Pretty Faces in the Media Haze
By Katie L-S, February 2nd, 2007
Obama. The name leapt out at me from the shelves of an all-English second hand bookshop. It was just sitting there, collecting dust amongst the dross: the autobiography of one of the frontrunners in the competition to be the 2008 presidential candidate for the US Democrats. He’s black (well, half, to be precise) and up against Hillary Clinton. One Spanish journalist characterised the party’s “no-win” choice as like being asked “who do you love more, mommy or daddy?” Reading “Dreams from My Father”, I was well impressed by Obama’s background, philosophies and apparent honesty and, until I got right to the end, I was planning on writing a truly gushing appraisal (a bit like this one, ish).
Barack Obama grew up in Hawaii but spent three years living in Indonesia as a child, where he saw poverty, and how tough life can be. On finishing university he decided to be a “community organiser”, although even he admitted that when people asked exactly what this entailed, he “couldn’t answer them directly”. But he knew that he wanted to make a difference to the lives of black people, and so he found himself working in the infamous South Side of Chicago. There he helped the locals agitate for improved services and access to jobs. It was grassroots level: he listened to the complaints of people living in the area, he organised meetings, he tried to get local religious and community leaders on board and he rallied local politicians.
There was no Disney ending to his time in the South Side. Yet he got up close to the issues and did what he could. He saw on a daily basis the conditions that the poor in the US inhabit, and he kept running into the barriers that restrict any improvement in their situation. What better experience could one hope for from a President?
Obama first wrote his autobiography in 1995, after returning to university to study law. I read the 2004 reprint, which included his keynote address to the Democrat convention of that same year – he is now Senator for Illinois. And that was when my excitement over Barack Obama started to wane.
It’s partly about the tone, I see now. The book is written in straight-up, unassuming prose. He questions himself. It’s unpretentious. The speech on the other hand, well, it almost could have been spat out of an automated politician’s speech generator. Party Select: Democrat. State Select: Illinois.
It was also his hint towards a protectionist economy that irked me, his jibe at the factory that has moved its production to Mexico. From his experience living in Indonesia and visiting Kenya, I had expected Obama to be a little more open minded toward developing countries, rather than depicting them essentially as job-stealers. The attitude he expressed suggests to me that he’ll also be in favour of grossly unfair trade “liberalisation” negotiations. You know, the sort where countries with not much bargaining power, like Mexico, end up being squeezed to reduce tariffs on incoming US products (sold at prices local producers can’t compete with because they’ve been made with the help of US government subsidies), while the US keeps up its import tariffs to protect its own industry.
I do feel that Obama would bring a gust of fresh air that Clinton wouldn’t. Then again, I haven’t just read her personal sales pitch, slash, autobiography. Or read either of their policies: I am just fanning the smoke here, I barely know where the fire is.
Other posts by Katie
February 8th, 2007 at 2:10 pm
Some insider information:
I was talking to a certain American expat academic who was down in Welly for a conference late last year. (You can probably guess who he is.) One of his good friends is a well connected and high up Democrat donor. One of the strategies the Dems have considered employing is setting up Clinton and Obama as straw people to draw all the focus of the Republicans. Once they’re suitably committed to attacking Clinton and Obama, present the alternative. Enter stage right: John Edwards, charismatic, good looking, self-made multi-millionaire trial lawyer. Former North Carolina senator, former VP candidate, currently devoting himself to the alleviation of poverty, He could be a Kennedy. He lives in a huge mansion. But the biggest assets? He’s not black, he’s not a woman, and he certainly isn’t a Clinton.
The strategy relies on the fact that CLinton and Obama will both have difficulty garnering enough electoral college votes to win the presidency. Sure, whoever becomes the nominee may win the popular vote, but that doesn’t necessarily guarantee victory (as we saw in 2000). It will be tough enough convincing Americans to vote for a black man (Obama is the only current black senator, and only the fifth ever black senator). It will be tough to convince Americans to vote for a woman (she should be at home!), and I think many many AMericans would think twice about voting for a Clinton again. Hillary is tainted by Billy’s after hours exploits and also her failure to be successful in her “pet projects” as First Lady (Medicare and social security reform). No Clinton is going to swing conservative Christian voters (whom the Dems must target and from whom they must make at least some gains). Furthermore, somehow the Dems have to get back the Hispanic vote in the Southern states. THe Republicans have been very effective in swinging voters in those populations in the last two elections. Obama may be able to do it, I doubt CLinton will (she’ll probably be perceived as too northern, white and liberal).
So what do you do? You make the Republicans spend a lot of their time and money attacking Obama and Clinton, and reinforcing what people already know: that they can’t vote for a black man, and the can’t vote for a woman. Then, you give the electorate what they want: a white, rich, good looking self-made southern man. Why break with tradition????
At least that’s the theory. Could the Dems pull it off? I doubt they have the capability.
J
March 30th, 2007 at 3:59 pm
Wassup, Katie!
I noticed the off-hand shout out you gave my post on Smooth Barack. First time I’ve been accused of ‘gushing’ over a homeboy so before that gets picked up by USA Today, I thought I’d get another word in on him.
I had a chance to finally finish his second book ‘Audacity of Hope’ which does a fairly good job of fleshing out his positions. You get the impression that he knew while he was writing it that he planned to run since he lays out his thoughts on all the hot button issues. It’s much easier to get a better picture of what his future policies may be like rather after reading that joint than by trying to extrapolate them from his first book.
That said either Smooth, Hillary or Edwards would be a daring choice (with Edwards being the ’safe’, daring choice) as we’ve already seen what you get from going with the same old, same old. I’m pretty sure the world would still be spinning the day after either Smooth or Hillary got elected and like Bill Cosby used to say before each Fat Albert cartoon – “If you’re not careful, you just might learn something”. I think it’s time to turn the page on the same old thing…
Great site, homegirl!
Peace@Least,
Ty