The Audacity of My Commute
I woke early, in hopes of getting to the polls before work. A progression of household delays will force me to do so after work today. Still, I was in position to get to the office early enough to enjoy a cup of coffee before the rest of the organization gets in, and that seemed like a solid goal for me.
When I arrived to the subway station, a college student was at the top of the escalators handing out Obama literature and encouraging people to vote. I passed on the literature, stating that Barack already had my vote. The young man thanked me and I took the stairs down to the train stop.
That’s when I noticed something far out of the ordinary for my morning routine. My fellow commuters, who I see every morning and afternoon, were engaged in conversation with each other. Usually, this crowd of mixed age, race, gender and preference casually ignores each other. They stand or sit quietly. They bury their faces in books or newspapers. They close their eyes. Rarely do they interact. Today, they were discussing politics with their fellow strangers.
All of this was inspired by the young man at the top of the station encouraging votes for Obama. It appeared to me that a majority of my fellow commuters were receptive to that encouragement. People were shouting, “Yes We Can!” Others asked each other if they’d voted yet and if they knew where to do so.
I decided to interact as well, and try to get a feel for people’s thoughts and ideas. As I was considering who I would survey, a couple of young black men shouted over their iPod earphone volume at me. “Democrat?” I smiled and nodded. They both responded with a hearty Kool-Aid man impression.
As I took my seat on the train, I was stunned by how everyone was still interacting. They were folding up their Obama literature and saving it. I asked an elderly gentleman nearby what he thought of this phenomenon. He smiled a Cheshire grin and told me that it gave him hope.
Two well dressed white girls, likely students, sat near me, and didn’t seem interested in the political conversations occurring around them. I decided to ask them why. “We’re Hillary girls,” one responded to me. I had to ask why.
“Because she’s a woman,” the other said enthusiastically.
The two black men I’d encountered outside the train chimed in from several rows away, saying that they were voting for Obama, but not because he’s black. They wanted to know what issues the girls were choosing Clinton over Obama for. The girls responded they were choosing Clinton because they liked her husband.
This made me pause. At first the ladies made me think they were choosing Hillary because of strong feelings for the need for a woman, but ultimately their reason was anti-feminist, and because they liked her husband.
My new friends that I’d met outside the train weren’t done interjecting. “No more Clintons. We can’t have more of the same.”
I felt bad for the girls, as they sunk down sheepishly, in an obviously mostly Obama crowd. I decided to push the Obama crowd on the issues to see how they made their choice.
Interestingly enough, the people I may have incorrectly stereotyped by appearance for not being politically minded, seemed to be the most astute on the issues. One told me about a pledge to honor the constitution as President that Obama signed and Hillary refused. (I researched this when I got to the office, it’s true.) Several spoke about the war. A nice couple spoke about Obama’s work as a community organizer and how they believed it would benefit the nation to have a leader who worked on the streets like that. Everyone agreed that Barack’s warm personality made him extremely likable and gave them hope.
A stylish older black man with a cane, the sort of character you see on the train and wish you’d brought a sketch pad, grabbed me by the arm and smiled. “You see this? That man, (Obama) has inspired all these people to get active in politics. I haven’t seen anything like this since the civil rights movement. You say you’re a writer. You write about this today.”
And so I did.
I can’t wait to cast my vote for Obama today. He at one point was my third choice, behind Kucinich and Paul. Now I’m excited to support him. THAT is the audacity of hope.
This post deserves a wide readership. Recommend! ♬
February 5, 2008 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for posting it!
Very well-written, much more insightful than the boring "hillary sux!" and "obama sux" posts we often see.
February 5, 2008 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
What a wonderful "man on the subway" piece, with a nice narrative line. Thanks for posting.
February 5, 2008 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Apparently, by mistake I dropped this on chautauquan,* so I'll repost it where it belongs.
Still, I was in position to get to the office early enough to enjoy a cup of coffee . . . at one point [Obama] was my third choice, behind Kucinich and Paul. Michael J. Salamone
Well, now that Obama's got the latte-sipping, neo-libertarian crowd, there'll be no stopping him.
* Sorry chautauquan -- and if I cold find your post I'd apologize there.
February 5, 2008 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Try the poor, in his 30s, uses public transit, drinks cheap, black coffee, strict Constitutionalist crowd. Bitter much, Ellen? Why the hostility?
February 5, 2008 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
She's not hostile. She's funny.
I guess it's a fine line...
I wouldn't take her comment personally, though.
February 5, 2008 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
. . . to enjoy a cup of [cheap, black coffee]. . .
Sorry; I thought you were being serious. I didn't realize "enjoy" was merely a cliche.*
* The Parrot: "Like all members of my species, I'm cliche ridden."
