Saturday, March 22, 2008

Obama's campaign : getting massive press coverage.


Sen. Obama strikes again : he gave a well-thought out, brilliantly written and historically referenced speech. As he had previously done in his victory speech after the South Carolina primary, and after the Iowa caucus even earlier on
Obama gave an uplifting message that is clearly meant to go straight into history books alongside other great speeches such as that of John Fitzgerald Kennedy on religion or civil rights activists calling for unity and peace within the American people.  
He started by referring to the American Constitution both as the touchstone of the American government (the aim of which was "to form a more perfect union") and as a document resulting from political compromises and  tainted by "America's original sin". 
I hope my second year students from Cergy remember the several articles in which slavery is referred to, albeit not in a straightforward manner : 
-  art. 1, section 2, paragraph 3 referred to the 3/5th compromise ;
-  art 1, section 9, paragraph 1 granted a moratorium on importation of slaves until 1808.
-  art. 4, section 2, paragraph 3 offered provisions for the future Fugitive Slave Act. 

I believe this opening remark places Obama in the great tradition of William Lloyd Garisson who exposed the Constitution ("our present national compact") as  deeply unamerican and evil per se ("a pact with hell"). Obama does not go quite that far but presents the Constitution as a text that makes a promise of liberty and justice for all that it was at first unable to uphold.  

The Union has been in a state of being perfected ever since, be it through a civil war, pamphlets, protests and a massive civil rights movement. He places his candidacy in that tradition of fighting for a more perfect union, for an America that lives up to its ideals: he pledges himself to continue "the long march of those who came before us". This type of rhetoric clearly makes him a great American ; his speeches are meant to be historic, possibly opening a new era of race relations in the US. The rhetoric of "perfecting the Union" is instrumental in making Obama appear as the heir to the great American reformers who, far from being un-American have tried to make the country live up to its ideals, as they are written out in the Declaration of Independence and which are universally accepted. Obama does not want to change America, he is no revolutionnary, he is appealing to his fellow-citizen's sense of idealism and quest for perfection. His aim is to help America keep its promise to itself. 

He then goes on to interpret his personal life story as a typically American narrative, and moreover as a story that could only happen in the US. Thus, I believe he is truly American not because of how he came to be but because of the way he tells his story. 

In his next section he explains why Jeremiah Wright's sermons are both unacceptable (they contribute to digging the racial divide) and understandable ( the pastor and people of his generation have been genuinely oppressed and carry with them the rancour created by discrimination). Barack Obama then treads a delicate path, trying to balance rejection of the hostile rhetoric of the pastor with the recognition of how Jeremiah Wright has changed his life and made him a Christian. He compares him to an uncle that you love but who also embarasses you because of his prejudice. 

The last part of the speech is a commentary on the need to "perfect the union" in regard to racial relations. There are unsolved issues that need to be dealt with now in order to reunite the American people. He highlights the fact that the consequences of centuries of oppression can still be felt today. 
And he then acknowledges the plight of poor whites which must also be addressed to guarantee appeased race relations in America. Many of them resent the Black community for living on welfare and benefiting from affirmative action policies. The lack of understanding and hatred is thus on both sides and to end his speech Barack Obama tells the story of a poor white girl whose mother lost her job to cancer and who helped her mom by living of the cheapest kind of food for one year.  Now a grown woman, she is an organizer in the Black community of South Carolina for the Obama campaign for she never saw the Black community as the cause of her problems and wants to make life easier for all American children living in poverty. This epitomizes Barack Obama's understanding of social problems in America : he is trying to solve the problems of poverty beyond the racial paradigm : this is how the Americans will make their union perfect. 


However the question that is now up in the air is : will this speech be enough to overcome the Jeremiah Wright contreversy? The remarks of Obama's pastor have been in the news and all over youtube, will the problem go away or come back to haunt him later in the campaign (it will not play well in the national campaign if he gets the nomination due to the "anti-patriotic" content of his sermons)?
Bill Richardson, the Hispanic candidate to the Democratic nomination who dropped out after losing several primary contests has now endorsed Barack Obama.  What does this endorsement mean ?John Harwood gives a short answer to that question
Richardson worked in the Clinton adminstration, so his shift to Obama, is a powerful disowning of Hillary Clinton, her role in her husband's administration and her candidacy for 2008. Bill Richardson is also the governor of a swing state : New Mexico. One may wonder how his support to Obama will play out in the general election (reminder N.M. voted on February 5 and went very narrowly to Clinton). 
Listen to the entire Bill Richarson speech,  see how he describes the Hispanics' current plight and interprets Obama's message on race as one that applies to that minority as well as the Black community. 

Will this endorsement have any influence on other super-delegates and more importantly on the Hispanic vote in the general election? 

Do you remember Bill Richardson's television ad during the primary campaign?


Thursday, March 20, 2008

What is "McCainism"?

NPR has an excellent coverage of John McCain's maverick profile within the GOP and what it might mean for the Republican Party as a whole and for a possible McCain presidency. What will the Republican base make of his foreign policy commitments to the war in Irak with his wish to reform the American immigration policy and his stance on campaign funding ( on the latter issues he parts way with the Republican orthodoxy)? If they are disappointed with these proposals they are likely to stay at home.
Maybe his new message will attract new voters to the GOP : that is probabaly what he is aiming at.

Wednesday, March 19, 2008

Obama on race

The racial issue has been a strong undercurrent in the Democratic campaign since Barack Obama announced his candidacy. And it has emerged from the deep waters regularly.
The Black community at first raised doubts about his commitment to the community because of his post-racial rhetoric and his Kenyan origins set him apart from the people whose forbearers toiled under slavery. Now he might appear as somewhat "too Black", for belonging to a church led by a fiery proponent of Black pride, Rev Jeremiah Wright.

This is the beginning of his speech on race. You can access the rest of it via youtube or watch the entire speech on the NYTimes website or else read the transcript.
He has clearly once again positionned himself as an American leader making a historic speech.

Saturday, March 15, 2008

The GOP coalition: what's new?

To what extent is John McCain able to keep the Republican coalition together?
Remember that since the 1980s the force of the GOP has rested in the union of the two branches of American conservatism : 
  1. traditional conservatives : proponents of fiscal restraint, small government, States' rights, emphasis on individual liberty and responsability (freedom of speech and gun rights). 
  2. the evangelical branch of the GOP, emphasizing moral issues (abortion, gay rights) and extending their interest to fighting against poverty, and other global issues such as defence of the environment, social justice...

Sen. McCain is a true traditional conservative ( meaning 1) and has in the past antagonized the evangelical voters by calling their leaders such as Jerry Falwell bigots (=people that have such a strong feeling about something that they are unwilling to listen to others) and extremists. Before Mike Huckabee the former baptist pastor cum governor of Arkansas ended his bid for the White House, the GOP primary clearly reflected this divide within the party.
Today the questions are : 
  1. Are the evangelicals losing ground in the GOP? 
  2. Where will the evangelical vote turn to in November? 
I believe that the 2008 GOP primary has proved that the relative force of the evangelical voting block might be waning. But more importantly the primary has shown that the evangelicals do not rule the party even though they represent a huge force when they decide to back someone that already has the confidence of the first type of Republican voters. Indeed Bush's candidacy was made extremely powerful by the militancy of the "value voters" added to the numbers of traditional conservatives. 
For John McCain to win the election in November he needs either the support of the evangelicals (this could be acheived by the choice of Mike Huckabee as running mate : the latter has made clear that he would accept such an offer in an interview with NPR) or the vote of the independant voters. I believe it would be difficult to court both voting blocks simultaneously, except if Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee. On the other hand, if Barack Obama is his opponent, John McCain will have to fight very hard for the independants that are quite attracted to the Senator from Illinois. In that case it might be in his interest to turn more decisively to the right wing of his party?

Where will the evangelical vote go in November? For some people the value voters will inevitably turn to the Republican candidate, but for Clyde Wilcox, professor of government at Georgetown University, McCain may not be able to rein in the evangelicals. In that case, these voters might stay at home or even vote for Obama or maybe even for Clinton. 

Before making any brash decisions, I think McCain is waiting to have a clear idea on who his opponent will be in November, in order to devise the most efficient strategy to win the election. 

Wednesday, March 12, 2008

racial lines?

Mississippi went to Obama yesterday, with 90% of Blacks supporting him and 70% of Whites voting for Hillary Clinton. I would tend to see this racial divide as a bit of a problem for the Democratic candidate, regardless of who wins the nomination.

That is exactly what NYTimes commentator John Harwood is now saying in a 2minute video analysis of the Mississippi's primary. 
A racial comment by Geraldine Ferrerro (who ran as VP for Walter Mondale in 1984) created contreversy these last couple days and led to her resignation from the Clinton fund-raising operation yesterday. She had declared that Barack Obama would not have come this far had he not been African-American. 

Tuesday, March 11, 2008

Obama's response to the VP offer

Barack Obama "did not blink" and made clear that he is not interested in running for VP. 

You might have noticed that Sen. Obama is using arguments that seem vaguely familiar!






Let's watch how all this plays out in Mississippi today.

Monday, March 10, 2008

A Clinton-Obama ticket?



What surprised me the most is that Clinton should suggest that she might be on the top of the ticket although she is running slightly behind him in the primaries. Such a gesture is usually made by the front-runner to a weaker candidate in the hope of unifying the party, at last. The consequence of this smart political tactic is that it places the Obama campaign in a bit of a dilemna : 
  • accept the offer and give up its aim of changing politics
  • refuse the offer and appear as over-ambitious and be seen as the divider of the party that is need of unity. 

 The question is, at this point, hasn't there been too much bad blood between the candidates? 

The other incongruity of this proposal is that Clinton considers Obama not to be ready to assume the responsabilities of commander in chief but would accept him to be "one heart beat away" from being President : remember that the VP is meant to replace the President should anything go wrong.  
I wonder : is it politically wise for her to make such offer (positing herself as the real front-runner and making a move in favor of reconciliation), or does it simply look incredibly brash, disconnected from reality and condescending ?