What To Make Of Obama

One aide to Barack Obama has accused me of bias because I haven't joined the orgy of adulatory press coverage three days after Iowa.

Well, that's probably because, as a rule, I tend not to post items unless they advance some new thought or add value to thoughts already thought.

The truth is, it is hard to describe what happened in Iowa in a fashion that comports with the skepticism I try to bring to cause and effect.

For example: I asked David Axelrod, Obama's chief strategist, to explain the Iowa victory, and he said, "People wanted change."

Well, yes. Maybe that's where Axelrod's curiosity ends, but mine goes deeper.

For example: there is something about the Clinton brand that a younger generation of Democrats does not buy. Younger votes in Iowa did not choose Hillary Clinton.

There is something about Obama's appeal that eluded previous process-oriented reformers (Babbitt, Hart, Tsongas, Bradley). It's not just his race -- that seems to me to be a marker for liberals of generational change. It's not just the amount of he's raised. It's not that he's a man of the world.

In sum, maybe it's just that Obama is more than the sum of his parts. And that's hard to describe.

His crowds in New Hampshire are amazing. 3000+ in Exeter. 2500 in Nashua. 1500 (including 500 who were turned away) in New Hampshire on a Sunday morning.

i think we're falling into a recession

Comments

Still spinning for Hillaryland, huh Marc?

Anyone catch the "Matthews Meter" poll this morning on the Chris Matthews Show? All 12 of Matthews regulars said Obama will get the Dem nomination (12-0!).

More interestingly, Pat Healy said there is some thinking in Hillaryland that she better not go too far in attacking Obama so as to make her too toxic and ruin her eventual shot at Senate Majority leader. Amazing what a difference a week makes.

Posted by David | January 6, 2008 2:18 PM

You and the media would like all of us to believe that only the YOUTH don't buy the Clinton machine's old sound and fury.

It ain't just the young that aren't buying into the promise of Hillaryland.

Obama is a man of the people. He is one of us. He is no victim, no justifier, no blamer. All things that Hillary is and always was, once she married smarmy Bill.

He has worked hard to achieve a life of substance, he has an eloquent intellect, he has risen quickly-- he is what we see in ourselves.

Poor Republicans...

Posted by betty in baltimore | January 6, 2008 2:23 PM

It's not just his race -- that seems to me to be a marker for liberals of generational change.

Much of it is his race, let's be honest. The moment he won his Senate seat people were talking about his presidential prospects in an excited way they wouldn't be were he white. Not that there's anything wrong with this. I mean, for three centuries being black held you down in America. It's only poetic justice that finally, being black helps you. Combine the race factor with his youth, charm, looks, beautiful family, and unequaled speaking style, and it all puts the sizzle back in politics in a way that hasn't been done since Bobby Kennedy's day. When you put this up against a candidate who is widely loathed by millions of Americans (unfairly in my view, but my view doesn't change things), it's no contest.

Posted by Jasper | January 6, 2008 2:28 PM

I think Jasper nails it.

Posted by Will | January 6, 2008 2:29 PM

Still spinning for Hillaryland, huh Marc?

I must say the irritable annoyance Obama fans show for anybody who has the temerity not to kneel down and kiss Barrack's ring is a little creepy. That's one intolerant bunch of folks. A little magnanimity and gracefulness will go a long way, Obamanites.

Posted by Happy | January 6, 2008 2:33 PM

Jasper forgot to mention how unbelievably smart Obama is. His intellect will match any world leader, domestic policy expert , etc.

Posted by heather | January 6, 2008 2:35 PM

Yes, Obama is more than the sum of his parts. He is the sum of OUR parts. That is what sets him apart, that is what draws the large crowds, that is what confounds you Marc. I always am stupified when people, John Edwards today on CNN, for example, explain away Obama's popularity with 'well, he has more money'. Obama isn't rich. He isn't using his own money on the campaign, or using his Senate allowance, as Clinton did. Neither does he recieve Government matching funds, like Edwards or PAC and special interest money, like Clinton. So where is his money coming from? It is coming from US, over 500,000 donators so far and counting.We the People are backing the man who holds OUR dreams, and we will do so until he becomes the President from the people, of the people, and for the people.

