Unstoppable Obama

When did you begin to think that Obama might be unstoppable? Was it when your grown feminist daughter started weeping inconsolably over his defeat in New Hampshire? Or was it when he triumphed in Virginia, a state still littered with Confederate monuments and memorabilia? For me, it was on Tuesday night when two Republican Virginians in a row called CSPAN radio to report that they’d just voted for Ron Paul, but, in the general election, would vote for… Obama.

In the dominant campaign narrative, his appeal is mysterious and irrational: He’s a “rock star,” all flash and no substance, tending dangerously, according to the New York Times’ Paul Krugman, to a “cult of personality.” At best, he’s seen as another vague Reagan-esque avatar of Hallmarkian sentiments like optimism and hope. While Clinton, the designated valedictorian, reaches out for the ego and super-ego, he supposedly goes for the id. She might as well be promoting choral singing in the face of Beatlemania.

The Clinton coterie is wringing its hands. Should she transform herself into an economic populist, as Paul Begala pleaded on Tuesday night? This would be a stretch, given her technocratic and elitist approach to health reform in 1993, her embarrassing vote for a credit card company-supported bankruptcy bill in 2001, among numerous other lapses. Besides, Obama already just leaped out in front of her with a resoundingly populist economic program on Wednesday.

Or should she reconfigure herself, untangle her triangulations, and attempt to appeal to the American people in some deep human way, with or without a tear or two? This, too, would take heavy lifting. Someone needs to tell her that there are better ways to signal conviction than by raising one’s voice and drawing out the vowels, as in “I KNOW …” and “I BELIEVE …” The frozen smile has to go too, along with the metronymic nodding, which sometimes goes on long enough to suggest a placement within the autism spectrum.

But I don’t think any tweakings of the candidate or her message will work, and not because Obama-mania is an occult force or a kind of mass hysteria. Let’s take seriously what he offers, which is “change.” The promise of “change” is what drives the Obama juggernaut, and “change” means wanting out of wherever you are now. It can even mean wanting out so badly that you don’t much care, as in the case of the Ron Paul voters cited above, exactly what that change will be. In reality, there’s no mystery about the direction in which Obama might take us: He’s written a breathtakingly honest autobiography; he has a long legislative history, and now, a meaty economic program. But no one checks the weather before leaping out of a burning building.

Consider our present situation. Thanks to Iraq and water-boarding, Abu Ghraib and the “rendering” of terror suspects, we’ve achieved the moral status of a pariah nation. The seas are rising. The dollar is sinking. A growing proportion of Americans have no access to health care; an estimated 18,000 die every year for lack of health insurance. Now, as the economy staggers into recession, the financial analysts are wondering only whether the rest of the world is sufficiently “de-coupled” from the US economy to survive our demise.

Clinton can put forth all the policy proposals she likes – and many of them are admirable ones – but anyone can see that she’s of the same generation and even one of the same families that got us into this checkmate situation in the first place. True, some people miss Bill, although the nostalgia was severely undercut by his anti-Obama rhetoric in South Carolina, or maybe they just miss the internet bubble he happened to preside over. But even more people find dynastic successions distasteful, especially when it’s a dynasty that produced so little by way of concrete improvements in our lives. Whatever she does, the semiotics of her campaign boils down to two words – “same old.”

Obama is different, really different, and that in itself represents “change.” A   Kenyan-Kansan with roots in Indonesia and multiracial Hawaii, he seems to be the perfect answer to the bumper sticker that says, “I love you America, but isn’t it time to start seeing other people?” As conservative commentator Andrew Sullivan has written, Obama’s election could mean the re-branding of America. An anti-war black president with an Arab-sounding name: See, we’re not so bad after all, world!

So yes, there’s a powerful emotional component to Obama-mania, and not just because he’s a far more inspiring speaker than his rival. We, perhaps white people especially, look to him for atonement and redemption. All of us, of whatever race, want a fresh start. That’s what “change” means right now: Get us out of here!

Comments

[James R MacLean]

Dear Barbara--

I just wanted to get in before the crowds to let you know how much I appreciate your books and your activism. Your book, *Bait & Switch*, is a really valuable antidote to *What Color is Your Parachute*. Keep up the good work and happy St. Valentine's Day!

[anon]

Your article fails to contrast any policy specifics between the two candidates. You mentione Krugman's accusation of a cult of personality, but not his desperate plea for health insurance mandates, which Clinton favours and Obama has demonized. Is Obama more than symbolically superior? Is that enough?

[Rhea]

Totally, Barbara! I think that Obama is riding the crest of the THROW DA BUMS OUT wave, and Clinton is, by association, one of DA BUMS. When Obama took Maine and Nebraska (white bread states!!!) I was convinced that he was going places. If American elects a black president, I will have to back-pedal (just a bit) on all my complaining about racist, crappy America. It will just be sexist America from here on.

[Shawna S]

On an emotional level I agree with you, but as an Obama supporter it worries me that not enough attention is paid to his policies and his careful way of explaining and thinking about what he puts forward (what was criticized as "professorial" early on). I worry that he'll win on emotions, but that many supporters will be surprised by his "other self" (which I actually admire more) and support will wane. I not only want change, I want this change. I trust him to weigh situations and make careful decisions. I never thought I'd trust government again. We'll see (hopefully we'll have the chance to see) if that trust is well-placed.

[Hattie]

How will the groupies react when they discover they are expected to make sacrifices?

[Peter K.]

Ron Paul voters for Obama! It's so funny because it's true. Like Barbara's daughter I've become emotional over this campaign, in a good way. Past campaigns have induced disappointment, despair, or ennui. I never liked Bill Clinton, even if he did a few good things and wasn't a Republican.

So it's really really weird, like we're in some bizarro universe.

McCain's going to run on fear and I don't see how he beats Obama, if he's the nominee. Obama is running on carnivaleque hope and change. Screw fear.

Other Western countries have had female heads of state - Thatcher, Angela Merkel - but has there been a black one? Am I missing an obvious example?

[Peter K.]

Ron Paul voters for Obama! It's so funny because it's true. Like Barbara's daughter I've become emotional over this campaign, in a good way. Past campaigns have induced disappointment, despair, or ennui. I never liked Bill Clinton, even if he did a few good things and wasn't a Republican.

So it's really really weird, like we're in some bizarro universe.

McCain's going to run on fear and I don't see how he beats Obama, if he's the nominee. Obama is running on carnivaleque hope and change. Screw fear.

Other Western countries have had female heads of state - Thatcher, Angela Merkel - but has there been a black one? Am I missing an obvious example?

[lc2]

You ask us to take Obama seriously, then typify Hillary Clinton's speech patterns as characteristic of the autistic spectrum. Even if it's true ... some of our best and brightest minds are surely high-functioning autistics. Not impressive on your part!

You ask us to take him seriously ... but seriously, if I wanted to hear a sermon, I'd go to church. Where I know that half the congregation are hypocrites and as Hattie alluded ... want to have most everything in life both ways. Say what you will about Bill Clinton, he did at least introduce the word "sacrifice" into discussions of our domestic fate.

I'm as starved for gorgeous prose as the next battered American ... but will take the potential for real results any day.

Perhaps it's because working for both women and men of color is not a novelty for my family. We don't feel an urgent need to make history; our every paycheck is already dependent on the judgments of female and minority male supervisors.

That, and the knowledge that Obama's biggest contributor is Goldman Sachs ... and he is mysteriously mum on proposed financial industry regs.

Be careful how high a pedestal you hoist him up on!!

[lc2]

Barbara, your daughter's tears are thoroughly unimpressive ... it's just a stupid primary after all, in a state full of, frankly, weirdos. Then you go on to mock Hillary Clinton's? Preacher-speak does not a president make.

[Barbara E]

It was a friend' daughter, not mine, who was in tears.

As for the substantive issues, I've long ruled out Clinton for her early support of the war and her later disingenuousness about it.

[Anarcissie]

I don't see any reason to believe the policies and programs advocated by any particular candidate will be carried out once the candidate gets into office. In any case, voters by and large don't choose to make the connection. That leaves personality and showmanship, which gives the advantage to Obama. Regardless, I am pretty sure anyone who is allowed to get anywhere near being elected president has been vetted by the ruling class and found all right on the issues important to them, like continued imperialism abroad and surveillance and repression at home. After all, they do have to control the world. That Obama may be like Kennedy is exactly what his fans should be afraid of.

[lc2]

OK I apologize for the tearful daughter comment, it was over the top. Still Barbara is hardly above reproach ... the autism comment was ignorant at best. I stand by my NH comments b'c in all honesty, I live close to that state and it is full of some very odd people -- survivalism, dog-racing tracks, fireworks and unhelmeted motorcyclists are the order of the day up there. I would hardly hang my fortunes on what NH-ites had to say about anything.

As for Obama vs. Clinton ... couldn't agree w/Anarcissie more. I mean who are we kidding, they hardly represent revolution. I figure the most they'll do will be to than stave off the next get-rich-quick-while-screwing-the-unsuspecting-natives-scheme for a bit. The fact that so many Republicans are enthusiastic about Obama is worrisome in and of itself.

As for the war vote, Obama had far less to lose by casting that vote way back when. Time-travel w/me back to the early 2000s ... courage was hardly in great supply. It's our demonstrated collective hysteria, not one particular candidate's, that's the real issue. That was a time when the pols were truly taking their cue from the masses. We wanted flags and yellow ribbons, and they gave em to us.

[Suebob]

Someone at a gigantic strategy and marketing firm found my blog using the search term "Obama Hitler" today. Makes me wonder what is going on out there.

[roger]

john lewis wrote an impressive autobiography years ago entitled walking with the wind. this is a significant endorsement for obama.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/15/us/politics/15clinton.html?ei=5099&en=c90356ac85dd47ce&ex=1203656400&adxnnl=1&partner=TOPIXNEWS&adxnnlx=1203047847-Cp2prTtVCs+xLJuZlwLZGA

[chris]

peter k asks if there has been a black female head of state.

Yes. Eleanor Sirleaf, currently the leader of Liberia.

Will she lift this nation from it brutal bloody history of thuggishness into a new plane?

Probably not. But this is one time when it's fair to say she can't possibly do any worse than her predecessors.

[chris]

Obama has faced nothing of consequence in the primaries.

Voter turnout at caucuses is often no more than 1% of the registered voters. The voting is more-or-less proportional.

Even if he wins the nomination -- which is far from certain -- he will lose in November.

Why? No Experience. None.

He looks more like a city councilman than presidential timber.

Meanwhile, every goal he has mentioned is prefaced with terms like "Create"; "Develop"; and "Expand".

Those are all synonyms for SPEND. And in most cases, SPEND BIG.

To make matters much worse, he was photographed with his arm around Al Sharpton and the two of them were smiling. Being a Friend of Al's is no way to get white votes.

Moreover, Obama has a connection to Louis Farrakhan. Thus, Obama's links to black nationalism and islam are established and reinforced in a single move.

Lastly, no one named b. HUSSEIN obama is going to preside over the removal of US military forces from Iraq. Voters will be reminded that HUSSEIN is a bad name to have when running for the US presidency. It suggests way too much sympathy for the concerns of muslims, mainly muslims who do not live in the US.

[Chickensh*tEagle]

chris: "Those are all synonyms for SPEND. And in most cases, SPEND BIG."

You mean, BOMB, BOMB, and BOMB aren't synonyms for SPEND?

Okay, you've told us why Obama won't get YOUR vote. The rest of us will wait for the actual nomination and election to see if you're right about other people's.

[roger]

" The effort, he says, was inspired after reading "Nickel and Dimed," in which author Barbara Ehrenreich takes on a series of low-paying jobs. Unlike Ms. Ehrenreich, who chronicled the difficulty of advancing beyond the ranks of the working poor, Shepard found he was able to successfully climb out of his self-imposed poverty. "

http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0211/p13s02-wmgn.html

[chris]

chickenshit, you wrote:

"Okay, you've told us why Obama won't get YOUR vote."

I live in NY. Translation: The Democratic Nominee will receive all the NY electoral votes. Period.

You said:

"The rest of us will wait for the actual nomination and election to see if you're right about other people's."

As I said, either Obama will lose the nomination to Hillary, or he will lose the election to McCain. Either way, he does not have the slightest chance of becoming president.

Why? Because his plans include programs for which the spending will only increase, and the programs will run forever.

Thus, your BOMB, BOMB, BOMB concerns lose meaning. Shooting wars don't last long. Moreover, whether you care to admit it or not, the goal of the bombing is to eliminate some nasty players from the world stage. When they are gone, the world will become a more prosperous place, which is better for everyone on the planet.

Meanwhile, Obama the neophyte has shown no insight into increasing global prosperity. But his campaign promises, if carried out, will result in big spending increases for programs that offer little.

The majority of voters will realize this simple truth well before election day.

[lc2]

Alert! Hell is freezing over. I agree w/prob. half of what chris says.

[chris]

barb writes:

"Consider our present situation. Thanks to Iraq and water-boarding, Abu Ghraib and the “rendering” of terror suspects, we’ve achieved the moral status of a pariah nation."

There's nothing like a little fiction to get that liberal cheering section revved up.

Let's see. Pariah Nation? This Pariah Nation in which we live is the whipping post for such freedom-loving notables as Fidel Castro, Iran's Ahmadinejad, North Korea's Kim Jong Il, and Venezuela's Caesar Chavez. As long as we've pissed off those clowns, cracked-pots and screwballs, we're on the right track.

We're hated so deeply by the nations of the world that they punish by selling $2 TRILLION worth of goods and services to us every year. They show additional contempt by purchasing $1.1 TRILLION of our goods and services. Pure, unalloyed hate!

barb sails on:

"The seas are rising."

Oh, so Biblical. Heavens!

She worries:

"The dollar is sinking."

This doesn't affect people unless they are traveling outside the country or employed in some segments of the importing business.

She sweats:

"A growing proportion of Americans have no access to health care; an estimated 18,000 die every year for lack of health insurance."

About 2.4 million Americans die every year. No amount of healthcare would save them. On the other hand, 50 million Americans smoke. Some of them develop cancer and die as a result. Some of them do not have healthcare.

Smokers should stop smoking. That alone would save a lot more than 18,000 lives a year. Moreover, the money they save might equal the cost of a healthcare policy.

More worry:

"Now, as the economy staggers into recession, the financial analysts are wondering only whether the rest of the world is sufficiently “de-coupled” from the US economy to survive our demise."

The financial analysts are wondering ONLY...! Please. Who writes this crap? Worse. Who believes it?

[lc2]

Um, OK ... not so fast. Hope I didn't get your hopes up there, chris.

Of that last post of yours, I agree with exactly nothing.

We get the drift of what your further entries on this topic will be ... now you can go away nicely ... please?

[Jennifer]

Oh, Barbara, I'm so disappointed with this post.

Not because I disagree with any of it, but because I expected you to be perhaps the only prominent woman who could take us past the Maureen-Dowd/Susan-Sarandon spectrum on this election.

I don't disagree with what you say; I'm just TIRED of all these arguments even as I agree with all of them, despite their often contradictory content.

Obama is a symbol of racial healing, yet he only got where he is in life because of white institutions and an ability to "act white." In other words, that he's a sell-out who hasn't transcended race -- he simply doesn't make white people uncomfortable.

Clinton is...and here's where I start to get tired...we can't really DEFINE Hillary Clinton.

It's simultaneously true that, if the most powerful person in the world were a woman, it's hard to get much more feminist than that AND it's true that feminism is about transcending gender so, therefore, women have no obligation to vote for her. Women won the vote to be able to vote for whomever we please.

It's also true that Clinton can never transcend her gender the way Obama can transcend his race because it's simply not possible for a woman to do that. Blacks get social reinforcement for "acting white;" women don't get social reinforcement for "acting male."

A woman who acts like a man is...aggressive, bitchy, overly ambitious, and pretty much every other characteristic attributed to Clinton -- betraying an underlying certainty, even among women, that the presidency really is still a man's job.

Feminists seem to have no more insight into this than anyone else. Perhaps less because, for feminists in particular, Hillary Clinton is a Rorschach test.

To complicate matters further, I agree with both those who are tired of "identity politics" -- of turning the Democratic race into a contest between a Black Man and a White Woman.

Meanwhile, I agree with those who point out that every election is a matter of identity politics, which only becomes noteworthy when the identities are those we're not accustomed to seeing in positions of such power.

When White Men run for president, that's merely normal.

The only common denominator seems to be that of "transcendence." The game we're playing is no longer funny. It's getting kind of scary and everyone's just hoping that, at the next election, the grown-ups will come home and be in charge.

Obama supporters call that "change." Clinton supporters call that "experience." But they're both talking about the same essential desire -- incompetence has gotten scary and it's time for a president who knows what the fuck they're doing.

The identities of the candidates are very tied up in that and yet a sideshow at the same time. I think I expected you to see through that and shed some light on it -- particularly on the absurdity of it.

Because I think what no one has faced yet in Optimistic America is that it's entirely possible -- even likely -- that no one, including any of the candidates in any of the parties, knows how to improve our national and global situation.

The vehemence with which every camp supports its candidate is transparent in its desperation.

Our greatest fear is that no matter who we elect, the grown-ups aren't coming home.

[naomi dagen bloom]

first read this post at Alternet and noted that it was invigorating and reassuring to read the few comments that had come before mine. (almost stopped reading Alternet due to long-winded anger/ vicious rhetoric of many.)

the art of possibility is what obama brings to the contest. yes, his election might be the most important statement-plus-behavior by americans about our wish to move beyond our long-standing racial divide.

as a feminist, i know that it will be harder for a woman to be accepted as a leader in this country. perhaps we can begin by nominating a woman as vice president--not necessarily hillary clinton.

naomi, elderblogging at http://www.alittleredhen.com

[Anarcissie]

chris: '..."The dollar is sinking."

This doesn't affect people unless they are traveling outside the country or employed in some segments of the importing business. ...'

This ignorance of simple economics is breathtaking. The United States is not on a separate planet. It imports a great many things, most notably petroleum. As the dollar falls, the price of petroleum rises, and all Americans who directly or indirectly pay for petroleum products become poorer. The fall of the dollar is the outcome of furious money-printing and borrowing which has gone on for years and years now and can no longer be sustained. Look into history and find out what debasement of the currency, which is essentially what we're seeing here, has done in other places and times. The necessary corrections of the economy are going to be a major problem for whoever is elected this year, whether they're working the "hope" side of the street or the "fear" side of the street.