January 28, 2008
Why victory in South Carolina is bad news for Obama
I realise that is hard to argue that a big victory in the South Carolina primary was bad news for Barack Obama. But once you examine the details of the vote, that’s the way it looks to me.
From the very beginning, the Obama campaign has been at pains not to play the race card. The idea is that he is a candidate who is black, not a black candidate. But in South Carolina, the Democratic electorate split clearly on racial lines. As Ed Luce points out in today’s Financial Times - "Only one in four whites who voted opted for Mr Obama, against eight out of 10 blacks." A racially polarised electorate can sweep Obama to victory in South Carolina. It would mean certain defeat on national level.
It is open to debate whether the Clinton campaign has deliberately injected race into the campaign, as some Obama supporters allege. But Bill Clinton’s comparison of Obama to Jesse Jackson in the wake of the South Carolina primary was certainly none too subtle. The irony is that Obama has actually striven to be very different from Jackson, who won several primaries in 1988. He has even been rebuked by Jackson for neglecting black and civil-rights issues.
A friend of mine met Jackson in Chicago recently and asked him if he had been surprised by the turn the campaign had taken. His reply was - "Not at all. This is the Clintons you are dealing with."
Certainly it’s true that Obama has striven to appear as a centrist “post-racial” candidate, one that can appeal to white voters as well as black. Partly this is down to his background - his CV doesn’t have the civil rights element that, say, Jesse Jackson’s did, and his career has consequently not been been part of, or coloured by, the narrative of African-American emancipation. He has been a lawyer and an academic, and this sort of background appeals to white voters more than one in black churches or civil rights. So hauling in such an overwhelming proportion of the black vote in South Carolina may give some white voters pause.
But what was the alternative? After New Hampshire and Nevada it would have been disastrous for Obama had he not won the South Carolina primary. And to win it, he, like Clinton, needed the black vote, the key constituency for Democrats in SC.
The other point to consider is that yes, the Clintons are playing dirty, and that could affect Obama’s campaign. But he’ll get much worse from the Republicans if he wins the nomination, so it would be wise for him to learn how to outmanoeuvre such smear tactics now, otherwise they’ll be more damaging in the summer. Cast your mind back to how effectively John Kerry was swift-boated in 2004, and how reluctant his campaign team were to hit back, for fear of getting embroiled in negative campaigning. That diffidence was the difference between winning and losing. Clinton claims she can hit back against dirty tricks such as this. Can Obama?
Posted by: Alex Miller | January 28th, 2008 at 12:40 pm | Report this commentSorry, how is this man “black” if he has a black father and a white mother? Surely he is strictly speaking half of both.
And if he is described nonetheless as “black”, he could equally be described as “white”.
Posted by: Red | January 28th, 2008 at 12:41 pm | Report this commentwhile Obama only got 25% of the white vote, Edwards, I think, got 39% and Clinton got 35%.
so Obama’s number is actually pretty good especially since Edwards won the state in 2004.
Posted by: smitty | January 28th, 2008 at 2:19 pm | Report this commentYou miss two key points from SC:
1. South Carolina is in the south. The south is still very racially divided - especially among older voters. So, you will see more racial divisions among voters. Remember that Obama won Iowa where 95% of the population is white. It is important not to extrapolate racial divides in the South to the entire US.
2. Obama won half of the young white vote. Obama’s dominance in the under 40 age group in each of the key early states is the real story of this primary - not race. Obama appeals broadly to a younger generation that is tired of the 60s era politics that have so polarized US politics. This generation also rejects the kind of analysis that you are putting on SC since we don’t identify ourselves by race, creed, etc - we identify ourselves more by ideals and ideas. And Obama’s appeal to this next generation of Americans is undeniable.
Posted by: Dave | January 28th, 2008 at 2:32 pm | Report this commentAgree and have shared this concern that Obama was being dragged into a race debate that he had escaped largely until he worked as an activist of sorts in Chicago. Columbia University’s Morningside Heights is far from the Harlem at the base of its hill.
Only a few weeks ago, polls consistently showed the Clintons drawing upon the black vote. Bill, particularly, can connect with the Southern black community as no other politician can.
Nonetheless, I am inclined today to think that the Clinton’s may have been just a bit too clever. They may likely pay. South Carolina’s demographics do not reflect the nation, this is sure. A younger national demographic will unlikely be indifferent to Bill’s reference to Jesse Jackson, a dinosaur in the eyes of most under 40.
Obama needs to seize some high ground, and it might just be in Africa, where, as one poster has noted in another thread on Davos, millions are dead and dying while the world sips wines.
Posted by: WCM | January 28th, 2008 at 2:37 pm | Report this commentWhile GR’s analysis could be borne out as events unfold, I believe the dynamics that Dave has highlighted are more significant. As Dave mentions, Iowa proved Obama can win the white vote too.
It’s also interesting to note the turnout in South Carolina - Obama’s tally exceeded the entire number of votes cast in 2004’s SC Democratic primary. This ability to draw more (presumably younger) people into the political process could prove decisive, both with the primaries and - if he secures the Democratic nomination - in the presidential campaign itself.
Posted by: DKM | January 28th, 2008 at 3:35 pm | Report this commentLooking again at your headline again, the Clinton team is no doubt seizing upon your sense of conclusion on this point. If Obama doesn’t move back into the centre of the field again–and quickly, you may well be right. He needs to continue to expose the Clinton machine, which now clearly shows two heads.
Edwards: did he make a deal with Hillary? Will it make a difference? My guess is that many edwards’ voters will move to Clinton unless they are well reminded why they didn’t stand in that line to begin with.
Obama conducts himself well, but he now must return to building some substantive points and to bring forth some solid “institutional” profiles to stand at his side. They are there.
Posted by: WCM | January 28th, 2008 at 3:54 pm | Report this commentthe logic of your article is flawed:i have been doing good business with white folks in my store for years(i.e. wins and near wins in white vanilla Iowa, new hampshire, illinois, etc.), suddenly on saturday a whole bunch of black and young white folks buy come in and buy from my store; so all of a sudden my product is tainted?
Posted by: getreal | January 28th, 2008 at 4:46 pm | Report this commentIt’s late in the working day and I’m tired but GR’s statistics somehow don’t gibe. There were three candidates: Obama, Clinton and Edwards. If the white vote were divided equally 1 out of 3 white voters would have choses Obama. Instead 1 out of 4 chose him. The percentages are 33 and 25 respectively. Whilst this is disappointing for him, it certainly is not a sweeping defeat and does not condemn him in future as having no chance with white voters and forfeiting them to the Clintons (at least I hope not), although the latter most assuredly did play the race card and will do so again.
Posted by: Mary Cunningham | January 28th, 2008 at 5:40 pm | Report this commentAn hour ago, I turned on my hotel television, which went straight to CNN International (CNN is not among the channels I watch at home). Ted Kennedy was taking the podium at the American University in Washington. The next 20 minutes or so reminded me of why the US was and can be great.
Brilliant, inspired rhetoric. Barack Obama, after a rough start with a bit too much gratitude, found his stride and brought the message into the 21st century. Brilliant and inspiring.
The Clintons will be a bit stumped to top this act. Edwards may just have been awakened that most of his messages were in these speeches, and are unlikely to turn up in Hillary planks.
The Kennedys made history today, and Mr Obama took the torch. The moment took me by surprise and put my cynicism for contemporary US politics to check.
As I noted was necessary above, Obama found his high ground.
Posted by: WCM | January 28th, 2008 at 7:17 pm | Report this commentIf Hugo Chávez won in Venezuela and Evo Morales won in Bolivia….Barak Obama can win in America.
Really all of them are mestizos or mulattoes even if with a different political and economic program.
Chavez and Morales reached millions of people who never mattered to vote and Obama is doing the same.
Posted by: Enrique | January 28th, 2008 at 7:47 pm | Report this commentWCM,
I couldn’t agree more!
People just won’t stop trying to make this campaign about race. So S. Carolina has a lot of black voters and they voted for Obama. What about Iowa and New Hampshire (he only lost by three points). Also, 50% of white voters in South Carolina under 30 voted for Obama!
The old generation’s cynicism is struggling to keep on keepin’ on, and it just ain’t workin’ Gideon!
The media in America has not painted S. Carolina as a victory buttressed by race. Why are you trying to do so when Americans clearly believe this campaign is not about race!? I understand you are trying to make a strategic assessment of the ramifications of a SC victory on Super Tuesday, but you have egregiously misread the mood and motivation of the younger generation (my generation)! We are hype and you just can’t take that away from us!
Yes WCM, the torch has been passed, and we are the beneficiaries!
Posted by: barmakid | January 28th, 2008 at 7:56 pm | Report this commentEnrique–I’m outraged that one would see a comparison between Obama and Chavez or Morales. Comparisons here seem far from relevant, but, of more concern, seem rooted in skin colour.
I’m on the other side of the ocean, but I think Bill And Hillary Clinton have played a foul and cynical game in framing this debate on colour. Obama, so far as I can see from a distance, has not just maintained his dignity, but demonstrated a 21st century take on the concept of dignity.
As this thread is an all-too-predictable one, I expect to read next indictments of Mr Obama and Mr Kennedy for the absence of any reference to Israel as a sacred interest of the US in their speeches today.
Mr Obama’s candidacy seems to helping us deal with the wide array tired demons in established political discourse.
Posted by: WCM | January 28th, 2008 at 7:57 pm | Report this commentI think Enrique intended his comments to be positive, not negative.
Obama, Amigo, El Pueblo esta con tigo!
Posted by: barmakid | January 28th, 2008 at 8:09 pm | Report this commentHis comments were clearly intended to be in support of Mr Obama, but for the wrong reasons and for reasons that 1) are easy for two many to grasp, and 2) aligned with Bill and Hillary Clinton’s skillful rhetoric aimed to box Obama into a tired and failed context.
It is time to discuss Mr Obama’s economic and foreign affairs ideas. Today certainly sqared him with the grand civic traditions of the US republic. It also set the talking points for the post-Hillary race. Still, there is work to be done and there are lessons to be learned. Colour is not one of them.
Posted by: WCM | January 28th, 2008 at 8:35 pm | Report this commentagreed
Posted by: barmakid | January 28th, 2008 at 8:38 pm | Report this commentHmm, i see that before me ALL were talking about color and first of all the American media saying “this got 25% of the white vote and that 34%”, or Rachman saying “8 out of 10 blacks voted for Obama”…precisely i am saying that´s not a question of color because he is color blind like Chavez and Morales.
