Obama's Field of Dreams
(I am reentering this by typing it because my previous cut and paste jobs from Word appeard to have failed)
The subliminal message of Hillary Clinton's rearguard effort to claim the Democratic nomination is clearly that America is not ready to elect a black President, especially not one with such a funny name. It would be naive to reject her point, however foul-smelling it may be, without examining it objectively.
First, she may be right. To win, Democrats do need to carry all of the northeastern states in November. It is in precisely these states that Obama has struggled to capture the votes of non-college educated white working class voters. Without them, he could lose some of these states, especially if McCain selects a moderate running mate. Some percentage of voters everywhere will vote for McCain over Obama simply because of race but it will matter most in the Democratic heartland. Losing in this of all years would be a tragedy, but much more so if it occurs because of an inability to bridge our racial divide. Because of this, I am sure that some folks in the Clinton camp feel like those of us willing to bet on Obama anyway are shooting the messenger when we reject her argument.
More optimistically, she may be wrong - not because we have achieved a level of racial harmony that makes this a non-issue, but because we may still be able to gather up enough votes despite the race issue to win this thing. Since we will only know the truth in November, when it is too late to fix it, what is the right thing to do now? I imagine that this is the question tormenting many of the still undecided superdelegates.
The essence of this question is whether the white Democratic voters for whom Obama's race is an issue will vote their economic interests or their prejudices. While this is not the first time that voters have faced this choice, there is an almost biblical irony in this iteration. The image of an African-American President leading the restoration of respect for the Constitution, and signing healthcare and other socio-economic legislation that revives opportunity for American workers staggers the imagination.
How each delegate decides to vote says more about whether each of them is naturally optimistic or pessimistic about human nature than it does about any objective analysis one can make. Pessimists will lean toward Hillary, optimist for Obama. For anyone stil incapable of making a decision, I recommend looking for clarity in the one true American religion - BASEBALL!
Take out a DVD of Kevin Costner's Field of Dreams and reverse the racial roles of Costner and James Earl Jones. Jones' character, Terrence Mann, is an angry black writer (think Jeremiah Wright) whose anger almost keeps him from following Costner's character Ray from his (Mann's) gritty black neighborhood in Boston to pristine Iowa where he obtains the redemption he seeks and needs. The irony of finding it in the home of a white farmer in Iowa is the mirror image of the opportunity before the voters whom Hillary fears will never vote for Obama no matter how great their economic pain may be. As the voice from the cornfield says to Ray (in Ray's case it is about his father) throughout the film, "ease his pain, go the distance". Working class Americans of all races whose lives have been shattered by GOP economics are looking to the next administration to ease some of their pain. The white ones troubled by Obama's ethnicity must decide if they can follow an African-American from the South Side of Chicago to ease their own pain. If enough of them can, we will go the distance.
The subliminal message of Hillary Clinton's rearguard effort to claim the Democratic nomination is clearly that America is not ready to elect a black President, especially not one with such a funny name. It would be naive to reject her point, however foul-smelling it may be, without examining it objectively.
First, she may be right. To win, Democrats do need to carry all of the northeastern states in November. It is in precisely these states that Obama has struggled to capture the votes of non-college educated white working class voters. Without them, he could lose some of these states, especially if McCain selects a moderate running mate. Some percentage of voters everywhere will vote for McCain over Obama simply because of race but it will matter most in the Democratic heartland. Losing in this of all years would be a tragedy, but much more so if it occurs because of an inability to bridge our racial divide. Because of this, I am sure that some folks in the Clinton camp feel like those of us willing to bet on Obama anyway are shooting the messenger when we reject her argument.
More optimistically, she may be wrong - not because we have achieved a level of racial harmony that makes this a non-issue, but because we may still be able to gather up enough votes despite the race issue to win this thing. Since we will only know the truth in November, when it is too late to fix it, what is the right thing to do now? I imagine that this is the question tormenting many of the still undecided superdelegates.
The essence of this question is whether the white Democratic voters for whom Obama's race is an issue will vote their economic interests or their prejudices. While this is not the first time that voters have faced this choice, there is an almost biblical irony in this iteration. The image of an African-American President leading the restoration of respect for the Constitution, and signing healthcare and other socio-economic legislation that revives opportunity for American workers staggers the imagination.
