Great article with great info to quote, pass around, etc.
White House hopeful Sen. Barack Obama is acutely aware of the power of the narrative in politics. That's why the Illinois Democrat and his wife, Michelle, are very deliberately trying to define what experience means in the context of his 2008 presidential campaign and turn what now is a negative into an advantage.
At his first press conference as a presidential candidate, Obama, at the University of Iowa, criticized the "mainstream media" coverage of him, biting the hand that created the groundswell that enabled the 45-year-old freshman senator to run for president.
"One of the narratives that's established itself in the mainstream media is this notion that, 'Well, you know, Obama has a pretty good style. He can deliver a pretty good speech, but he seems to prioritize rhetoric over substance.' Now factually, that's incorrect," he said, mentioning his policy speeches and his issues-packed book, The Audacity of Hope.
Michelle Obama, often seen and little heard from, may prove to be a powerful surrogate for her husband. Sunday night she framed the argument better than her husband, stringing together the lines on his resume when she argued "a leader is more than a set of finite experiences.''
Are years working as a community organizer in Chicago, teaching constitutional law at the University of Chicago and serving in the Illinois state Senate, for seven years, comparable, say, to the military and congressional experience of Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.)? Or on par with New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, who has also served in the House, been a United Nations ambassador and been a member of President Clinton's cabinet? Or more to the point, looking at his chief rivals, comparable to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) with more than six years in the Senate and two terms as first lady? Or on par with former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.), who just had a few years in the Senate under his belt when he launched a 2004 presidential bid?
"I recognize there is a certain presumptuousness in this, a certain audacity to this announcement," Obama said in his kickoff speech in Springfield on Saturday. "I know I haven't spent a lot of time learning the ways of Washington. But I've been there long enough to know the ways of Washington must change."
That's Obama's balancing act. Insider enough to demonstrate he can be commander in chief. Outsider enough to run a populist campaign against Washington and pull it off, criticizing the Senate establishment he has been a part of -- for only two years.
A USA Today/Gallup Poll taken last Friday through Saturday provided an empirical benchmark for what is Obama's most significant problem at the starting point of his bid. Survey respondents were asked about "reasons some say he would be bad." Some 40 percent of the respondents said Obama "lacks experience to be president," compared with only 8 percent saying he was "too liberal" or that they believed people would "disagree with him on issues." Only 7 percent took the "not qualified" option.
Michelle Obama, who, it turns out, is quite a speaker herself, seized on the experience issue when she spoke at a fund-raiser Sunday night at the Hyatt Regency on Wacker Drive.
This is "his time," she said. "And don't be fooled by people who claim that it is not his time. We are all too familiar with those baseless claims. We've heard this spewed from the lips of rivals . . . every phase of our journey, he is not experienced enough, he should wait his turn. He is too young, he is not black enough, he is not white enough . . . he is too articulate. He can't raise the money.
"Don't be fooled by these claims because they are mere distractions. Distractions to keep us focused once again on what is not possible. Distractions that keep us mired in fear so that we are unable to focus on the real issues that are dragging us down as a nation. What we need right now is a leader. And a leader is more than a set of finite experiences.'' <
Only in the world of politics, Michelle Obama said, after she highlighted Obama's resume -- from street organizer to the Illinois Senate -- "would insiders dare to look at those accomplishments and dare to have the audacity to say he is not ready."
One of Obama's lines is that Vice President Dick Cheney and former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had plenty of experience and all that did was lead to the disaster in Iraq.
But that begs the real question: the lack of experience of the man who tapped them for their powerful positions, President Bush.
I took a little heat for my last blog entry, so I'd like to readdress here. I agree that race should not be a factor in politics; neither should gender. As a white woman married to an Asian American, however, I can assure you that race is still an issue on the streets of American society and those negative attitudes absolutely spill over into American politics.
Having said that, my post wasn't about racism. I apologize if it was taken as such. Here's my issue: who's the better front for America going into the necessary negotiations in the Middle East following the '08 elections? Trade Dodd or Biden or Giuliani or McCain or (insert white male candidate here) for Bush, and you're simply trading one WASP for the current one. OK, Romney's Mormon, but that's a nuance that wouldn't really matter in this case. I don't think that fronting another WASP in the Middle East, even though I'm one myself, is the best we can do. A WASP walks into the room with Iran and Syria and they see Israel. They don't want to talk to Israel. They want to destroy Israel. Kind of gets things off on the wrong foot, don't you think?
Let's move to gender politics for a minute. Do I fervently hope and wish that we as a country were ready for a woman President? You bet your a**. Do I wish that internationally, a woman were respected as much as a man? No question. The reality, however, is that our values simply aren't those of other countries. I have spent time in the Middle East. And even though I was in one of its most liberal countries, I knew I was a second class citizen meerly because of my gender. A throw-it-in-your-face attitude does not work with these guys. Their countries run on complex systems of respect and nuance that, no matter how strong and savvy a female American President is, I fear she will not be able to maneuver.
So where does that leave us? With Governor Bill Richardson and Senator Barack Obama. Honestly, Gov. Richardson has the better credentials in this case. Having said that, I don't think he can be elected. So our leading candidate is Sen Obama. He presents a face that doesn't scream Israel, a background in community organizing that allows him to reconcile disparate opinions, and the intelligence to understand the nuances of the issues.
While we're on the topic, I would love to see an Obama / Richardson ticket. Richardson brings with him a wealth of experience: Energy Secretary, UN Ambassador, member of Congress, and, obviously, Governor. He has experience in the Middle East and with North Korea and brings with him extensive insight on immigration. Obama has a history of really involving and listening to advisors. I think this could be a real partnership, instead of the traditional Pres / VP relationship. Just my two cents there.
Back to the topic at hand, I hope this entry clears up my previous entry. We have to rehabilitate our image internationally and there is no doubt that we must talk to Iran and Syria. Senator Obama is my candidate for President in '08 for a host of reasons, but this is a big one for me. I think he is uniquely qualified, in areas of his making and not, to be our best Head of State when meeting with leaders in the Middle East. Thanks for reading and, as always, let me know your thoughts.
I'm trying to formulate a strategy here and I'm kind of thinking out loud with this post. So, here goes.
As the Senator said so well in his 60 Minutes interview, we are facing issues that must be solved now. We must rehabilitate our image in and relationships with the international community. Further, we must, immediately, open serious dialogues with Iran and Syria.
We know that the current President will not open these dialogues. (Don't get me started on the lack of wisdom in the argument the current Administration makes that one should not talk to one's enemies.) Obviously, said dialogue will not occur until the next Administration takes hold. Should a Republican take office, it seems clear that the office holder would be another older white male. If the current polls bear out, that person could very well be Giuliani. Leaving Romney out of the picture, let's say it would be either Giuliani or McCain. In either case, we would have an older, white, guy at the table. Heck, for giggles, let's say Romney wins. He may not appear to be in the "older" category, but he is still a very white guy.
Looking at the Dems, we have a couple of older white guys on our side, too: Biden and Dodd. And then there's Gore (white guy). And a younger white guy, Edwards. Now, we get to the more diverse candidates. There's Hillary; need I mention she's a white woman? We have Bill Richardson, who is hispanic, but who I will leave out of this equation because he won't win the nomination. And then we have our very own Senator Obama.
I'm imagining Ahmadinejad (Pres of Iran) and al-Assad (Pres of Syria) sitting at a table waiting for the President of the US to arrive to being talks. Can you picture this in your head? What are their reactions to:
1. yet another old(er) white guy?
2. a woman?
3. Barack Obama?
I think in this scenario, Barack Obama clearly has the better diplomatic position.
I'm just thinking that this is an argument to use when the issue of Obama's name or ethnicity arises. Granted, these things should never be issues, but we should be prepared for them since they clearly are in some circles. Please let me know your thoughts.
From Rawstory.com. The most exciting news here to me is that Obama continues to lead as the Democratic candidate chosen most often by Republicans.
"Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) holds an eight percent lead over Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) among Democratic candidates in the latest Harris Interactive Poll.