Posted by: Enrique Costas Mira | January 28th, 2008 at 9:42 pm | Report this commentI am writing from California, as a US citizen who also holds a British passport (because I was born and spent much of my life in the UK), and I find this article sad, in that it disparages the huge victory Barack Obama achieved on Saturday, without resorting to the depressingly familiar negative campaigning of the Clintons (and I believe that Bill Clinton’s presidency was one of the most positive and successful in recent American history).
Obama offers, as both Ted and Caroline Kennedy have said in the past 24 hours, a chance for a fresh start in America, a new optimism and a break with the divisive policies of the past - not to mention the disastrous, war-mongering presidency of Bush, Cheney et al.
Obama has shown great intelligence, dignity, compassion, courage and inclusiveness, and I believe that he has the strength of character required to face whatever challenges a new presidency may bring: a more critical consideration than specific policies, in my opinion.
Besides that, on a factual note, I believe that the most optimistic polls predicted an 18% white vote for Obama in South Carolina, so 25% is a considerable victory. And his numbers among young white voters are high and growing every day. But hopefully this election will be decided on character, intelligence and ability, and not whether Obama is black, white or any combination of the two.
Posted by: Alexander Chow-Stuart | January 28th, 2008 at 10:23 pm | Report this commentEnrique–No offence intended. I suspect you must be Latin American, and my point is tied to the US’ exceptional and regretable history with colour. Politically, I can still not see the names Chavez and Morales on the same line as Obama. Obama is not a populist and it is the novelty of his skin colour that enables his opponents to cast him as such.
The past two weeks’ noise from the US had led me to write the US political process off as history, but then the Kennedy rally for Mr Obama reintroduced many of the country’s best attributes. The American University speeches by both the candidate and his still powerful supporters will likely raise the quality of the debate and perhaps inspire a new generation to take their place in the nation’s destiny.
Permit me to add that Obama shares little in common with our Sarkozy, whose campaign book evolved from conference rooms where the Clintons’ notes were being cut and pasted.
Posted by: WCM | January 28th, 2008 at 10:23 pm | Report this commentAlexander Chow-Stuart’s post captures the reasoning and sentiment of a large part of the US’ educated and 21st-century voters. One doesn’t need to be reciting the lyrics to Arcade Fire’s Neon Bible (”Windowsill” caught my ear, though) to find something genuinely refreshing and positive behind the Obama campaign. Yes. There are issues to be addressed and many more awaiting thoughtful responses. But this is one helluva start.
A warning can be discerned from two sets of liberal American friends: women and Jews. The first have found a gender champion in Hillary (whom for me fails to merit a doorstop in the Pantheon of great and noble women–and I sort of like her). The second group–absent any true Bush supporters or Neocons–fear that Obama will go soft on Israel’s agenda. It trust they are right and that Obama will strike a more balanced approach for the region. For both of these groups, Obama’s middle name is not a source of comfort. Women are the support base for the massively overreaching security agenda.
Posted by: WCM | January 28th, 2008 at 10:40 pm | Report this commentI greatly appreciate WCM’s response to my comment, and can only hope that women across America not only embrace Obama, but also realize that the threats that face us (the economy, education, healthcare, the environment, to name a few) are so much more than terrorism - although the Bush Administration has rattled that saber relentlessly since 9/11.
I would not for a moment diminish the reality of the problems we face with violent extremism of all kinds, but regarding Israel, for instance, while I would not wish us to abandon our support for the country at such a critical time, a far more balanced approach to the region as a whole could only help our security position in the world.
This is one of the reasons that I think Obama would be a truly great American president: he will present a face of America to the world that will, I believe (and I speak as a former European), pretty much astonish them, and thus he is capable of undoing so many of the wrongs that we have committed in the past seven years.
No one would be happier than I to see a woman president, either (although I suffered through Margaret Thatcher’s horrific dismantling of much of what was good about Britain; tempered, I must confess, by a certain energy she brought to a country that in the 1970s was deeply depressing), but I believe that Barack Obama would - and hopefully will - usher in a whole new era in American and world politics.
And on a lesser note, if Hillary wins, just imagine how the Republicans are going to revisit their hatred of the Clintons that so beleaguered Bill’s tenure. That’s part of the break with the past that I believe Obama offers.
Posted by: Alexander Chow-Stuart | January 28th, 2008 at 11:05 pm | Report this commentI hope the young voters are prepared for the ultimate cost of electing an inexperienced 1-term Senator to POTUS; this cost will be inflicted as The Obamasiah attempts to put his lovely words in action against the enemies that exist in the real world. Somehow, I can’t see “Change” stopping a nuke going off in a major US City. I’m sure any of the (D) candidates will meet with Al-Quaeda’s approval, as well as that of Hugo Chavez and Ahmadinutjobbi.
Posted by: DMO | January 28th, 2008 at 11:08 pm | Report this commentAlexander–My comments on Israel target the current wave of Israeli exceptionalism that drives policy there and amongst her allies. Israel’s place in this world is well-defined and established in international law. All can do better in resolving the lamentable situation that dominates political discourse around the world. Israel, particularly, needs to assume its role as a regional citizen and evolve from its State of Victims mindset. The US needs to rethink the co-dependency that its failed policies have fostered with Israel and the Gulf oil states. Mindsets must change, and Obama may be offering that.
