Wednesday, January 02, 2008

Barack Obama for President

Barack Obama for President

When Barack Obama first announced that he was running for President, I had my doubts. I had my doubts that he could seriously take on the most powerful Democratic Machine in a quarter century and give it a good fight.

I understood his reasoning for running for President NOW. In fact, I thought it was a smart strategic move on his part in this sweepstakes known as The First Black President.

I cheered him on because I thought it was time that places who had never seen a Black candidate up close and personal in this country, would get that opportunity. I wanted for the country to see that a Black Man could run a credible, serious campaign for President and the republic would not fall apart. I had wanted to see that with Colin Powell, but I didn't get it with him.

The initial question was: was it the ' right time'?

I had to laugh at that one, because nobody ever uses ' Black' and ' the right time' in the same sentence. You take the time given to you and you run like hell with it. Obama understood that the door opens rarely like this, so you have to step up or let it pass you by. I would like to take this opportunity to thank George W. Bush, for if he hadn't of been such an utter failure on so many levels, then the country wouldn't remotely be open to the 'possibility' of a Black man as President.


The "Experience" Question

Hillary Clinton is a One Term Senator. Period. THAT is the extent of her experience. Don't give me the swill of her being someone's wife equals solid professional experience. If that's the case, then sign me up for the Laura Bush for Governor of Texas Exploratory Committee.

John Edwards is a One Term Senator. Period.

So, Barack Obama is a First Term Senator. It's about even for me there.

The Question of Ideology

Obama is by far the most consistent Progressive, according to those who do the evaluations on that sort of thing. It's not that Clinton and Edwards are far far to the right, it's just that Obama is to the left. So, let's leave it at that.

The Question of Electability

I have written many times that those who argue about electability better be arguing for John Edwards. If you bring up the fact, that in the history of this country, only a White male has been elected, and thus, this is why they support Edwards, I wouldn't have to like it, but I could accept it.

I will never accept an Electability argument for Clinton over Obama. You have polls that BEGAN with Clinton at 45% of the electorate saying that they will NEVER vote for her. The latest one, a year out, before any real attacks on her, have HALF OF THIS COUNTRY saying that they will NEVER vote for her. HALF before a single GOP commercial being run against her. Don't talk to me about electability with her. She gets Democrats. Period. She doesn't get Independents and she doesn't get Republicans. Basically, her strategy is 50%+1, and haven't we 'been there and done that' already?

The recent polls have shown that Obama is strong in General Election polls. In REAL polls versus REAL GOP Candidates, Obama is winning in every single contest by wider margins than Clinton. Here's the latest Electability Guide from Newsweek.

I am NOT naive. I am NOT delusional. I understand race in America as well as any Black person that has grown up in this country. I know that Obama could be subject to a Bradley Effect. But, the truth is, there are times when you have to choose optimism over pessimism. You don't have to be Pollyanna, but you fight, you push forward, and you hope. If you're ultimately disappointed, oh well, but it won't destroy you.

I have written plenty of times that I DO NOT KNOW if White people will, when push comes to shove, vote for a Black man.

I only want THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION.

I believe it's time for that answer.

Obama's Campaign Approach

It has been disheartening to read 'Progressive' after 'Progressive' deride Barack Obama because they don't believe he'll be an attack dog like Hillary Clinton or Edwards. I don't know why it took me so long to vocalize this, but it came to me:

Barack Obama and no other Black candidate would EVER

and I mean EVER

campaign on a theme of 'attack dog', or anything remotely dealing with 'attacking' the opposition.

THEY WON'T GET ELECTED.

This doesn't mean that they roll over and play dead with the opposition. They will debate on the issues. They will be strong against their opponent. Being forceful without seeming nasty. They could never be the nasty, vengeful attack dog that Progressives seem to want. There is NO Black candidate that can to into an election with the strategy of "50%+1". It might TURN OUT that way, but there is no way that they can go into an election with that kind of strategy. Just won't work for them.

Look at the campaigns of Black candidates who have gone after something larger than a safe gerrymandered Congressional seat...what is their campaign focused around?
Reaching out to the ENTIRE community.

They have to, because they are Black. And, the ONLY way that, as a Black candidate, you will be able to WIN, is to appeal to a broad constituency. It's the ONLY way.

Barack Obama does it. (he won the Senate)
Harold Ford did it. (he lost the Senate)
Deval Patrick did it. (he won)
Adrian Fenty did it. (he won)
Douglas Wilder did it.(he won)
Tom Bradley did it. (he lost)
David Dinkins did it. (he won)
Harvey Gantt did it (he lost)
Roland Burris (Illinois) and Carl McCall (New York) did it. (both lost)
In the midst of one of the most racially polarizing campaigns in the history of this country, Harold Washington did it.