The poll, conducted among nearly 3,500 adults of Democratic, Republican and independent voters, reveals that one in five U.S. adults would choose Clinton in a list of all possible candidates, with Obama second at 10 percent and former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani trailing at 8 percent.
The survey also indicates that 45 percent of respondents would first choose a Democratic for president, compared to 31 percent who would first choose a Republican.
Among Democratic candidates, Clinton and Obama top the list with John Edwards third at 28 percent and former Vice President Al Gore--who has not yet announced his intention to run--at 26 percent. Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) is a distant fifth at 12 percent, tied with Sen. Joe Lieberman (ID-CT), who was only behind Obama among Republicans choosing a Democrat.
Among Republican candidates, former Secretary of State Colin Powell--who also has not expressed a desire to run--leads with 32 percent, with Giuliani second at 29 percent, followed by Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) at 26 percent and current Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice trailing at 19 percent.
The full results of the poll are available at The Wall Street Journal."
I just saw an interview with Obama pollster Cornell Belcher. Mr. Belcher, who is a top Democratic numbers guy, was fronting for Sen Obama on MSNBC, answering questions from Nora O'Donnell. The Republican strategist opposite Mr. Belcher unfortunately outshown him. Mr. Belcher was not very well spoken. I found myself willing him to complete a thoughtful sentence.
Nora played for Mr. Belcher two clips from the 60 Minutes interview last night. In the first, Sen Obama was talking about how American society defines a person as African American if a person looks African American. The second clip was of Michelle Obama saying that, as a black man, Sen Obama could get shot going to the gas station. Mr. Belcher failed to point out that this discussion was in response to Steve Kroft's pointed questioning first on Sen Obama's personal racial identity and then on comparing Michelle Obama's fear of a possible assassination attempt on her husband vs. Mrs. Powell's fear of a possible assassination attempt on Colin Powell, which was apparently a major consideration in keeping him out of Presidential politics. Instead, Mr. Belcher talked about how he doesn't know a single black man who hasn't been pulled over by the police and harrassed. While that could certainly be true and while I have no qualms with that argument and think we absolutely must address issues of racism in this country, I don't think that was the right message at that time.
Nora also allowed Hillary Clinton to slap Sen Obama's hand via Mr. Belcher. She brought up a quote from one of Sen Clinton's pollster's, apparently in reaction to Obama's statements over the weekend about Sen Clinton's mistakes in backing the war and her lack of vision in creating a cohesive exit strategy. The quote essentially said that the entire Democratic party should reserve the word "mistake" for the Bush administration and not use it in terms of other Dems. Mr. Belcher, on behalf of Sen Obama's campaign, found himself agreeing in an almost mea culpa manner. I can't see how that's helpful to this campaign.
My fervent hope is that the Senator will put forward campaign staff who carry forward his message of hope and who can bring at least a measure of his eloquence. Mr. Belcher is excellent at the numbers game. Perhaps, however, they should find someone else to be grilled on MSNBC.
Did anyone else see the 2002 local Illinois TV interview with the Senator shown on CSPAN yesterday? The CSPAN guest was the guy (forgive me for not remembering his name) from Politico.com who shows up periodically on Hardball. The interview was with then-State Senator Obama and featured questions about the war. He stated that if he had to vote up or down on a war resolution, he would probably follow the lead of Sen. Durbin and vote down. He praised the administration for its diplomatic efforts (remember those?) of going through the UN Security Council re: inspections and talked about the need for gathering the powers of the region (Iran, Syria, etc.) to assist diplomatically. At the same time, he described his reticence in giving the current administration carte blanche to carry out its version of aggression in the Middle East. He was prescient about where an eventual invasion might lead us: right into the quagmire of civil war we seem unable to escape. I would love to find a copy of this interview and send it to everyone I know.
Obama has said that he was against the war from the beginning. The criticism I have heard is that it has been easy for him to say that because he wasn't in a position of having to vote on the war. Well, here's the proof. Before the war powers resolution act was passed, he declared he would have voted against it given the chance and laid out his argument of reason.
I love this guy.