The comments by the poster above are exactly as I had expected would arrive.
Posted by: WCM | January 28th, 2008 at 11:39 pm | Report this commentWCM, I fully agree with your sentiments regarding Israel, its State of Victims mindset (I was thinking of that on Martin Luther King Day when I heard an account of an African-American slave’s sale and purchase - and thought that buying and selling human life during slavery was just as horrific a crime as the Holocaust), and our codependent relationship.
As for the comments of the poster sandwiched between us, those who fear a nuke going off in one of our cities should reflect upon the fact that each of us is far likelier to die crossing the street, or from our generally appalling diet, than such an eventuality. I don’t mean to suggest that we don’t have enemies, but some of them we have earned (and Obama may do something to reverse that), and we need to address the threat they pose without making it the guiding light - or shadow - of our lives.
I lived in London through the IRA bombing campaign of the 1970s and 1980s, and saw a bridge blown up by ETA in San Sebastian, Spain, but none of that created in me the sense of hysteria and fear that Bush has tried to engender - and that, thank god, seems to be abating somewhat now.
Posted by: Alexander Chow-Stuart | January 29th, 2008 at 12:19 am | Report this commentWake up Democrats you’re playing into exactly what the Republicans want. They are hoping for a Barack Obama win so they don’t have to go up against Hillary. The media, including CNN, MSNBC and FOXNews are all helping them get what they want. The media has created this huge controversy over race – not Barack, Hillary, Bill or their campaigns! The male dominated media seems to also be afraid of a Hillary win. The thought of a women in power is bringing out the worse in the media – they are making up the news instead of reporting what is really going on. Women and Men who truly want a change, get out and vote for Hillary – don’t let the media and the republicans control this one!
Posted by: Joe Texas | January 29th, 2008 at 3:02 am | Report this commentHillary for President
Indicted political fundraiser Antoin “Tony” Rezko leaves Chicago’s federal building in this Oct. 19, 2006, file photo. Rezko, who has poured thousands of dollars into Barack Obama’s political campaigns, was arrested by federal agents Monday, Jan. 28, 2008, after his $2 million bail was revoked. Rezko has pleaded not guilty to charges of fraud, attempted extortion and money laundering, and is scheduled to stand trial Feb. 25.
I have enormously enjoyed following the discussion on this comments page. Posters “WCM and Alexander Chow-Stuart” are quite astute and neatly sum up the situation.
Posted by: MMK | January 29th, 2008 at 3:15 am | Report this commentIs the Media ready to take an objective look at Mr Obama?
We recall that a year ago, Mr Jacob Weisberg, Slate’s editor, wrote categorically in this paper that a Mormon should be virtually disqualified, as Mormonism was not a historically or critically tested faith. I am not a supporter of Mr Romney, but I have observed from this distance that the Media has held him suspect.
Likewise, the Media seems to have embraced the Obama phenomenon so far as it has been amusing (sells papers), but now appears caught off their guard. He represents more free thinkers than the financially “enfranchised” lot of talking heads trained by the media’s own agency network (Burston Marstellar, Sawyer Miller, et al).
Fear is not unfounded, and Obama needs to answer tough questions about the Reznick (sp?) case in Chicago. Yet, let us not forget Hillary’s dubious professionalism when she was a Little Rock lawyer, and since for some questionable corporate interests.
In this thread, tough questions are due of Obama on his father’s native Kenya and how he what he sees in its future. Tough questions are due of him on contradictions in his comments on the Middle East. Tough questions are due of him on his view/knowledge of Europe, China, Russia and Latin America.
Begin with Cuba, where John McCain is striding alongside the same Miami right-wing CAF bandits that Bill Clinton embraced in the Florida primaries of 2002. The latter reversed a policy plank (which he had long supported) of the Democratic party in order to win a decisive poll. Where does Hillary stand on Cuba?
Az many have observed, Mr Rachman seems to have written a piece here that was “on message”. Between his clever phrases, one can sense bewilderment and a determination to bring his readers back on page. Obama and Kennedy went back to an old page and made it relevant again. So, we may just have a pivotal debate in this world if Mssrs Rachman, Weisberg, Joan Walsh and others whom I respect are seen scratching their heads over the next few weeks.
Posted by: WCM | January 29th, 2008 at 8:23 am | Report this commentGood points, but don’t forget that when you look at only white males, Obama finished only 1 or 2 percentage points behind Hillary. That’s a fairly good showing in a state like SC.
Posted by: Jonathan | January 29th, 2008 at 2:14 pm | Report this commentAs a veteran of the current Writers Strike in Hollywood, let me just say that posts such as the one beginning, “Wake up Democrats you’re playing into exactly what the Republicans want,” have the precise tone - and deliberately clumsy grammar - of the work of Chris Lehane of Fabiani and Lehane, the high-profile PR firm working for Hillary’s campaign, which was briefly and unsuccessfully hired by the Association of Motion Picture and Television Producers, the Bad Guys (as far as we are concerned) in the writers dispute (ie the studios, networks and conglomerates).
Fabiani and Lehane would post on the various blogs relating to the strike, posing as disgruntled writers or below-the-line workers (film crew, carpenters, etc), and this posting here, arguing that the Republicans want “a Barack Obama win so they don’t have to go up against Hillary,” has the same kind of counterintuitive logic that F&L love to use.