February 5, 2008 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why does it have to be an either/or? Why paint chautauquan with a bourgeois brush? I personally prefer and enjoy thick black coffee over frilly warmed up milk foam. In my opinion, there's nothing better than a crisp early morning, a cup of cheap-ass Folgers, and my morning Oregonian.
February 5, 2008 6:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Turns out Michael J. Salamone and chautauquan are one and the same dude.
Apparently, no apologies were warranted. My mistake.
February 5, 2008 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why does it have to be an either/or? Why paint chautauquan with your bourgeois brush? I personally prefer and enjoy thick black coffee over frilly warmed up milk foam. In my opinion, there's nothing better than a crisp early morning, a cup of cheap-ass Folgers, and my morning Oregonian.
February 5, 2008 5:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Odd. I only posted this once, and it shows up two times - and in different places. This was a reply to Ellen.
February 5, 2008 6:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
HI, I'm new here. Is this an Obama-Oll the time Obama-blog, what with the 52 O-ads for Obama and the Obama love.You can see why I ask that? I honestly DO NOT see the attraction or the confidence that people seem to get from this guy. I am an Edwards supporter.....:(
I loved the title of this article, so read it..
I see where people want to be inspired and for some reason find that inspiration in Obama, but looking at his record, listening to his rhetoric(which is all it is) I sure don't get it. And I am audacious enough to hope that Edwards will be back.
February 8, 2008 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was actually for Edwards originally (holdover from 2004 when he was my first choice). I switched to Obama around New Hampshire after I had some time to do some listening and research.
I don't believe this countries problems can be solved by one man. It will need the enlistment of the entire legislature, and the only way to do that is to get the people behind a leader.
His record is solid, regardless of what people say. It is as solid as Hillary's and I believe the legislation that I know he's worked on has been for the good of the country, not his career. The simple fact that he is competent at his job, seems to be enough to garner a lot of support.
I don't believe being president is about having a long history of being in the government. I don't remember any resounding legislation that Hillary has sponsored, do you? So if neither can look at country saving legislation in the past, why would we think the person who's been there longer, and not done it, can now do it? Tenure is in no way proof of ability.
Obama was a constitutional law teacher for goodness sake, I think our president needs some solid knowledge about what it actually says after the fiasco of Bush taking it apart.
The traits I admire in a president are much more than his political party. I'm sorry the policy wonks(who haven't done much themselves with all their knowledge) think his gift of oratory is somehow a deficit in knowledge and ability. Why waste my time telling me about some policy in detail that doesn't solve the underlying problem. His speeches are about hope. But they're also about unity and sacrifice for the greater good. His website has his agenda. And he's realistic enough to know that good legislation isn't passed by one person, or for one person. Health care is going to take a lot of people and a lot time. Social security, global warming, etc. His short record in the senate has shown that he reaches out to those that are concerned about a subject and the come to solutions. Maybe not perfect, or flashy, but actual solutions to problems. Most people care much more about what passes as opposed to who actually passed it.
I think the most important things in a president is integrity, moral standing, and common sense. Yes political acumen, intelligence, knowledge, and wisdom are important. Barack has satisfied me that he has all these traits in spades. More so than any other candidate.
The worst thing that in terms of scandal have been his parish's exclusivity in its outreach programs and his association with Rezco. In my opinion, both have a bit of smoke but no fire.
His election list for 2007 show $25 in pac money compared to just under $1MM for Ms. Clinton.
Compare the last two things to Clinton, and it's no choice for me.
Also, while Ms Clinton claims 35 years, I don't hear her talking about specific accomplishments. She attempted health care reform in the exactly wrong what previously. She designed her current plan to withstand republican bullets, but her campaign freaks when flyers point out that some people might not like it? A good president will foster good ideas and see that they are implemented for the public good, not the perception of good.
You can never be sure about anything, especially what will happen if he gets the nomination, but I trust him as a person to do good for this country more than the other two. And when all is said and done, that what I vote for. I believe at the end of the day, he'll restore some prestige and honor to the office of president, something that's been missing from the office for more than 8 years.
February 8, 2008 10:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
For those of you who support Barack Obama, PLEASE go to
www:freedomsenemies.com/_more/obama.htm
These are his own words from his book, friends and family. He was right when he said that no politician is clean. He is just as dirty if not more so than the rest. Some new change. He is not an outsider he's in the Senate. Why did he go along with supporting the war once he had the power to vote against it? What a hypocrite. I feel sorry for those who were taken in by him.
He has taken the great words of JFK and MLK and used them for his own. What a fraud. Yes the U.S. desperately wants change. They want change from George W Bush and it doesn't matter who it is. Obama wants you to believe in the words that he says but it's not what he believes in his heart.
