Around the country today, shirts and banners bearing the words “the luck of the Irish” are being folded up and tucked away for their annual slumber with an all-too-common disregard for the origins of the phrase. In light of Geraldine Ferraro’s comments about Barack Obama, the country would do well to remember that the “luck of the Irish” is a uniquely American invention, having no roots in Ireland itself (although, as with many badges of Irishness, it has experienced a reverse migration.) It was a phrase popularized in the society of the Boston Brahmins to explain any successes in the Irish community – that, since the Irish obviously couldn’t succeed on their own, any of their achievements must be attributable to their “luck.” And like the foolishness and ignorance that belied the term’s original meaning, with his speech on race in the United States, Barack Obama has proven that attributing his rise to “luck” is a fundamentally flawed endeavor.
Ferraro claimed, "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept." After Obama called her comments “ridiculous” and “wrongheaded” – but importantly never saying that either the comment or she was racist – Ferraro further ignited the fire by saying “they are attacking me because I’m white.” To evaluate her comments is something of a fool’s errand, for she does not say why he would not be in his position if he were a white man. But based on her comments and the fundamental thrust of the Clinton-Obama argument over experience versus change, there are two implicit points – namely, that people want to elect a black man president so badly, they are willing to overlook his lack of experience.
First, there is the desire to elect a black man president argument, the notion that the electorate – or some sections of it, namely black voters and white, educated liberal voters – want to elect a black president. Is it true? Yes, this sentiment exists. There are those who see it as the prospect of electing one of their own (for some black voters) or as a prospect of finally transcending the injustices of the past and proving that we can overcome race (perhaps both groups). The one-of-their-own vote is one that appears from time to time to help explain the support of certain candidates in certain sectors – JFK with (particularly Irish) Catholic voters, Romney with Mormons (see the Utah results) and, yes, Hillary Clinton with women. However, this one-of-our-own desire – along with the transcendent desire – is not enough to explain the Obama phenomenon. It is true that Jesse Jackson rode a wave of black support to primary wins in South Carolina in both 1984 and 1988, but not to the same extent that Barack Obama did. Nor did he or Al Sharpton (who won no primary contests) win in states as diverse as Iowa, Illinois, Maine, and Kansas. (Likewise, Carol Moseley Braun did not see the support among women or African Americans that either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama has.) The desire, real though it may be, to see a black president is not enough to translate into votes for any black candidate.
Furthermore, even as aspirational voting must be recognized (but put in context), there is the undercurrent that cuts against it. Friends and family from across the country tell me that they worry about whether Obama could really win; supporters I know from Chicago to Florida have expressed concerns as to whether the rest of the country is ready to elect a black president, and their concerns are real and grounded in the realities they know. The idea of zero-sum politics lies like a heavy weight around the electorate’s neck and there is no doubt that it plays into Clinton’s support among Latinos and “white ethnics.” As the images of Clinton shrouded in a shamrock-infused scarf still linger on the television, people from various (real or perceived) out-groups – ones without great economic and/or political power – worry that if someone from one of the other groups takes the helm, his or her group will suffer as a result. Better to stay with the balanced status quo of a White Anglo-Saxon Protestant candidate (even if she is a woman), than risk further alienation; all the better if she can tout having helped register voters along the Texas-Mexico border or having had a hand (however small) in the Irish peace process.
And, of course, there are those flat-out racists and/or those who think the rest of the country is flat-out racist. Obama’s blackness isn’t getting their votes.
Finally, Clinton’s campaign bubbles with bitterness, a feeling that her experience is not getting the respect it should. To best understand this, it is helpful to also look at the other presidential runners-up. It should be noted that besides Clinton, the two candidates to make it the farthest in the contest are the ones with the least Washington experience – Obama and Edwards. What the two had, however, were clear narratives to their campaigns and a warm, human way with voters. If experience were the only requirement, Joe Biden and Bill Richardson would have wiped the floor with Edwards, Obama, and Clinton – each had a longer and more distinguished record in Washington’s public life. If the Clinton campaign is indignant that her experience is not being given its fair shake, the Biden and Richardson campaigns should be offended, enraged, and excruciatingly hurt. The truth is that the campaign is much more complex than a simple refrain – it involves the public’s perception about positions – and among Democratic primary voters, whether fairly or not, the Iraq position weighs heavily against Hillary Clinton – and is about a host of personal qualities.
Today in Philadelphia, Obama’s strongest personal qualities were on display. In the face of great criticism, he refused to completely disown a friend and confidant who has been dearly important in his life. Instead, he showed a willingness to give the electorate the benefit of the doubt, delivering a thoughtful and insightful speech on race. For nearly forty minutes, he distilled the problems and pathologies of racial tension in America in a way politicians rarely do. While he often does compare poorly to Hillary Clinton in his ability to recite facts and statistics, today Obama showed an honesty and depth of thought that not only surpasses hers, but also outstrips that of any politician in recent memory. In doing so, he proved that while his candidacy is about many things, it is not at all about luck.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Thursday, February 7, 2008
The Next Verse in the American Song
Obama packed the house at Tulane. People lined up before dawn. BEFORE DAWN.
"Here, in the city that gave us jazz, we know that even the most painful note can be followed by joy. Here, in this city, if we look hard enough, we can imagine the unseen - homes filled with families; businesses putting folks to work; schools extending opportunity; the next verse in the American song."
Read this speech in its awesome entirety here.
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Darkness & Light
Darkness & Light
Bill is propelled by Cheneyesque paranoia, as well. His visceral reaction to Obama — from the "fairy tale" line to the inappropriate Jesse Jackson comparison — is rooted less in his need to see his wife elected than in his need to see Obama lose, so that Bill's legacy is protected. If Obama wins, he'll be seen as the closest thing to J.F.K. since J.F.K. And J.F.K. is Bill's hero.
Bill is propelled by Cheneyesque paranoia, as well. His visceral reaction to Obama — from the "fairy tale" line to the inappropriate Jesse Jackson comparison — is rooted less in his need to see his wife elected than in his need to see Obama lose, so that Bill's legacy is protected. If Obama wins, he'll be seen as the closest thing to J.F.K. since J.F.K. And J.F.K. is Bill's hero.
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
Bloggers for Barack
Check these out:
Herpreet
Erin
Drunken Bee
I am on pins and needles. I don't know about the rest of you people.
Herpreet
Erin
Drunken Bee
I am on pins and needles. I don't know about the rest of you people.
Saturday, February 2, 2008
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Jimmy Carter praises Obama
Carter praises Obama.
Carter also said Obama "will be almost automatically a healing factor in the animosity now that exists, that relates to our country and its government."
Carter also said Obama "will be almost automatically a healing factor in the animosity now that exists, that relates to our country and its government."
Even Conservatives Love Obama
The Kennedy Mystique.
“With Barack Obama, we will turn the page on the old politics of misrepresentation and distortion,” Senator Kennedy declared. “With Barack Obama, there is a new national leader who has given America a different kind of campaign — a campaign not just about himself, but about all of us,” he said.
This is a very telling op-ed piece -- by a conservative columnist.
“With Barack Obama, we will turn the page on the old politics of misrepresentation and distortion,” Senator Kennedy declared. “With Barack Obama, there is a new national leader who has given America a different kind of campaign — a campaign not just about himself, but about all of us,” he said.
This is a very telling op-ed piece -- by a conservative columnist.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Another endorsement
Toni Morrison endorses Obama.
"In addition to keen intelligence, integrity and a rare authenticity, you exhibit something that has nothing to do with age, experience, race or gender and something I don’t see in other candidates. That something is a creative imagination which, coupled with brilliance, equals wisdom," she wrote.
"In addition to keen intelligence, integrity and a rare authenticity, you exhibit something that has nothing to do with age, experience, race or gender and something I don’t see in other candidates. That something is a creative imagination which, coupled with brilliance, equals wisdom," she wrote.
Monday, January 28, 2008
Why Kennedy Endorsement is a Big Deal
Six reasons why the Kennedy endorsement of Obama is a big deal.
While endorsements don't usually matter much, Edward Kennedy's does...
While endorsements don't usually matter much, Edward Kennedy's does...
"New Generation of Leadership"
Senator Ted Kennedy endorses Obama.
"It is time again for a new generation of leadership,” Mr. Kennedy said, speaking over a crowd of cheering supporters here at American University. “It is time now for Barack Obama."
"It is time again for a new generation of leadership,” Mr. Kennedy said, speaking over a crowd of cheering supporters here at American University. “It is time now for Barack Obama."
Sunday, January 27, 2008
Goodbye, Mother Hillary. Hello, Tomorrow.
“I’m going to tell them I bought my outfit second-hand from Hillary in Chappaqua,” my mother jokes each year as we make our way to Yonkers, NY to spend Thanksgiving with my father’s (mostly conservative) family. I don’t know if it’s the pants suit or the hair, but for years now my mother and Hillary Clinton have reminded me of one another. Smart and engaging and almost the same age, they even share an overbite. Clinton may appear cold to many, but, until she unleashed her husband as attack dog, she always exuded maternal warmth and the security of family for me. And so, it is with something akin to the angst of a child preparing to leave home that I plan to vote for Barack Obama.
The 1990s were the Clintons' decade - one that started with war and recession but ended in the longest peacetime expansion of the economy. The advent of email and the Internet was presided over by the luminaries from Arkansas. Bright and new, the Clintons were the first baby boomers to take over the national government. They were young, hopeful and said we were getting two for the price of one. They, like their theme song, beseeched the country to not stop thinking about tomorrow.
Today’s Clinton campaign takes a different approach. It talks more about yesterday than tomorrow. Clinton reminds us that in the 1990s there was peace and prosperity and that she was there. That's why she's tested. That's why she's ready. It took one Clinton to clean up after the last Bush, she often says, it's going to take another to clean up after this one.
Before rushing to agree with her, it is important to examine those years carefully. I was eleven when the nineties began and twenty-one when they were over. I grew up with the Clintons in that time. And just as I went through the inevitable loss of innocence that accompanies those years, so did the country.
The nineties were a decade-long political soap opera, replete with lies, sex and melodrama. They introduced the term triangulation into the national vocabulary - a deft policy of stealing ideas from political opponents and then playing the extremes of the opposition party against those of the one in power, as the executive appears to rise above the fray. In government, the supremacy of polling outstripped the importance of moral leadership. The administration decried vast right wing conspiracies – real or imagined - and inspired the worst tendencies in the Republican Party, who not only impeached the president and shut down the federal government, but also gained control of Congress, the presidency and a majority of the country's governorships by the time the Clintons took leave of the White House.
As bad as things are now, is this what we want to go back to?
Enter Barack Obama.
With political skills and smarts that match both Clintons, he has important qualities they lack – namely moral leadership, vision and an ability to unite diverse groups. As Clinton was casting her vote for the Iraq war, a poor decision that many of her former supporters – myself included – find hard to fathom she believed in, Obama was taking a public stance against it. Read from today’s vantage point, his speech opposing the war is prescient in its foresight of the imbroglio the government was about to enmesh the country and troops in. More impressively, the speech was given while Obama was planning to run for US Senate and the war was a popular idea with the public. This ability to speak honestly, even when it’s not politically advantageous, was further on display when Obama outlined his environmental positions to, of all people, the automobile industry. Obama’s message has been consistent and inspiring, resonating beyond the confines of the party faithful, to reach independents and Republicans. It is his ability to bridge these political divides – to remind us that we are not just a collection of red and blue states, but the United States – that provides a fresh alternative to both the Clinton and Bush eras.
Finally, when Obama lays out his vision for America, he does so in the most American of ways – by looking to tomorrow, not yesterday. The Clintons say that this is a dangerous roll of the dice, but I see it as something else, something akin to the children of this nation choosing to leave their homes to step boldly into the future. By 2009, the White House will have been inhabited by the Bushes and Clintons for twenty straight years. Enough’s enough.