I think the Republicans would be more scared by a nation fired up with enthusiasm for a truly fresh, transformative (to use the word Barack himself used of Reagan) candidate, than by Hillary Clinton, for whom I’m sure they would be happy to resurrect the ghosts of Whitewater, Monica Lewinsky and so much more.
Posted by: Alexander Chow-Stuart | January 29th, 2008 at 3:30 pm | Report this commentA quick glance today at a few of the chattering-class sites and little has been found on the Kennedy’s American University rally for Obama. Cuban-American Federation support for a near-peer of Castro (McCain) is well covered, if NOT well discussed.
Perhaps Christopher Hitchens’ targeting of the Clintons is one of the strategies that the PR firm you mention. If he is against them, then surely self-respecting, educated Democrats must be on the other side. When I found a column by hil today, I paused, as it is rare our viewpoints have much in common.
Posted by: WCM | January 29th, 2008 at 4:15 pm | Report this commentA few moments ago, the Clinton couple announced their much ballyhooed “endorsement”: Congresswoman Maxine Waters. Sorry, but I’ve tracked US political affairs for awhile and will need to Wikipedia this woman’s name to refresh my memory. I know she is black and I recall that she was a fierce defender of Bill Clinton during his Monica crisis.
So, how can one not read this as less than a move to cheapen Obama? It plays again on race, and their hype through press emails today insults one of the Senate’s grandees.
This same online journal, which is not short on articles during the past 24 hours, saw fit to advise readers of the Clinton pre-announcement hype during the afternoon and then quickly provide details 30 minutes ahead of schedule. They did not see fit to report yesterday’s rally, apart from a weekend article anticipating it.
My taxi driver in this foreign city where I am visiting and speak the local language just asked me if I had heard about Kennedy’s support for Obama. It is big news here; I doubt Hillary’s friend will be. But people here do not vote; we only live with the consequences of the media-fed, label-bound voters there do (certainly they think too little).
My sense is that the US politic will grow sadly uglier in the weeks and months ahead. Who is backing this game? Why?
Posted by: WCM | January 29th, 2008 at 7:11 pm | Report this commentI’m intrigued as to which foreign city WCM is in. But more to the point, it is interesting that in today’s admittedly fairly meaningless Florida Democratic Primary (meaningless because the Democratic Party stripped Florida of its delegates as punishment for moving the primary up without permission from the party), Obama won almost 30% of the vote, at the time of writing, compared to Hillary’s 48% and Edwards’ 14%.
This in a state where the Democratic candidates didn’t campaign.
Now maybe Hillary could have won more votes if she and Bill had campaigned in Florida - but equally, especially after Saturday’s South Carolina triumph, Obama might have significantly closed the gap, had he traveled through the state. I have not seen him live, but every friend I have who has says that he is totally on point, charismatic and compelling, that he talks without notes and is a truly commanding presence.
Let’s see what next week’s Super Tuesday brings.
Posted by: Alexander Chow-Stuart | January 30th, 2008 at 7:22 am | Report this commentAlexander CS,
Thanks for pointing out the plant, although anyone who has had experience with the Clintons can generally spot them. “Iron My Shirt” was one, and so blatent! But, frankly, to find them closer to home all I have to do is take a look at one of the Murdoch papers. I can see Clinton-plants a plenty.
For example: here is the link to the Times UK edition (they wouldn’t try such rot with US readers)
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/
The (smallish headline) is of McCain’s Fla win. Next to it the page is dominated by a picture of–you guessed it!–(soon-to-be)Queen Hillary herself with the unbelievable footer:
“Hillary hails Florida primary landslide as Barack Obama cries spin”
Now you know and I know and Am voters know there *was* no Dem primary and no Dem campaigning in FLA, but this did not deter the Clintons–they created a virtual primary, with a virtual win, and Queen Hill (I hope not)actually declared victory!
Bizarre,eh? Cynical.
Typical, I’m afraid. The Clintons are such fantasists. (But we knew that.)
Posted by: MaryCunningham | January 30th, 2008 at 9:20 am | Report this commentPS Just noticed that above paper has redesigned its online front page– its main picture now aligns with the major story of McCain’s victory in the FLA primary that was, not Mrs Clinton’s photo featuring her ‘victory’ in the primary that was not.
In the words of my American niece the Clintons are a real piece of work, but maybe Murdoch’s news matches them?
Posted by: MC | January 30th, 2008 at 10:38 am | Report this commentWith a good deal of justification, Obama and McCain are seen as standing for the politics of decency. A contest between them would resound to America’s benefit, regardless who wins (and my vote would go to Obama - I admire McCain’s courage on immigration, campaign finance and torture, but Iraq is not the right place for American troops to be stuck in for the next hundred years).
As for race, isn’t it curious that the media had no problem at all with Colin Powell’s color when he was helping Bush fraudulently sell the Iraq war, nor do they have any problem with Condoleezza Rice’s color even though she has arguably been one of the least effective Secretaries of State in modern history? Nor, despite his own recent book emphasizing his origins, has race been mentioned very often in discussing Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’ record of reactionary opinions attempting to undo most of the progress toward social and economic justice that America has made in the past hundred years.
I also seem to remember that when the black lunatic-fringe social reactionary, Alan Keyes ran for president in 2000, his views got wide support from the same southern whites who are most often indentified wirh anti-black bigotry. (Keyes also reluctantly ran against Obama for the senate, and was buried under an avalanche of Obama votes).
Two questions, therefore, arise. First, is not a lot of the fuss about Obama’s race contrived in order to undermine him for his adherence to liberal political views? Would the media even notice that he is black (and, for the benefit of our friends in Europe, the US public has never generally recognized concepts such as “mulatto”, “mestizo” or “half-white”) if he were just one one reactionary fear mongering, immigrant bashing Republican in the Romney-Giuliani-Huckabee mold?
Second, in discussing race in this campaign, are the media not ignoring the even more serious racial divide in America, that between English-speaking whites and brown-skinned Spanish-speaking Latinos, who are the now the primary targets of white supremacist, anti-immigrant groups?
Posted by: algazi | January 30th, 2008 at 11:26 am | Report this commentSince it is early in the morning here in the US, I have to correct two typos in the above comments: First, I meant to write “identified”, not “indentified”. Second, I meant to write “one more fear mongering, immigrant bashing Republican”, not “one one”. My apologies.
Posted by: algazi | January 30th, 2008 at 11:35 am | Report this commentBarack Obama is brilliant. But i do not believe that the US voting population is ready for a black president as yet. Let’s face it, the US is still a polarised society, and at the end of the day people will cast their vote in alignment with their comfort zone. This is the stark reality.
Posted by: Jai | January 31st, 2008 at 3:55 pm | Report this commentThe political challenge of Barack Obama’s blackness certainly cannot be discounted. As noted before, to many blacks, he was not black enough until the Clinton’s forced him into that corner. Bill–and thus Hillary–had been far more representative and sympathetic to the US’ black community than Obama.
Watching Giuliani’s “concession” remarks, one has to recognise the success of a Republican strategy. Giuliani immediately endorsed McCain, ahead of gratitude to supporters and family. As McCain stepped up to join their hips together, one should have realised that this will be the Republican ticket.
The Clintons have so abused the Democratic party machine that when Hillary does win the nomination, the students/youth and could-have-been-inspireds will step aside and back behind their wi-fi “windowsills”–to paraphrase Arcade Fire’s song title. The subsequent morality play will leave them in the dust with the ageing-stubborn-but-free-thinking McCain and his tireless and good-down-deep mayor of New York–all the things the Republicans generally aren’t–striding to victory.
This scenario puts a smile on AIPAC faces, as a McCain-Clinton contest will put foreign policy and the Middle East, in particular, off to the side. These two teams are largely in full agreement. The contest will be about moral character and a fight to win women’s votes on security or just tired feminism.
Someone asked me a while ago who would be the best of these two. My response is McCain, only because the Clinton’s will render a Disney-scripted comedy of errors when the world will need seasoned and sober adults in Washington. McCain and Giuliani are hawks, but I think Hillary is the one more prone to go for the trigger. She is a dominatrice, not a goddess.
If I could vote, I would hope to have the chance to vote for Obama. I fear the Powers have decided he is simply not old enough. I disagree on the basis of the quality of the team behind him.
As the US exports its economic troubles and injects its population with anti-depressants and valium to keep them shopping, I will trust that those who’ve bankrolled this folly for too long (Saudi Arabia, China, et al) will realise the risks going forward.
Posted by: WCM | January 31st, 2008 at 5:34 pm | Report this commentPerhaps the gap between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama is not so wide. Perhaps the grand powers behind the Democratic party are able to shape a winning strategy from the irritating digging of the past few weeks. Or perhaps the Clintons now have Obama where they want him and they see how they can use him (or need him).
I would suggest there is truth in each of these angles after reading earlier of yesterday’s debates between the two remaining Democratic candidates.
Could it be Clinton-Obama v McCain-Giuliani?
If so, I’m prepared to change the November outlook I suggested yesterday. Nonetheless, if I was Barack Obama, I would not be sleeping well at the prospect of eight nasty years as a subordinate in the Clinton house.
Posted by: WCM | February 1st, 2008 at 11:14 am | Report this commentRe: my (now appears) flippant suggestion that the November race could be Mccain-Giuliani v Clinton-Obama, I suddenly had a flash this evening that these scenarios are nonsense. Surely, McCain at Rudy’s side when he gave his “concession” speech raised the possibility that these two guys were in serious dialogue with each other. Also, when Barack nearly seemed to want to nibble on Aunt Hillary’s ear at the end of the debate, one could sense that he had not spoken in earnest with Al Gore.
Giuliani’s NY baggage didn’t fly with voters and McCain would not take the risk. Romney certainly would offer no more than Edwards did to Kerry. So it will have to be someone not in the game at present. Colin Powell. He could take black votes away from Hillary. If this race is about blacks and Hispanics, which I’m not so sure it is, then Condi might be a good response to an Obama ticket. (When are the respective conventions?) This latter scenario would suggest a return to low-profile Veep. Either would.
For the Dems, Hillary (a woman) and Obama (a black even if he can say otherwise) together will put the party on the margins. I failed to think of these two demographic factors, but in the US they matter. Sadly.
An article I read suggested that the Clintons are closing in on Bill Richardson. The point was that they needed his popularity to win NM, as he is Hispanic and strong in that community nationwide. This prompted me to think of the need to offset black support with the Hispanics, who are quite racist about the former. Thus, Richardson is said to be keeping his options open (except for the one of running for President).