February 8, 2008 9:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jennie,
I like to look at all sides, so I went to your "freedomsenemies" website and read much of what it had to say about Obama. The site seems to unintentionally(?) highlight potential advantages a president Obama might offer:
-Obama has some progressive policies. He's helped poor people to get health insurance, believes in diplomacy, respects the rights of homosexuals, etc. (better than hate, sickness and war?)
-Obama's mother was a bright, independent thinker who questioned everything and probably raised her son to think for himself, too. (great to see that Obama was raised with respect for America's tradition of open debate and free thinking)
-He's pretty much your average American Joe when it comes to the fact that he tried pot and struggled with a vice (irrelevant)
-He has been exposed to different cultures and religions (necessary asset to effectively maneuver in a globalized world)
-He has a legal education and some expertise about the US Constitution (would be nice to have a president with deep knowledge of the principles our country was founded on)
-He belongs to a church that supports African Americans on a path to a good education, excellence and leadership. (sounds like a good mission to me)
-Obama is good at marketing himself (maybe he can market the US better than Bush did, too?)
-Obama and his sis look like happy, regular kids in the Chicago Tribune photos.
The most disturbing thing was Obama's statement, "the US government and its people." That really is backwards. I'll hope he didn't mean that the way it comes across.
Could you explain why anybody would list these assets, declare Obama to be a "perfect" progressive and then turn around and imply he is also a closet Muslim of the fanatical or dangerous sort? (also a liar, etc.) As Al Gore might say, the whole sloppy mess is an "assault on reason."
February 10, 2008 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
So you go to the site and you see "and was, by birth and blood, a Muslim for at least 27 years."
This slander (shouldn't be one, but it will be used as one and perceived as one) is something Obama will need to figure out a pithy answer to... in addition to his "come worship at our church, we have the best choir around" line.
A man with a mostly secular mother from a Christian culture (Kansas, among other places), and a secular father from a Muslim culture (Kenya) is as much "Christian by blood" as he is "Muslim by blood", and is of course neither unless he professes one of these faiths... which all reports indicate he ultimately did, moving from no particular faith to Christian faith.
I think that this particular slander is likely to backfire, but Obama needs (unfortunately) to talk about his Christianity at strategic moments to put it to rest.
As for the rest of the site, can't evaluate it one way or another but its good for opposition research on the opposition research.
February 10, 2008 5:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
WHAT HAS OBAMA DONE THAT IS SO GREAT? SAD THAT PEOPLE ARE SO TAKEN IN BY RHETORIC AND NO SUBSTANCE.
NOBAMA; NO EXPERIENCE; NO PRESIDENCY
February 8, 2008 9:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was actually for Edwards originally (holdover from 2004 when he was my first choice). I switched to Obama around New Hampshire after I had some time to do some listening and research.
I don't believe this countries problems can be solved by one man. It will need the enlistment of the entire legislature, and the only way to do that is to get the people behind a leader.
His record is solid, regardless of what people say. It is as solid as Hillary's and I believe the legislation that I know he's worked on has been for the good of the country, not his career. The simple fact that he is competent at his job, seems to be enough to garner a lot of support.
I don't believe being president is about having a long history of being in the government. I don't remember any resounding legislation that Hillary has sponsored, do you? So if neither can look at country saving legislation in the past, why would we think the person who's been there longer, and not done it, can now do it? Tenure is in no way proof of ability.
Obama was a constitutional law teacher for goodness sake, I think our president needs some solid knowledge about what it actually says after the fiasco of Bush taking it apart.
The traits I admire in a president are much more than his political party. I'm sorry the policy wonks(who haven't done much themselves with all their knowledge) think his gift of oratory is somehow a deficit in knowledge and ability. Why waste my time telling me about some policy in detail that doesn't solve the underlying problem. His speeches are about hope. But they're also about unity and sacrifice for the greater good. His website has his agenda. And he's realistic enough to know that good legislation isn't passed by one person, or for one person. Health care is going to take a lot of people and a lot time. Social security, global warming, etc. His short record in the senate has shown that he reaches out to those that are concerned about a subject and the come to solutions. Maybe not perfect, or flashy, but actual solutions to problems. Most people care much more about what passes as opposed to who actually passed it.
I think the most important things in a president is integrity, moral standing, and common sense. Yes political acumen, intelligence, knowledge, and wisdom are important. Barack has satisfied me that he has all these traits in spades. More so than any other candidate.
The worst thing that in terms of scandal have been his parish's exclusivity in its outreach programs and his association with Rezco. In my opinion, both have a bit of smoke but no fire.
His election list for 2007 show $25 in pac money compared to just under $1MM for Ms. Clinton.
Compare the last two things to Clinton, and it's no choice for me.
Also, while Ms Clinton claims 35 years, I don't hear her talking about specific accomplishments. She attempted health care reform in the exactly wrong what previously. She designed her current plan to withstand republican bullets, but her campaign freaks when flyers point out that some people might not like it? A good president will foster good ideas and see that they are implemented for the public good, not the perception of good.
You can never be sure about anything, especially what will happen if he gets the nomination, but I trust him as a person to do good for this country more than the other two. And when all is said and done, that what I vote for. I believe at the end of the day, he'll restore some prestige and honor to the office of president, something that's been missing from the office for more than 8 years.
February 8, 2008 10:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
In response to jennie3233's posts. That website is as much as a hit piece as any of the websites claiming Hillary murdered Vince Foster. Go to snopes or urbanlegends.com for Christ's sake before you throw trash around.
In the interest of fairness, I offer up this crackpot website for jennie3233, who obviously believes anything she reads.
http://www.stewwebb.com/hillary_clinton_murder_for_hire_.htm
February 8, 2008 11:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do you have a link on the thing about the pledge to honor the Constitution? I wasn't able to find anything.
February 9, 2008 8:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters?pid=239574
February 9, 2008 10:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama was your third choice "behind Kucinich and Paul"?
You've just revealed a political mind so apparently bereft of logic as to obviate any meaning associated with your preference for Obama.
You do realize that aside from bucking their party's wisdom, and opposing the war in Iraq, these two candidates are at opposite ends of the spectrum and would create vastly different Americas?
February 10, 2008 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, in interviews throughout the primary season, I've heard Paul and Kucinich compliment each other often, and both say how they often vote with each other, especially on issues over constitutionality. You can insult me all you like, but my logic is based soundly in my belief to honor the constitution. For someone who has posted so much here about corporate influence on politics, I'd think you could see the commonality between Ron and Dennis, despite them being on opposite ends of the spectrum. Sure, they would offer different solutions. I think either would be better. I'm not tied to any ideology. I am, as an American, tied to the rule of law and our Constitution.
February 10, 2008 6:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I regret the tone of my comment... unnecessary and uncalled for personal attack on your "political mind."
I think however that your ability to support Kucinich and Paul simultaneously suggests that you are not thinking clearly. Other than sharing their "non-mainstream" and "anti-imperial" perspectives the two men represented vastly different perspectives. To me, it calls into question your judgment about other issues, and seems to be associated with the kind of vagueness and lack of specificity that Obama himself uses.
February 12, 2008 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mike2,
I think you oversimplify the varying ways some voters have been driven to analyze candidates in today's climate.
Unfortunately, our current president and Congress haven't shown the ability to accomplish anything meaningful with respect to basics like education, global warming, renewable energy, border security, food safety, federal emergency management, trade balances, bridges and infrastructure, foreign relations, healthcare, Social Security, etc. And the only significant thing our government has accomplished and agreed upon was to drain trillions from the taxpayer's treasury for an unnecessary and botched war.
Given all the above, I'd bet lots of thoughtful people would feel compelled to take a hard look at a wide variety of candidates in the field.
And anyway:
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines."
-Ralph Waldo Emerson
February 12, 2008 8:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
4edwards08,
I see where people want to be inspired
Sure do. :-)
I was for Edwards too. Contributed a mite to his campaign. I agreed totally with his message until he started copying the DLC lingo of exclusion; i.e., suffering middle class. Doesn't fit in with that 2nd America.
Yeah Edwards got a raw deal. He was little more than the butt of jokes somewhat like Kucinich. No way would the Matthews and Russets give him a decent hearing. Didn't fit well with their concentration on division and class appreciation.
Best to you whatever you decide. I have no trouble at all going with the man who offers change and unity rather than a bridge to the past with all the vapid rhetoric of the DLC.
Best, Terry
February 10, 2008 10:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is a truly fantastic article, I think you really capture the spirit of the moment.
I do want to correct you on one minor factual point, about the "pledge to honor the constitution as President that Obama signed and Hillary refused". Clinton did actually sign the pledge eventually, actually way back in October.
This is a mistake that is easy to make because Clinton was the last Democratic candidate to sign the pledge, and there was a period of a few weeks before she signed on when all the other candidates had signed and there was a media push by the pledge organizers to try to get Clinton to sign on as well. A lot of articles were written on the subject over those few weeks and these outdated articles are the ones that mostly show up if you do a google search on this issue. For example the Nation article you link in a comment above is from October 3, a couple of weeks before Clinton signed on to the pledge on October 14.
February 12, 2008 8:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for that information. I honestly didn't even know of said pledge until the subway that morning, and the google when I got to my destination. I'm glad that both Democratic contenders are on board with upholding the Constitution, a basic duty of the President.
February 19, 2008 9:18 AM | Reply | Permalink