The MINUTE Barack Obama turns into that 'attack dog' that the Progressives are clamoring for, what will happen?

He will become THE ANGRY BLACK MAN.

He knows it.

I know it.

And, then, THERE will be ANOTHER excuse as to why they can't vote for Obama.

Obama understands that and is NOT going to fall into THAT trap.

That mode of campaign doesn't work with Black candidates. It's not an option for a Black candidate - not if they want to WIN. And make no mistake, Barack is running to WIN.

My Bottom Line

If forced to, I would have to say that the two things that Barack Obama can offer me, as a voter are:

1. The Disposal of the Imperial Presidency.

Of all the things that George Bush has done that are detrimental to this country, none of have more potentially long lasting implications than his shredding of The Constitution with The Imperial Presidency. The respect for The Constitution should be above all else, considering that you swear and oath to it. My stance could be called ' hokey', or ' are you for real?', and yes, I am. I am an AMERICAN of AFRICAN descent, and I respect both. The Constitution, IMO, is probably the greatest modern document ever written. It's brilliance is that it lives and adapts, but the dedication to the rule of law is what I believe. Without it, and believing that all its citizens, no matter how rich or powerful, are subject to it, is a fundamental for me. To have it trampled on, as Bush & Co. have done, is so offensive, it brings with it a deep sense of rage.

The Imperial Presidency isn't wrong because BUSH is doing it. It would be EQUALLY wrong if a Democrat were doing it too. What's best for the country is to be rid of it- PERIOD.

I believe Barack Obama would rectify that. I believe he would respect and honor the Constitution. I don't have any reason to believe that John Edwards wouldn't also get rid of the Imperial Presidency. But, I don't believe for one minute that Clinton would get rid of it.

2. The Election of the First Black President
The symbolism of it. Don't short shrift symbols. They are very powerful, and very meaningful. There is a Black kid somewhere, and his parent, grandparent, teacher, is telling him/her that they can be anything that they want to be. You have to tell kids that, because you can't begin them with the obstacles that would be placed in their way. You teach them later, as they age, about how to deal with the obstacles. To be able to point to PRESIDENT Barack Obama as an example of success - through education, hard work, and skill - that you can use your mind and achieve unimaginable success- yes, that's a powerful symbol.

I don't now, nor have I ever seen Barack Obama as some sort of 'Black Messiah'; I have Jesus, don't need another Messiah. I have seen him as an example of what is possible. He wasn't born to money; he wasn't born to power. Nobody handed him anything; not his Illinois State Senate Seat, nor his Illinois Senate Seat. Each time he worked hard, starting at the bottom and working, from the bottom up, to find those voters who would listen to his message. And, the pattern has been repeated here, with this election cycle. He began, ten months ago, with nothing. Brick by brick, he did the hard work, the grunt work, building, from the ground up, a political apparatus that, 48 hours before the Iowa Caucus, is poised to take on the most serious Democratic Machine in a quarter century. By lasting this long, Obama has stunned many skeptics and pessimists. None of what he has done was supposed to happen, but it has.

So, for me, Barack Obama is:
Qualified
Progressive
Electable
My best chance to rid this country of the Imperial Presidency
Would be the First Black President


Add all these together, and it's the sum total of why I support Barack Obama and wish him well tomorrow in Iowa.



Related Articles:

Boston Globe Endorsement

Nashua Telegraph Endorsement

Sioux City Journal Endorsement

Ottumwa Courier Endorsement

Iowa City Press-Citizen Endorsement

America has a clear-cut choice: the candidates of hope or fear

5 comments:

ecthompson said...

Wasn't it JFK who said that no job can prepare you to be president?

Personally, I think that American politics is about to be changed forever. Edwards, Obama or Hillary. Things ain't going to be the same.

Will they be better? I don't know.

Anonymous said...

I agree 100% with this posting, and very much hope to be able to vote for Obama for president in '08. And I'm white.

Here's what I don't get: Where the hell is the black community? In the '90s, there was a constant background chant of "Jackson for President" and even "Sharpton for President". Where is the groundswell in the black community for Obama?

I don't get it.

Political Season said...

Bravo, Bravo. This is among the best elucidations of the rationale for black american support of Obama I have seen. You put forward some of the things I think of as reasons to support Obama and a few that I agree with but had not thought about explicitly before. It was reasoned and practical and I loved it. As I was explaining to some friends visiting us this week, there is no downside to supporting Obama's run. He's no embarrassment. You can enthusiastically support him without holding your nose as we've had to do with so many others. I've shared this post on my blog and I hope lots of others will read it and be persuaded.

redante said...

Excellent post, Rikyrah. One of the most passionate and forceful arguments I have read backing the candidacy of Barack Obama. Personally, I like that in his background he was a Chicago community organizer in the Saul Alinsky tradition.

Brian said...

Well Rikyrah... you definitely express your view with a lot of conviction. I will give you that.

But I have to disagree on Obama.
I know that's your candidate....and it is great that you are one of the ground soldiers for his campaign (being a volunteer and all). I admire that...

He is great as a novelty candidate. But the time for novelty is over. Otherwise, I see the Democrats (and perhaps this Country) heading for a trainwreck. I really don't think that we can survive another Republican administration.

You stated:
"I cheered him on because I thought it was time that places who had never seen a Black candidate up close and personal in this country, would get that opportunity."

They didn't see Jackson and Chisolm up close? Or are you saying that they were not as electable as Obama?

Now on to the heart of the matter for me....

I am more concerned with having a Democrat in office when 2009 roles around, than having a "black man" in office. I am not jumping on the "vote for Barack because he's Black" bandwagon....have never been on it...and I will never get on it. It's more important to me to see Republicans blocked from getting into the White House. And I am surprised that you are willing to vote for him simply for the good feeling of voting for the "first Black President"....but to each his/her own.

Obama will need more than "hope" and a smile to beat John McCain, Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani or even Huckabee in a General election.
This is not the time for experimentation. The fact is, the man will not be able to match Republicans in a General Election...despite what the numbers say now....11 months out. Those numbers you see are going to tighten later on.

You mention the fact that other Black candidates have done well in the past, but those situations cannot be compared to what is happening in this case. Wilder, Patrick, Dinkins, Fenty and Harold Washington won in City and State elections... far different from a national election with 50 separate and unequal contests, with different issues of primary concern for voters from one location to another. So it's an apples and oranges comparison.

Obama cannot carry anything in the South in a General election. He also won't be able to carry States like my home State of Missouri, or others like Ohio, Tennessee, Nevada, New Mexico, Iowa, Florida, Arkansas or any of the purple States. In fact, he would really struggle just to hold onto certain States that Democrats won in 2000 and 2004... like Pennsylvania. An Obama nomination will throw States like Pennsylvania back into play for the Republicans.

The last 2 Democratic Presidents have been Southern Democrats. That's John Edwards. He can win in all four corners of the country as well as in Middle America. AND he can draw independents and moderates.

This is not the time for social experiments. Too much is at stake.

I understand what you are saying...and I like your tenacity, but I just don't see the Obama fad lasting through a General Election.

Republicans in Iowa are already scheming to go to the Caucus's to sabotage the event in order to help Obama win. And they aren't pulling for him because they love Barack and want him to become President. They are pulling for him because they want him as their opponent. Obama is seen as easy prey.

One bright side in all of this is that if the Democrats lose, perhaps this would finally destroy the Democratic Party (I can only hope). And perhaps this would cause the Party to split into two different factions and a viable, permanent 3rd Party might be able to emerge. That might make a loss worthwhile.

I am hoping for a longshot victory by Edwards in Iowa...because he is the best candidate that the Dems can bring forth for a General Election.

Obama and Clinton really have no business in the top tier...and the only reason that they are even in the top tier is because the media put them there... Another reason (at least in the case of Clinton) is because American voters are intellectually lazy when it comes to why they support certain candidates. And why did the media drum this up? Because the Obama-Clinton matchup = good ratings.
You can also look at a motive by the corporations that own the major media networks... GE and the rest. What is in it for them? They have every reason in the world to create a media blackout for Edwards and to support Obama or Clinton.

Clinton is a "familiar name"... I have heard that line of reasoning countless times... twice just yesterday. It's sickening. Voters are falling for the nonsense about her so-called "experience". SHE WAS A HOUSE WIFE for God Sakes!!!
Americans are so damn feeble minded it's unbelievable to me. But this is what you get when there is no real civics education, and no cultural education in Americas High Schools and Colleges. You end up with an uninformed populace, ripe and ready to fall for anything.

It's a wonder that Edwards has hung in the fight at all..under the media Blackout. That in itself, is an amazing accomplishment. Just imagine if he had received proper media coverage earlier. He would be leading by a comfortable margin at this point.

Bush was a familiar name too...which is why we ended up with him twice. Most of his supporters couldn't name 2 of his proposed policies... they didn't care about that... they were voting for a name. The same thing is happening with Clinton. Intellectual laziness on the part of voters will be the downfall of the Country...albeit, indirectly through this sham election process.