(Various comments from me responding to a piece by Gideon Rachman in January 28's Financial Times FT.com site, about Barack Obama's landslide win in South Carolina's Democratic Primary.)
Gideon Rachman's International Affairs Blog - FT.com
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."
Comments
I 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 28, 2008 at 10:23 PM | Report this comment
Enrique--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 28, 2008 at 10:23 PM | Report this comment
Alexander 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 28, 2008 at 10:40 PM | Report this comment
I 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 28, 2008 at 11:05 PM | Report this comment
I 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 28, 2008 at 11:08 PM | Report this comment
Alexander--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 28, 2008 at 11:39 PM | Report this comment
WCM, 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 29, 2008 at 12:19 AM | Report this comment
Wake 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!
Hillary 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.
Posted by: Joe Texas | January 29, 2008 at 03:02 AM | Report this comment
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 29, 2008 at 03:15 AM | Report this comment
Is 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 29, 2008 at 08:23 AM | Report this comment
Good 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 29, 2008 at 02:14 PM | Report this comment
As 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 29, 2008 at 03:30 PM | Report this comment
A 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 29, 2008 at 04:15 PM | Report this comment
A 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 29, 2008 at 07:11 PM | Report this comment
I'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 30, 2008 at 07:22 AM | Report this comment
Alexander 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 30, 2008 at 09:20 AM | Report this comment
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment