While it's great to see Barack Obama shoot a three pointer, I read a diary tonight that really got me thinking about what it would mean to America and the world if we were to elect this great, great man President of the United States. In it, a white guy is talking about Obama with his black friend, who basically says there's no hope of him being elected.
It is easy for someone who has suffered little to believe in the basic decency of others. George saw men lynched and nothing done about it. He lived through a time in which King, Evers and Malcolm X were all felled by assassins bullets. Emmitt Till's murderers walked free for decades after his death. He watched as Barry Goldwater exploited hatred to sew the seeds of a solid Republican south. He saw Nixon harvest those seeds. He saw Reagan vilify "welfare queens," Bush senior exploit the image of Willie Horton. He saw Thurgood Marshall replaced with Clarence Thomas, and saw Colin Powell used to sell an illegal war."Do you distrust Obama?" I asked.
"No" said George, "I distrust America".
Imagine what President Barack Obama would mean to America and the World.
Is America trustworthy? Are you trustworthy? Are you giving Barack Obama a fair shot?
I am not suggesting that anybody owes Barack Obama a single vote by virtue of the color of his skin. But as progressives we do owe him something. We owe him real consideration. We owe him our good will. When I read comments in diaries blithely dismissing him as "naive" or an "empty suit" - I ask myself what we would say about a company that wrote off black applicants as casually.There are days around here in which I would be ashamed to show George the things that have been written about Barack Obama by those of us in the progressive community. I imagine he'd read much of it and conclude that he is right to have so little faith in America - for if he cannot find a reason for optimism here, where will he find it?
George concluded the night telling me that he wants badly to believe. He is looking to people like us to prove to him that we are serious about equality. Will we do him the honor of giving this camapaign our real consideration? Or will we prove his worst fears correct?
Electability shouldn't decide and neither should "inevitability". The decision should be on who would make the best leader for America and the world in the tumultuous years ahead. Who can lead?
Who can perform under pressure?
And all that inexperience spelled certain doom for JFK, Jimmy Carter, and Bill Clinton who had to face a sitting Vice-President and two sitting Presidents respectively.
What vice-president did he face? What two sitting Presidents did he face? As a self discribed historian and someone who came of age during Bush I's term, Clinton ran against President Bush and Senator Dole. Now the historian in me, Jimmy Carter,he's a great ex-president but he screwed up royally as President. I was watching Who killed the electric car?, and there was a clip of President Carter addressing the need to conserve. He looked like he could be bullied. Kennedy,Reagan, Clinton, they are masters of television, Carter falls in with Johnson, the cameras did not do him justice. And I think that's partially why he got kicked out of office. He came across on screen as weak. Reagan,was so much more the leader telegenically.
And the perceived weakness led to Iran taking some hostages-that were ultimatly released on January 20,1981, when Carter stepped down and Reagan took the helm.
JFK was effective because he learned from his mistakes from the Bay of Pigs,though he already distrusted the military, he made great speeches, he looked good on TV, he had a nice propogada machine that included a rich father. If his legacy is summed up in a sentence its this:so many good things came easy to him.
I mean just on health. If the Kennedys were a middle class family that lost a lot in the Depression -like most middle class families, JFK would've died in 1940. His wealth and status assured him the latest drugs for stuff like Addisons, would come his way-first. Because that's normally how it is, only the wealthy get the latest break throughs and then when the price goes down, it gets into the mainstream culture.
While I'll ask you to more clearly state your "inexperience paragraph, I agree with you on the cyncism of the "experience" paragraph. Though it must be remembered when viewed in the context of history, the nation was still in shock and gave the president the benefit of the doubt,even though I still remember the anti-war rallies on the National Mall that drew thousands.
This is not to say the Womens struggle throughout history isn't as worthy, but there's this deep fear of women ever since Eve. And I think that has to be seen in the whole dictomy of things.
Sorry about the old school link but CNN doesn't let you embed.
Imagine being that kid, and watching a black man sworn in as President of the United States.
Forget, age, color, gender, or even nationality. Imagine what it would mean to every human being on the face of the earth if America, truly was the land of opportunity where ANYONE can be President.
Imagine being that kid, and watching a WOMAN sworn in as President of the United States.
Forget age, color, gender, or even nationality. Imagine what it would mean to every human being on the face of the earth if America truly was the land of opportunity where ANYONE - even a WOMAN - can be President!!!
Imagine being that kid, and watching a capable and competent DEMOCRAT sworn in as President of the United States after the disastrous, ruinous 8 years of the Worst President Ever.
Forget age, color, gender, or even nationality. Imagine what it would mean to every human being on the face of the earth if America truly was the land of opportunity where ANYONE - man, woman, black, white, gay, straight, Muslim, Christian - could live in a country that lives up to its highest ideals and has a president we can ALL be proud of!!!
Clinton, who may or may not be electable, is trying to convince people Obama isn't ready.
This is because if he is ready, everyone would prefer him.
I think people should listen to Obama and decide for themselves rather than listening to all the negative campaigning being done by Clinton and the other candidates: they have a pretty obvious conflict of interest.
Of course, let's not believe those lyin' polls!
With 7% of Republicans supporting him in Iowa, Obama has more support than Huckabee, McCain and Brownback combined and greater crossover appeal than any candidate runing in either party. When Republicans and Independents are asked: Which Democratic candidate would you accept? Obama gets more than all the other Democratic candidates combined. Read the article below for more detail.
Barack Obama's Republican edge
http://www.salon.com...
No one has yet explained to me why Obama's donors have not translated into a serious bump in the polls. I say that either his donors aren't being polled, or they don't plan to support him.
Polls have consistenly indicated over the last eight years that there is a small chunk of the electorate that wants a candidate who can stop all the partisan bickering and get things accomplished. This segment is made up of mainly independents and swing voters, but also includes some Dems and Repubs. And polls show that Obama is clearly resonating with these voters. If Obama was our nominee in 2008, he would be in great shape to pick up these types of voters - and remember, with the last two presidential elections being so close, winning these types of voters over could put him over the top.
So, two weeks prior to the Iowa caucuses, watch the daily tracking polls to see where Obama is. And if the main concerns of Dems is electability, you could see a surge toward his candidacy that could make him the winner there. Obama has a huge advantage on the electability issue: His cross over appeal v. Clinton's high unfavorable ratings, especially amongst independent and swing voters.
And if Obama wins Iowa, he would be well positioned to win in New Hampshire, due to the fact that independents can vote in the primary in New Hampshire.