irrational. And it’s not Obama’s fault. But my problem is that he is half white.
It would be most unfortunate from my vantage point for the first “black” President of the United States to be 50% white. It would seem to reinforce racist theories of black inferiority that argue that individual black achievement is proportional to the fraction white blood possessed. [And a cursory scan of history makes this theory harder to dismiss than you might at first expect.]
Having a light-skinned black man like Colin Powell as Secretary of State didn’t make much of an impression on me emotionally. But (I am embarrassed to reveal) I actually tear up, when I dwell on the current reality of the dark-skinned Condoleeza Rice holding that office.
These feeling probably won’t make sense to anyone who didn’t grow up black. My point, though, is that while whites view Obama as black, many of us blacks don’t see him that way. To us, he is at least as white as he is black. His election would not, therefore, be as emotionally satisfying as it would be to the typical white liberal. And to a certain extent it would be a kick in the teeth.
–Belizean
[P.S. Please refrain from the obvious joke that you, too, tear up at the thought of Condi as Secretary of State.]
Obama plans to cut NASA funding in favor of education, meaning this blog is going to have less to talk about.
OK, so long as we’re still allowed to dry retch every time we remember Henry Kissinger.
“Holy crap, we could have a black person as the President of the United States!” For better or for worse — some people will be exhilarated, some will be appalled, some will be scared, some will cry tears of joy. Many pundits will say stupid things, many nasty smears will characterize the campaign. But regardless, it’s hard to exaggerate how extraordinary such an event would be–
If nothing else, electing Barack Obama would be seen by the rest of the world as a huge shift in the attitude and quality of people of the United States. With just one such election, the rest of the world would perceive a US willing to admit its faults, redirect its focus, recommit itself to human rights, draw down its military presence, and so forth– simply because we had the temerity to elect an African American.
Neil B.,
We have one:
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/y%27all
It doesn’t surprise me at all that Obama is leading by such a large margin in this poll of almost all Democrats, who are mostly male. That’s what nationwide polls are saying, Clinton’s lead is due to her support from female voters.
NoJoy – OK, sure, I mean it (or something) should be “accepted” English, whatever that means (Yankee-style academic recognition I guess.) Hey, how can anyone associated with the South go by “NoJoy”? – just teasing…
Nicole – ” …this poll of almost all Democrats, who are mostly male.” Huh?
Um… No, it wouldn’t . We would, I believe, breathe a huge sigh of relief. And then go back to waiting to see who gets fucked next.
To show us you’re willing to admit your faults, redirect focus, recommit, etc, etc, your next President will have to DO something. Your current government has spent the last of our political goodwill.
(Irish, by the way).
Almighty Bob, just wanted to say thanks for keeping it real and reminding everyone that more than symbolism is required to convince people that America isn’t out to screw them 😉 Hell, I think a lot of Americans need more than that to be convinced America isn’t out to screw them …
“We’re all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.” — Oscar Wilde
That list of candidates was selected by the corporate plutocracy, the same gangsters who profit from the endless state of warfare and who finance the individual campaigns. If you want to know who the real terrorists are, look at the campaign donor lists.
The fact that unnamed candidates can command a quarter of the vote testifies to the illegitimacy of the candidate list in a democracy and gives the lie to the idea that Kucinich is unelectable. If Kucinich or Paul were allowed just half the tv coverage that other corporate they’d be leading the polls. Their ideas are truly more in the mainstream than any of the right winger lists, but the voters don’t know it. Of course iff an elected candidate does not toe the line, he’ll be killed, the same as Carnahan and Wellstone. It’s a question of survivability, not electability.
IF you accept the corporate proffered candidates as comprising a legitimate election, then you are propping up a Potemkin democracy; you’re playing the role of those whom Joseph Stalin called useful idiots.
——————–
“If nothing else, electing Barack Obama would be seen by the rest of the world as a huge shift in the attitude and quality of people of the United States.” -spyder
Nuh, uh, spyder. Only impeachment can begin to restore the U,S, to a respected role in world affairs. After supporting both sides of the Iran-Iraq war for a decade during which millions were killed, then inflicting the hundreds of thousands of deaths of which Madeline Albright was so sanguine, and finally killing another 1.2 million and destroying the infrastructure and the institutions of a society – only impeachment and a total repudiation of the Republican Party will make any impression at all on a disgusted and angry world.
Impeachment is also essential for restoring decency in the U.S. Impeachment and the subsequent trial make a story that cannot be ignored or spun by corporate media, It’s essential that the story of how Americans were deceived and emotionally manipulated into acquiescing monstrous crimes must be discussed daily on television for a long time in order educate Americans and to inform the world that there are decent people in the U.S. still.
Impeach. Convict. Punish.
Thanks, Chanda.
In relation to your first point, Diocletian; are you familiar with the work of a Mr. Bill Hicks?
On your second point: ‘only’ nothing will convince us of your good faith. Impeaching Bush and Cheney would be a start. Repealing all of the laws passed gathering power to the President would be a start. Rebuilding New Orleans or otherwise taking care of the refugees would be a start. Ratifying the Kyoto Protocol would be a start. Reining in the CIA would be a start. Getting your troops home would be a start. Opening the records of the rendition flights and the secret torture bases would be a start. Closing Guantanamo would be a start.
There are more important and more urgent things on that list than impeaching the previous administration. Impeaching the current administration would be good, as it’s about the only thing on that list Congress can actually do at the moment, but once Bush and the rest are out of office there’s a lot more needs doing faster.