Posted by katharine | January 6, 2008 2:35 PM

Marc, the reason that Hillary cannot appeal to young voters and make them turn out is because young voters can smell a phony a mile away. Now 99% of politicians are phonies and that is why the CW that younger voters never turn out has stayed true. They've never really been motivated because they see politics as a bunch of BS. Older voters also now that politicicans are full of it, but many still participate in the process because they usually feel more stakes in the outcome than yoru typical younger voter.

But when there is a candidate like Obama who marries autheniticy with inspiration, the seeds of a movement are spawn - and because most of the other candidates listen to you CW beltway types who generally value phony spon over authentic discourse, Obama has very little competition for the authenticity vote.

BIll Clinton is right that the media has ruined Hillary's candidacy - but not for the reason he thinks. Its not because the beltway types have not bought her inevitability crap all campaign long and not done their best to take down Obama - they have. The media ruined Hillary's candidacy because she tailored and contorted herself to play the traditional media spin BS campaign and lost any humanity or authenticty she might have ever possessed in the process. The HIllary of the 60's might have been able to beat Barack Obama, but the poll-driven, focus-grouped candidate cannot in a year when the electorate is tired of the spin and inauthenticy and insincere pandering. And young people don't care what the MSM thinks about a candidate, they get their news from the internet, blogs, daily show, etc....they are not particularly influenced by all you pundits who were all on the inevitability bandwagon.

You all in the media, if you value the survival of your various mediums as the years go on, need to realize that your ranks of pundits have laughable analytial skills and are so out-of-touch with regular people it is amazing you are still in business. But you wont be unless you adpat to the fact that the country and poltics is changing.

Posted by RKA | January 6, 2008 2:37 PM

Not accusing you of bias, but you still haven't fixed a mistake in an earlier post where you claimed "32% of Dems think Clinton best represents Dems like themselves." That number is Obama's, Clinton came in at 28%.

Posted by Dave | January 6, 2008 2:50 PM

Generational issues have a big part in Clinton's failure, but what I'm struck by is the amazement that Clinton has had trouble in a tough, contested election. It's tough for anyone to win a tough election. Why do I get the sense that among her friends in the press, there's this attitude that votes are something she's owed. That's not the way any election works.

Posted by Helter | January 6, 2008 2:52 PM

@ Jasper: Personally--and I think Rachel Maddow may have said this during the MSNBC Iowa coverage--I think if someone else had stood up at the Democratic National Convention and gave the speech he gave, we'd be talking about that person right now.

Posted by nctodc | January 6, 2008 3:13 PM

Yes... Jasper had it right.

It's not just the Youth who have been watching Mr. Obama. It's also a whole lotta' kinda' old folks like myself. I've watched the Clintons for years... I voted for them... 3 times. I've also watched Bush and watched what he's been allowed to do to America. -

It is definitely time for a change - But not just any change. I believe it's time for the kind of change that Barack Obama is offering. The smart, compassionate, forward thinking variety. The kind of change that most Americans... not just some Americans... can get behind and be proud of.

Hillary Clinton is an intelligent and strong woman but she represents where America has been - not where we should be going. When she states that Obama shouldn't 'give America false hopes'... she's betting against America - not leading us to better days.

It is time for Barack Obama to lead our country.

Posted by PulSamsara | January 6, 2008 3:17 PM

Speaking as one of these young people who like Barack, what I like most of all is that he was a community organizer, that he seems to be as sincere as he can be given the circumstances, that he cares about transparancy in government and getting people more involved in changing their country for the better, that he turned down high-paying jobs for more meaningful ones, that he isn't so beholden to certain groups and lobbyists... and the list goes on. To sum up, I really think he wants to do the right thing, even if it's not the "political" thing. And that's the most important thing because, on all the major issues of the day, the pressure will be intense to take the "political" way out.

