And Now Obama?

[Joanne98]

The withdrawal of the candidacy of former Senator John Edwards, coupled with the outcome of the Super Tuesday primaries, established that within the Democratic Party, there is a two person race for the nomination. The Super Tuesday results, more than anything, demonstrated that Senator Obama was clearly competitive with Senator Clinton. While Senator Clinton won the states she was expected to win, Senator Obama captured thirteen states, including locations where one would never have expected a victory, e.g., North Dakota.

So, let’s look at the scorecard and see where we are. No, not the delegate count, but the political scorecard. On the major issues, there is no significant difference between Obama and Clinton. Yes, there is some nuance, and, yes, Obama opposed the Iraq war. But as readers of my commentaries know, I have not discovered particularly fundamental differences.

Despite this, there is a clear Obama-mania underway and there are two aspects to this that we must address head-on. On the one hand, Obama is inspiring millions with the notion of “change.” Now, the “change” that is mentioned in speech after speech is very vague. When Obama speaks in concretes, e.g., attacking Al Qaeda bases in Pakistan unilaterally, there is nothing new and different about that approach. Yet what seems to be happening is that the disgust with the Bush years, combined with a reassessment of the Clinton years, is leading many people to look for something very different. This is in part generational, but actually much deeper than that. I emphasize this point because it is easy to write off the excitement as being naiveté. There is an unfocused desire to break with what the USA has been experiencing, both domestically and internationally, and it has come to be personified in Senator Obama, almost despite himself.

The other aspect, however, is more complicated and a bit unsettling. There has been a tendency, including among some progressives, to attempt to fashion Senator Obama as something other than what he is. Over the months, I have heard progressive commentators describe Senator Obama as if he were the second coming of the Rev. Jesse Jackson and his ’88 campaign. Surprisingly, Senator Obama is rarely challenged by credible progressives for the weakness of his platform and the lack of depth of his call for “change.” It’s as if we close our eyes, click our heels together, and repeat something to the effect of, the “change” will be progressive…the “change” will be progressive…

So, we are faced with this enigma. Some people, including some writers for The Black Commentator, are adamant that Senator Obama should not be supported and that he is a fraud. Others, including some writers for The Black Commentator, argue exactly the opposite. I am not going to argue the position of Solomon and suggest splitting the baby, but I will argue that critical support of the Obama campaign is an appropriate approach to take. Let me suggest why.
http://www.blackcommentator.com/264/264_african_world_and_now_obama.html

[DJ13]

1. His analysis is conflicted

He seems disturbed that Obama is actually beating Hillary (who he seems to prefer), and his reasoning behind it......

"Surprisingly, Senator Obama is rarely challenged by credible progressives for the weakness of his platform and the lack of depth of his call for “change.” "


But at the start of his analysis he said....

"On the major issues, there is no significant difference between Obama and Clinton."


So he dislikes Obama because he's "weak" on issues that would attract progressives, but he's okay with the fact that Hillary's position on most issues show "no significant difference" with Obama?

:crazy:
:wtf:

[Joanne98]

2. I think he's saying he likes Obama but he needs more critical looking at!

In other words be careful!

[DJ13]

3. Okay, I'll withold criticism then

:thumbsup:

[roseBudd]

4. As a person of paleness who lives, travels, shops in the inner city...

I would also argue that the problems of the inner city could benefit from the inspirational aspect of an Obama presidency.

I am for Obama for very pragmatic reasons. My gut tells me charisma goes a long way to blunt the effects of negative attacks and smear. Liberals complain that Bush could barbecue puppies on TV and his base would not care. I would argue that his "followers" like him so much they are not inclined to believe or heed negative statements about him. The Swift Boat attacks worked in part because it was easy for some to dislike Kerry. Eggheads tend not to be warm, fuzzy people.