Well, let’s see how super Super Tuesday is. Obama is still my choice and he won’t need Richardson, who would then give the Dems again two minority boxes without covering the centre.
Who would be Obama’s ideal Number Two?
I just read Clive Crook, with whom I agree that the voters are in for a winner, not a good picture.
Posted by: WCM | February 3rd, 2008 at 10:39 pm | Report this commentHi WCM,
This is an interesting article aguing that McCain is the NeoCon’s favourite, post Giuliani and Thompson:
http://www.ips.org/blog/jimlobe/?p=102
Giuliani was the War Now candidate with the likes of Norman Podhoretz and Daniel Pipes singing “bomb bomb bomb” in his ear. McCain does the singing himself:-
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/McCain_unplugged_Bomb_bomb_bomb_bomb_0419.html
Of course, this is only talking about the Rebublian side. Mrs. Clinton is clearly a willing tool of the NeoCons in the Middle East, already. I also reckon Obama’s inexperience with foreign policy will mean that his administration’s foreign policy will be hijacked by AIPAC and JINSA, in no time at all.
This is why I say, Plague on All their Houses!
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | February 4th, 2008 at 3:18 pm | Report this commentMcCain will take Huckabee to keep the evangelicals sweet and the south solid. Because of proportional representation who knows what will happen to the Dems? Their heart says Obama and their head says the Clintons, and the Dems do a lot better when they are inspired by their heart.
A lot better, brings out the young, with their enthusiasm,good looks and energy. (I really don’t think the Dems have recovered from JFK.) Dems always play well to a “it’s the next generation coming” theme, even if their most steadfast supporters are well past the last one!
Posted by: MaryCunningham | February 4th, 2008 at 4:38 pm | Report this commentMcCain will definitely not take Huckabee — who is a ridiculous joke.
I have viewed some YouTubes with McCain and he won me over — over and over again. He is warm, principled, articulate, intelligent and not lacking of a sense of humour. He is the most deserving candidate for decades.
A. principled, intelligent and articulate:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZjtFNktPLA
B. warm and not lacking of a sense of humour:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2zx3-0zOPs
Posted by: RCS | February 4th, 2008 at 6:04 pm | Report this commentCome on RCS Dude, this clip is the one you really like about McCain:-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-zoPgv_nYg
Posted by: Pacifist | February 4th, 2008 at 6:15 pm | Report this commentOK, not as articulate as glossy Romney, but thereby lies the difference: Romney is a sleek opportunist; McCain is, well — true to himself. True to himself and true to his beliefs.
Posted by: RCS | February 4th, 2008 at 6:17 pm | Report this commentYeah dude, I like it very much. He has got humour and a nice bass too!
Posted by: RCS | February 4th, 2008 at 6:20 pm | Report this commentOh well, RCS, you don’t know, do you?
I hear it’s a done deal. Huckabee is still in it in order to block Romney…Anyway McCain wants to win–it’s his last chance–so sure, he’ll team up with Huck.. McCain needs to keep the south and the evangies sweet and he won’t do it by running with Lieberman, that’s for sure.
Posted by: MaryCunningham | February 4th, 2008 at 9:05 pm | Report this commentWell, Huck, if that’s what it takes to get elected, then so abee it!
Posted by: RCS | February 4th, 2008 at 9:51 pm | Report this commentGood grief! ‘Pun my word RCS, you do have your moments.
Posted by: MaryCunningham | February 5th, 2008 at 9:42 am | Report this commentMary–At first glance, I am inclined to dismiss the thought of Huckabee joining McCain. Then again, you are on that side and plugging into the buzz, and it is America. So, it will not surprise me if you are proved right.
There are some issues for McCain in this choice, depending on who wins the Democratic race. If it si Hillary, then is Huckabee not one of the Arkansas hucksters that Hillary included in her ranting about right-wing conspiracies stirring up the past of her financial dealings and Bill’s “love child”? If so, then the campaign will devolve into something depressing and render America poorly served by its poltical process.
If it is Obama, then Huckabee is still a risk, but a less ugly one (if that is possible). The campaign would then certainly turn on race, and the US citizens again will be ill served.
The other day, I suggested Colin Powell, but as with each name, I now see the two-old-soldiers ticket as a no win. Condoleeza Rice, while dangerously overrated in my experience, is popular in the US, yes? Conventional politics would be turned on their side.
I fear I doubt that, however, as I expect Hispanics, women and Jews to turn out heavily in the next hours for Hillary. Then it is only Huckabee who can be used to dig up old polaroids of Bill and dubious credit applications of Hillary.
I’ll look forward to your readings in 48 hours.
Posted by: WCM | February 5th, 2008 at 10:00 am | Report this commentAs expected above, Hillary pulled California and New York on three key consituencies. Women appear to have been the deciding factor in Massachussetts. In the latter, one must also realise that Kennedy politics are very much of the past. This is the state where Romney has governed, along with a roster of other non-Kennedy-calibre politicos.
Who did Hillary lose in the past few weeks?
Blacks, who were slow to move to Obama (thinking he was not really in line with theri interests, but more those of Harvard Yard and Michigan Avenue, which I trust is more than partly true).
Labour and middle-class males. Hillary offers nothing on the economy.
She kept women, Jews and Hispanics. For the first tow, key factors are 1) security and 2) the Clinton Legacy (they got much of what they wanted from Bill, but then how does one explain Monica or the mess that gets AYC and RCS stirred up each day?)
I suggest the focus should now be on Hispanics, who one the face of it get more support from Obama’s soft immigration speak.
As the Elian fiasco demonstrated in 2000, Hispanics find solidarity on Cuba. It is worth revisiting how Bill Clinton jumped a Cuba policy he helped write to pledge unconditional support to Miami’s neo-fascist Cuban American Foundation in the 1992 Florida primary just as George H.W. Bush was taking heat on his plan to end the Embargo. (Where would Castro be today? In Naples, Florida perhaps?)
Cuba is arguably a more complex problem for the US today. Guantanamo and Chavez- and European-backed economic rejuventation in parallel with US subprime mortgage evictions in Florida have taken the lustre off of Citibank Visa cards for many Cubans.
It seems appropriate to explore in detail what Mrs Clinton’s role and think-tank support played in the Clinton Administration’s policies on Cuba. Contemporary and subsequent reports suggest a major one.
Looking more broadly at Mrs Clinton’s foreign policy approach is a journalistic challenge left untouched. It is my understanding that she–together with her boy wonder James Carville–favoured PR agencies–McCann Erickson, Burston-Marstellar, and Sawyer-Miller–over academics. Now that she appears ready to be the challenger against McCain, who favours smelling his own armpits to agencies, is it not time to dig into how these people think on the key issues that this column covers? (I would suggest beginning with Africa, Cuba and Latin America in order not to have the debate spiral quickly out of control on the ME, on which both of their platforms are fully committed to Israel’s interests above all.)
The race is not over, but Obama needs to tone up his message and stop running as the fresh-start outsider against Hillary’s insider.
Posted by: WCM | February 6th, 2008 at 9:44 am | Report this commentHats off to Mitt Romney, for doing the right thing.
Posted by: RCS corrected | February 7th, 2008 at 8:33 pm | Report this commentWell Gideon it sure looks like you’re on the wrong side of the planet today; the CPAC conference is the epicenter!
Romney’s concession speech is very well written
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/video/2008/02/07/VI2008020701738.html?hpid=topnews
McCain’s speech equally well crafted
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/07/AR2008020702674.html?hpid=topnews
Romney practically endorses McCain, if Huckabee throws in the towel shortly as well as can be expected the GOP can spend a lifetime rallying support behind McCain while the democrats might defeat themselves in petty squalor. The worst possible news for Obama won’t be him winning SC but him receiving the endorsement of fringe people such as Sen. Kennedy and fringe groups such as moveon.org and receiving the nomination of his party. If the democrats were as forward looking as the republicans turned out to be today he would throw in the towel as well; with friends such as Kennedy and moveon, Obama needs no enemies.
McCain can win the presidency without the benefit of Karl Rove’s vision, can unite the GOP under a much more mainstream support base than what got Bush Jr. elected. That’s good news to anyone who wants a strong but not aberrant USA. What a special day it was.
Posted by: felix drost, amsterdam | February 8th, 2008 at 1:36 am | Report this commentThere are important chances of Obama to be the next President of the U.S. Sincerely…but of course, not without Hillary Clinton that should be his Vice President.
Of course, if the alternative is between Obama and McCain alone, i am sure Obama doesn´t have any chance to win. But with Hillary as Vice President Obama can win.
Really Obama doesn´t represent the Afro-American tradition which comes from the common past of Slavery.
Obama by himself is closer to the slave-owners than to the slaves, first because he is half White American and second because he is half African (not afroAmerican) desdendant from those who didn´t face slavery (perhaps even descendant from those who sold slaves centuries ago to the Arabs…) and sharing the story of conventional immigration.
The one who really represent the Afro-American tratidion is his wife, Michelle Robinson.
So Obama can win as he represents, as happens with most LatinAmericans: the slave-owner and the slave, the immigrant and the women (with Hillary´s help), the youth and the men…
Most Latinamericans are as complex as Obama, or more, because they add the Native American (Aztec, Maya, Inca…) tradition.
Posted by: Enrique Costas Mira | February 8th, 2008 at 9:53 am | Report this commentRachman, you got this one all wrong. Obama’s sweeping the nation and SC is just one state that was a part of this very, very positive movement! OBAMA ‘08, baby!
Posted by: Crystal | February 10th, 2008 at 12:42 pm | Report this commentPleased to see Obama up the momentum, but remain concerned that the Clinton machine will persist up through the convention. Look for manipulations with superdelegates and reversals on court decisions on Michigan and Florida counts. As for dirt, the Clintons’ teflon is made of it, but Obama’s skin is far fairer than that of his Irish mother.
Obama needs now to take his distance from Move.on and the black embrace. He needs to win the centre and the Hispanic vote without losing what he has. White women, the elderly and older blacks show strong for Hillary in nearly every count. Significant segments that will not let go of her.
Thus, as the convention nears and McCain raises the security and ME issues to new levels, Obama needs to find the message that comforts Jews and moms without betraying the very deep scepticism on these issues that gave him his first lift.
It ain’t over and Hillary will not take the fat lady role easily. If she does, look for Clytemnestra and not Arabella.
Posted by: WCM | February 10th, 2008 at 1:07 pm | Report this comment