Incidentally, I also think that his Regan-esque strategy of promoting unity and pride in our country is very smart and the best way to build the coalition we need to solve our big problems.

Posted by Dan | January 6, 2008 3:25 PM

I think if someone else had stood up at the Democratic National Convention and gave the speech he gave, we'd be talking about that person right now.

Maybe. But why was it Obama who was tapped for that speech? No, obviously it wasn't only about his race -- not by a long shot. But it helped. Which is, as I mentioned upthread, a welcome change in America.

Posted by Jasper | January 6, 2008 3:26 PM

can someone explain to me what the last line of Marc's post ('i think we're falling into a recession' has to do with the rest of the post?!

Posted by ian | January 6, 2008 3:31 PM

Deepak Chopra is saying that, like Katharine mentions, Obama being more than the sum of his parts, is that he seems to be "self-aware." He seems to understand, not just the times we are going through, but to understand himself very well. He seems comfortable in his own skin.

I think that is the why Obama is the sum of OUR parts (thanks for the insight and the turn of a phrase, Katharine!)

Deepak's post:

http://www.intentblog.com/archives/2008/01/obama_and_the_c.html

Posted by Daryl | January 6, 2008 3:47 PM

Ian, don't try to make sense of Marc's posts. Know that he's just someone shilling for Hillary under the pretense of studied objectivity. This is the same guy who wrote yesterday, "I think Clinton handled the substance of her offensive fairly well." Behold the substance of the offensive: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07u6uffKvpA

Posted by Jd | January 6, 2008 3:48 PM

If anything,the media has always been bias towards hilary,like Marc has just been spinning.Its just that the internet has made it more difficult for people to be fooled these days.Hilary has lost it,admit it.

Posted by vincent UK | January 6, 2008 3:48 PM

It's simple. The neocon era of Bush/Clinton/Clinton/Bush/Bush petrol realpolitik is over. And do we have a mess to clean up but happy days are here again.

OBAMA / EDWARDS 08!

Posted by Joni in Wellesley, MA | January 6, 2008 3:49 PM

Some people call it the presidential "X-factor", Marc can't quite put a finger on it either. When my rightish-wing family asks me why I'm so sold on Obama, I can list a series of reasons, but that doesn't quite do it justice.

I've read both his books and followed him closely. The best I can describe it is, let's imagine we all have a subconscious president-detector. The needle on my president-detector is throttled over to the right, it's overheating and sparks are flying out all over the place. I can't begin to tell you how my president-detector actually works.

Oh sure, I mostly agree with him on the issues, and certainly on general approach to thinking about politics ("Burkean", in a word). But those feel like details.

The fact that he's black is interesting and adds depth, but at least when considered at a surface level I don't believe it has anything to do with my support for him. As a white guy, does voting for a black guy "feel good"? I guess, a little, but it's just icing on the cake.

So Marc has my respect for his skepticism (best expressed in the companion piece to Andrew's Obama Atlantic article): a worthy candidate (whatever true believers like me think) should be able to convince like-minded skeptics. And I think you see that happening.

Posted by Steve C | January 6, 2008 3:49 PM

First off let me say that I am a life long Republican and the first campaign that I was ever involved in was with Nixon in 1968. I can not support any of the Republican candidates this time around and Hillary sends chills up my spine. I started reading Obama's positions on a number of issues and I feel he represents for me the person I can get behind. That coupled with the enthusiasm that he evokes and his willingness to try and bring independents and Republicans into his camp it makes me very optomistic that this is a man who can bring this country together again. This is what Hillary does not understand; bringing all of us into his camp is creating a movement of which has not been seen since the days of RFK. This has caused people from the other parties to start sending him cash to keep up the fight. Enough of the Clinton dynasty, enough red and blue states, what we need is a uniter and I believe Obama can be that person!

Posted by Duke | January 6, 2008 3:53 PM

Anyone with an ounce of intelligence and fair-mindedness would regard the idea that Marc is 'shilling' for Hillary as idiotic. Such a pity that some of Obama's supporters are far stupider than he is.

Posted by ian | January 6, 2008 3:56 PM

It is remarkable (given how seasoned voters are) to think in the earlier 2 election - Bush was favored by majority. Selecting once is a grave mistake by itself. Relecting second time?!!!!!! He has even sold/delivered F-16s to Pakistan in the past week following Bhutto's death!

Obama talk of change crap can be bought by the masses in this country coz he has not had any record to speak off. If he gets elected, then same (brilliant) voters will realise he is no better than others - only worser though. Government does run on 1 person's tall promises before election. Afterall, it is easy to make tall statements and get away in America. Like pre-war build up, media could be silenced along with the rest, till after considerable damage media manages to muster enough spine to debate the purpose!

If all the war crisis have to end - it is tempting though that a lady might be a better President than all the clowns put to-gether! A female 1-on-1 with the Middle-east Supremos may be able to better handle than any other contestant. They havent done anything in the past nor they will in the future.

For being the strongest in the world - the people are spineless to elect a lady to the highest office! So, there is this mass conspiracy by media, fellow politicians to unduly target and try to eliminate the candidate so the difficult choice of having to elect a lady to the highest office does not arise. Gr8 Job!

Posted by mia | January 6, 2008 3:59 PM

Steve C, with every word you hit the nail on the head!

Mia, the press ran stories for 10 months about how great Clinton's campaign was and, by October, told us she was inevitable because that's what polls seemed to indicate. She was even on 5 morning news shows in one morning that month! She was hardly silenced -- she dominated the coverage then. Please spare us the claims of victimhood and mass conspiracy. Obama simply outsmarted her, outworked her, and offers a better vision of the future grounded in many years of successful progressive action.

Posted by Mike H | January 6, 2008 4:17 PM

Speaking as a loyal Obama supporter Marc has been great. He's probably got the highest signal/noise ratio of any blogosphere sourceon the race.

David, please, accept that thoughtful people may not always say or think the same thing at once, and that disagreement can sometimes be honest.

Posted by Coiln | January 6, 2008 4:28 PM

I like Obama and have contributed to his campaign, but I do think there is a little cockiness to him that is unattractive. His snide remark to Hillary in the debate that she was "likeable enough" came off as nasty to me. Say what you will about the Clintons, but Obama would not be where he is today without a lot of folks like the Clintons working hard over the years to expand opportunity for minorities and women. And, even if he is going to win, it wouldn't hurt him to be a little more gracious and a little less full of himself.

I was surprised that the media thought McCain did so well last night as well. I thought some of his barbs at Romney (who I despise) crossed the line. They were less funny than mean.

Posted by Teresa | January 6, 2008 4:44 PM

RKA, I agree with you wholeheartedly about the pundit shows, they are a waste of air time. All of them were discussing how Edwards had a good night. I think Edwards demonstrated that he has a limited amount of material to discuss. Anyone who listened to his Iowa speech, could follow the script. When he could not re-direct the question to the issue of corporate greed, he would jump on the Obama "change train". I wondered if the pundits were watching the same debate I was.

I have to say, though, that Hillary Clinton does not strike me as a phony. I think she has demonstrated a long history of trying to promote positive change, and she has graciously endured a level of scrutiny and criticism that Obama cannot even imagine. The idea that she is continuing in public service demonstrates to me that she is a dedicated and inspired individual. Obama is a very inspiring person, but I think he may be a bit naive about how hard it will be to promote the kind of change he is promising. There is a lack of specificity in his speeches, in the debates and on his website about how exactly he would implement this change. Perhaps this is where experience plays a role? I don't think this is an issue with Hillary. She has often been criticized (if you can believe this) of being too specific. I would also remind you that there were many who called Al Gore "slick" and a "phony". I think he has proven himself pretty dedicated.

I can also give some insight about the "young" vote. I am a 33 year old college professor, still young enough to identify somewhat with my students! :) Obama has generated interest among my students, but when pressed to discuss the different candidates positions on specific issues, most of my students are not very informed. Very few of them are actually visiting websites or watching debates. Obama is cool and fresh, and the specifics don't matter. I think this is why you find Hillary leading in the older demographic. Adults who have to pay mortgages and health insurance premiums want to hear specific plans. I want someone with experience whose resolve has been tested. Someone who is not afraid to give a sober assessment of the difficulties ahead, despite the fact that some use it as an opportunity to brand her as someone without vision or optimism. I think Obama has a lot of promise, but he is not there yet.

Posted by wendy | January 6, 2008 4:51 PM

Great article Marc.. I still cannot grasp over a single reason to vote for Obama.. NOT a SINGLE reason.. and I am fairly "young" if you call 28 young!

Posted by chris | January 6, 2008 4:58 PM

I CAN TELL YOU WHY.

Obama ISN'T just words. Obama has the record to back it up. Hillary's attacks on Obama fall short because they're UNTRUE.

Obama is NOT young- he's the same age Bill Clinton was. Obama is NOT INEXPERIENCED! He's held office for 11 years, learning to work with other lawmakers to get things done, without getting soiled by being in Washington. Obama has a GREAT record. Obama, a former community organizer, has organized a massive and successful campaign network. Obama is MORE ELECTABLE than Hillary! Obama is RIGHT ON HEALTHCARE (no to forcing americans to buy insurance) and right about social security. Obama has realistic, pragmatic plans, AND Obama was RIGHT ON IRAQ, Iran, AND Pakistan!
A junior senator, Hillary has a very thin resume, has shown no leadership, had no other political experience, and therefore, she doesn't even measure up to her OWN campaign message of "experience".

Obama inspires, yes.
But even after you look deeper, and look past the inspirational orator, Obama wins, hands down.

Posted by julie | January 6, 2008 6:04 PM

Marc sounds like he's suggesting that the obama crowds are now shrinking in NH.

Posted by recession comment | January 6, 2008 6:17 PM

It's not about likability, it's not about change, it's about trust.

We've been burned so many times by so many people on Team Bush who were supposed to be the most experienced, knowledgable people in the room. They used us, they abused us, and they're laughing all the way to the bank. We KNOW we can trust Barack Obama because his whole life has been focused on improving the world for others, not ripping off the world for himself.

Now do you get it?

Posted by Tom J | January 6, 2008 6:25 PM

Isn't being the sum of more than the parts in economic terms define a "bubble"? What happens when the bubble bursts, as they all must?

Posted by Greg | January 6, 2008 6:48 PM

Connie Bruck wrote a profile of Hillary for the New Yorker in, I think, 1994 that got her down once and for all. My recollection of it is that she's smart, but not all that smart (and not as smart as her husband); she works hard, but tends to be an unimaginative grind; she shuns input from others, especially anyone outside her circle; and she has no talent for convincing people to follow her lead.

Obama seems to have all these things. His being half-African is icing on the cake, as Steve C. said. So is is being younger, or handsome, or having a cute family.

Political talent is real. Obama looks like he has more of it than any candidate since at least Bill Clinton in 1992. He's well worth taking a risk on.

Posted by Hal | January 6, 2008 7:26 PM

Of course part of what is going on is that Marc is still defending his very recent prediction that Clinton would win the nomination.

And Marc in general is one of those pundits who simply refuses to let the people tell him anything about what is going on (an odd attitude in political commentary). For example, time and again it has been demonstrated that what Marc likes about Clinton's debate performances is actually very much disliked by real voters. But that has apparently never given Marc a reason to reconsider his criteria for what he considers to be good debate performances.

All that said, Marc is a great source of information. But his punditry won't be worth much until he starts paying less attention to his intuition and more attention to what the people are actually trying to tell him.

Posted by DTM | January 6, 2008 9:00 PM

My husband and I feel we already are there. But, this is somewhat caused by the old order who spent their time playing partisan politics and gottcha or Anything you can do I can do better' childrens games.
What the fall out, the meaning of or what exactly happened in Iowa will take awhile to sort out.
Something more than a candidate winning there happened. Everyone feels this. But, exactly what will be unknown for some time.

Posted by vwcat | January 6, 2008 9:06 PM

i think we're falling into a recession

Posted by Marc A. | January 6, 2008 10:01 PM

Here are a bunch of reasons I support Obama and think he is winning:

1) He is saying what I have waited for someone to say for decades: America is a great nation, and we can solve our problems.

2) He says can defend ourselves without losing our integrity. Obama promises both to close Guantanamo and restore habeas corpus AND to finish the fight against al Qaeda.

3) He has a combination of technology and transparancy proposals that can potentially transform government to make democracy work better in the internet age. To my knowledge, no other candidate has even attempted to match him here.

4) He speaks to everyone, not just his base. When GWB was running, I knew his "uniter, not a divider" rhetoric was fake. When Obama says "there is a UNITED STATES" I believe he means it. He backs it up by being polite and with his history of working across the aisle.

5) He truly understands the limitations that come with being poor or cash-strapped, and it shows. Example: The debate over health care mandates.

6) Life choices that show that he actually has the values he claims to have.

7) Organizational skill at the grassroots level that appears to truly value the efforts of volunteers and low-level campaign workers, making them feel they are a real part of the campaign.

8) Best use of new technologies to support the grassroots effort and raise funds.

9) Oratorical skill. I don't watch tv, and I heard his announcement speach because it was playing at my car dealer while my car was serviced. By the end I seriously interested in his candidacy. No one can match him here.

In short, he's a once-in-a-generation transformational leader. I'm glad he's with the good guys; he'd be awfully scary if he was using that oratory for evil.

Hope that helps.

Posted by Rachel Q | January 6, 2008 10:09 PM

Can someone please tell me what 35 years HIllary is referring to as her "experience"? What office did she hold before being elected to the Senate in 2000? I count 8 years - How can she claim credit as a "we" with her husband during their White House years? Was she working with Newt Gingrich to eliminate Welfare? All I remember was her healthcare program going down in flames in less than 12 months when other Democratic Senators (like Bill Bradley) refused to go along with her strategy of "demonizing" her opponents?

Posted by jean weld | January 6, 2008 11:02 PM

I really think that - between his years organizing & obtaining funding for inner city programs in Chicago, teaching Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago (not a shabby institution) & his elected office in the Illinois & U.S. Senates, Barack Obama may actually have more of the "experience factor." Does anyone remember Whitewater & the Rose Law Firm? Hillary Clinton did not give up that plump law firm offer after Yale as Obama did after Harvard. Poor guy comes off as a professor a lot of times because . . . damn, that's what he does for a living :-)

Posted by jean weld | January 6, 2008 11:05 PM

Who needs to be reading garbage when everyone is reading good feeling stuff.

Eat your nonsense, Marc. I had the utmost respect for you in the past.

Posted by Ike | January 6, 2008 11:55 PM

"between his years organizing & obtaining funding for inner city programs in Chicago, teaching Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago (not a shabby institution) & his elected office in the Illinois & U.S. Senates, Barack Obama may actually have more of the "experience factor." Does anyone remember Whitewater & the Rose Law Firm? Hillary Clinton did not give up that plump law firm offer after Yale as Obama did after Harvard. "
Are you joking? Is that all you think Hillary did?
http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071217/FRONTPAGE/712170301/
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990CE7D81539F935A3575AC0A963958260
Senator Obama may have been in elected office longer...but Clinton has been involved in making positive changes in policy since her time as First Lady of Arkansas and working with different people to lead change. She was also a professor at the University of Arkansas. She was a staff Attorney for the Children's Defense Fund. She was one of the lawyers on the staff of the House Judiciary Committee for Nixon's impeachment. She ran a legal aid clinic for the poor in Arkansas. She organized a group call Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families. When she was just 30, President Carter appointed her to the board of the United States Legal Services Corporation, a federal nonprofit program that funds legal assistance for the poor. Even when Bill was elected Governor of Arkansas, she led a successful task force to improve education in Arkansas through higher standards for schools and served on the board of the Arkansas Children's Hospital, helping them expand and improve their services. She also served on national boards for the Children's Defense Fund (As Chairman), the Child Care Action Campaign, and the Children's Television Workshop. She was doing all of this while at Rose Hill Law Firm using her salary to help Bill's campaigns and help continue her work supporting children. She led the American Bar Association's Commission on Women in the Profession, which played a pioneering role in raising awareness of issues like sexual harassment and equal pay. She helped launched a successful national campaign to prevent teen pregnancy and helped create the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997. Even though she fought for Universal Healthcare but she didn't succeed but she initiated the Children's Health Insurance Program and she battled the big drug companies to force them to test their drugs for children and to make sure all kids get the immunizations they need through the Vaccines for Children Program. Immunization rates dramatically improved after the program launched. She was also lauded as a strong diplomatic voice for her speech where she declared that woman's rights are human rights. Although nobody cares about woman's rights here it did motivate a lot of people outside the U.S. She has also been a leading advocate and pioneer for children's rights and her work has been published and has inspired many others but no one cares. This reminds me of Eleanor Roosevelt spoke out fr workers and cause of civil rights (aka healthcare) long before it was popular and because she was tall and toothy they attacked for her looks
Eleanor Roosevelt, wife of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, spoke out for workers and took up the cause of civil rights long before it was popular. Tall and toothy, she was not conventionally attractive. She was attacked for her looks as well as for her controversial political stands. Civil Rights didnt really pop until the 1960s. It's a shame. History repeats itself and we lose the good ones. We were told Al Gore was too boring...and Environmental issues are big...unfortunately just not in the U.S. Policy spectrum. Imagine the kind of good work Al Gore could have gone with environmental issues in the white house.

Posted by Bob | January 7, 2008 12:38 AM

Like a 9N ford tractor with the steering gear locked on the outer corn row,straight as a lazer beam with a low rumble check coordinates set vector for 1600 Pennsylvania ave.Iowans were the first to hear it.New Hampshirites heard it tonight....Be an American for Bush....Save who you were Born to Be for Me....Barack OBama....

Posted by DJ SanDiego | January 7, 2008 12:45 AM

Well it's not just his race, or Jesse Jackson would be president now. But his race has something to do with making him the guy he is, and really, it's the guy he is that is the reason. And again, even there it's not just race, it's being black but raised by your white mom in Hawaii, except for the years you spent it in Indonesia, going to public school there, in Indonesian. It's about not fitting in.

When you don't fit in, you are forced to examine your identity, who you are, what your world is, and what it all means in a way that other people don't have to. You can't just go along with the the tribe because you have no tribe. I've seen this in out gay men my age [I say my age because being gay is so much easier now than it was then, that it's a bit less of a proving ground] - a lot of them are the coolest people I know because they had this trial by fire and came out with a bigger worldview than most people have. And, conversely, closeted gay men are the some of the most neurotic, hate-filled freaks I've ever met.

Obama didn't fit in with any one tribe, so he made himself bigger than that, someone who transcends that crap. Someone who is at home with everyone instead of no-one. You HAVE to have hope to pull off that trick - and it is a trick, a Jedi mind trick, because you could just as easily embrace defeat and alienation. What helped him was probably some innate spine & brain, and a fantastic mom. Read his first book.

Posted by Phoebe | January 7, 2008 5:09 AM

and also Antoin Rezko!

Posted by mia | January 7, 2008 6:00 PM