So, sorry, Mom. This time, I’m voting for tomorrow.
The 1990s were the Clintons' decade - one that started with war and recession but ended in the longest peacetime expansion of the economy. The advent of email and the Internet was presided over by the luminaries from Arkansas. Bright and new, the Clintons were the first baby boomers to take over the national government. They were young, hopeful and said we were getting two for the price of one. They, like their theme song, beseeched the country to not stop thinking about tomorrow.
Today’s Clinton campaign takes a different approach. It talks more about yesterday than tomorrow. Clinton reminds us that in the 1990s there was peace and prosperity and that she was there. That's why she's tested. That's why she's ready. It took one Clinton to clean up after the last Bush, she often says, it's going to take another to clean up after this one.
Before rushing to agree with her, it is important to examine those years carefully. I was eleven when the nineties began and twenty-one when they were over. I grew up with the Clintons in that time. And just as I went through the inevitable loss of innocence that accompanies those years, so did the country.
The nineties were a decade-long political soap opera, replete with lies, sex and melodrama. They introduced the term triangulation into the national vocabulary - a deft policy of stealing ideas from political opponents and then playing the extremes of the opposition party against those of the one in power, as the executive appears to rise above the fray. In government, the supremacy of polling outstripped the importance of moral leadership. The administration decried vast right wing conspiracies – real or imagined - and inspired the worst tendencies in the Republican Party, who not only impeached the president and shut down the federal government, but also gained control of Congress, the presidency and a majority of the country's governorships by the time the Clintons took leave of the White House.
As bad as things are now, is this what we want to go back to?
Enter Barack Obama.
With political skills and smarts that match both Clintons, he has important qualities they lack – namely moral leadership, vision and an ability to unite diverse groups. As Clinton was casting her vote for the Iraq war, a poor decision that many of her former supporters – myself included – find hard to fathom she believed in, Obama was taking a public stance against it. Read from today’s vantage point, his speech opposing the war is prescient in its foresight of the imbroglio the government was about to enmesh the country and troops in. More impressively, the speech was given while Obama was planning to run for US Senate and the war was a popular idea with the public. This ability to speak honestly, even when it’s not politically advantageous, was further on display when Obama outlined his environmental positions to, of all people, the automobile industry. Obama’s message has been consistent and inspiring, resonating beyond the confines of the party faithful, to reach independents and Republicans. It is his ability to bridge these political divides – to remind us that we are not just a collection of red and blue states, but the United States – that provides a fresh alternative to both the Clinton and Bush eras.
Finally, when Obama lays out his vision for America, he does so in the most American of ways – by looking to tomorrow, not yesterday. The Clintons say that this is a dangerous roll of the dice, but I see it as something else, something akin to the children of this nation choosing to leave their homes to step boldly into the future. By 2009, the White House will have been inhabited by the Bushes and Clintons for twenty straight years. Enough’s enough.
So, sorry, Mom. This time, I’m voting for tomorrow.
Return to Camelot?
A touching piece from JFK's only living child, in "A President Like My Father," Caroline Kennedy explains why - for the first time in her life - she's inspired by a candidate the way people have always told her they were inspired by her father. That candidate is Senator Barack Obama.
Read the whole article at:
www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/opinion/27kennedy.html?ref=opinion
Frank Rich's article "The Billary Road to Republican Victory"
New York Times columnist, Frank Rich, says this of Obama: "Unlike Mrs. Clinton, he would unambiguously represent change in a race with any Republican. If he vanquishes Billary, he'll have an even stronger argument to take into battle against a warrior like Mr. McCain."
Read the whole article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/opinion/27rich.html?hp
Barack wins South Carolina -- at a margin of more than 2 to 1 over Hillary!
And, in case you missed the victory speech, saddle up to your computer, copy the link below, and get ready to say, "Yes we can."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/26/barack-obamas-south-caro_n_83417.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