How each delegate decides to vote says more about whether each of them is naturally optimistic or pessimistic about human nature than it does about any objective analysis one can make. Pessimists will lean toward Hillary, optimist for Obama. For anyone stil incapable of making a decision, I recommend looking for clarity in the one true American religion - BASEBALL!
Take out a DVD of Kevin Costner's Field of Dreams and reverse the racial roles of Costner and James Earl Jones. Jones' character, Terrence Mann, is an angry black writer (think Jeremiah Wright) whose anger almost keeps him from following Costner's character Ray from his (Mann's) gritty black neighborhood in Boston to pristine Iowa where he obtains the redemption he seeks and needs. The irony of finding it in the home of a white farmer in Iowa is the mirror image of the opportunity before the voters whom Hillary fears will never vote for Obama no matter how great their economic pain may be. As the voice from the cornfield says to Ray (in Ray's case it is about his father) throughout the film, "ease his pain, go the distance". Working class Americans of all races whose lives have been shattered by GOP economics are looking to the next administration to ease some of their pain. The white ones troubled by Obama's ethnicity must decide if they can follow an African-American from the South Side of Chicago to ease their own pain. If enough of them can, we will go the distance.
Advertisement
Cutting and pasting from MS Word bring lots of code with it, as do, often, cutting and pasting from a web site. Cut and paste it into a plain text editor like Notepad to strip out the extaneous code, then cut and past into the text editor.
May 9, 2008 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Some percentage of voters everywhere will vote for McCain over Obama simply because of race but it will matter most in the Democratic heartland."
What the heck is the Democratic heartland? If you truly believe that your party is the best representation of American ideals and values, shouldn't we try to make the whole country the Democratic heartland? The flaw in Hillary's arguments on this front are directly reflected in the contrast between her strategy and his: You run to win the race you're competing in! Hillary ran to win the sprint to Super Tuesday. Barack ran to win the delegate marathon that ends in Denver, Colorado. Whose strategy is more sound?
Hillary ran to win based upon the legacy she had on the national stage, on her name recognition, and on the notion that her "experience" constituted the best proving ground to be a better President than George Bush. Barack ran based upon the idea that after seven years of unilateralism and war without end, in a climate with a souring economy, and flagging standing internationally, people would suport a change of approach and a change of direction. Experience vs. Change? In a vacuum, both of these are sound platforms that people have probably been using in elections since democracy was born. And on a superficial level, it could be argued that Hillary and Barack are both visual stand-ins for "change" as compared to John McCain. But when you look deeper than a superficial level, Hillary is back to being "the establishment" candidate. Again, on a superficial level, because we've all been seeing Hillary Clinton all over the place for the last 20 years, there is no doubt that she is "experienced." But she hedged her bet that we wouldn't look beyond a superficial level when comparing her to the other candidates in the field. And in contrast to John McCain, she can no longer make the "experience" argument. If she doesn't represent change and she isn't more experienced, where would she stand in November?
Hillary planned to win the GE by winning the "Democratic heartland" you spoke of, plus the swing states. Al Gore and John Kerry demonstrated how precarious this strategy can be. Barack is running to expand the foundations of the "Democratic heartland" by convincing voters in the electorate pool and constituency called America that Democrats have better ideas than Republicans. Barack, along with Howard Dean and a number of others in the party, recognizes that it will be important to have Democratic Governors and State Houses and a veto-proof and growing majority as we move beyond the General Election, regardless of who occupies the White House next. In order to make that happen, you have to have candidates who represent our party's ideals as a reflection of the America that people want to see. That has to include economic policy, military policy, foreign policy, etc. After the last seven years, I'm willing to take my chances that America has had enough of the questionable quality of Republican ideas. Barack Obama's wager is that he was willing to take that risk as well. And here we are!
May 9, 2008 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you
May 9, 2008 5:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree completely. The Clinton strategy has been to do just enough to get power, not to build an enduring coalition. Most people alive today probably do not realize that both black voters and some union members used to be Republicans. Black allegiance to the GOP came out of the Civil War and the abolitionist movement. I don't remeber why the United Mine Workers were Republicans but they were as well. FDR managed to use an economic crisis not unlike our current one to create a new Democratic coalition. Obviously that coalition has not worked too well for the past few decades. I see Obama as the person who can perhaps construct a new one that will last for more than one or two election cycles.
May 9, 2008 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink