'Damn it!' I thought. Michigan is not that far from Iowa. Why don't my brother and I pack a bag, buy a Greyhound ticket and head south?!" Coming up with no good answer, here I am, sitting at a coffee shop, having just booked a ticket to Des Moines for 01 January to spend the final two days of the Iowa primary season working hard for the candidate I think holds the key for changing our country's fractured political state. What may have sealed the deal for me was an article in 'Atlantic' magazine's December edition by Andrew Sullivan outlining, in an incredibly articulate, passionate, and, most importantly, compelling manner, the reasons why, not only is Barack the top candidate in either party in the '08 presidential field, he also represents a 'generational' candidate with the unique set of tools necessary to bridge our divide and also tamp down anti-U.S. sentiment across the globe, particularly in the Islamic World.
Many things in the article stood out, and spoke to, me, but I want to post here a few points that struck me in a particularly strong way. First, describing one of Obama's strongest assets, Sullivan describes how the candidate's 'face' would in and of itself play a solid role in securing our country. Take a look:
"What does he offer? First and foremost: his face. Think of it as the most effective potential re-branding of the United States since Reagan. Such a re-branding is not trivial—it’s central to an effective war strategy. The war on Islamist terror, after all, is two-pronged: a function of both hard power and soft power. We have seen the potential of hard power in removing the Taliban and Saddam Hussein. We have also seen its inherent weaknesses in Iraq, and its profound limitations in winning a long war against radical Islam. The next president has to create a sophisticated and supple blend of soft and hard power to isolate the enemy, to fight where necessary, but also to create an ideological template that works to the West’s advantage over the long haul. There is simply no other candidate with the potential of Obama to do this. Which is where his face comes in.
Consider this hypothetical. It’s November 2008. A young Pakistani Muslim is watching television and sees that this man—Barack Hussein Obama—is the new face of America. In one simple image, America’s soft power has been ratcheted up not a notch, but a logarithm. A brown-skinned man whose father was an African, who grew up in Indonesia and Hawaii, who attended a majority-Muslim school as a boy, is now the alleged enemy. If you wanted the crudest but most effective weapon against the demonization of America that fuels Islamist ideology, Obama’s face gets close. It proves them wrong about what America is in ways no words can."
Much and little has been made about Obama's opposition to the war as a state senator in 2002. Much has been made by those who claim that then State Senator Obama is weak on defense and not even willing to authorize military force at a time when our country's security is seemingly clearly in danger. Little has been made by those who attempt to tamp down the courage of Obama in taking an unpopular position because a: he was a lowly state senator, and his decisions are, as such, not as consequential as U.S. senators, such as Clinton and Edwards, both of whom voted to support the war. In this bold statement from 2002, Obama keenly discounts both criticisms. Take a look:"I don’t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war … I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars."
Five years on, it would be extremely hard for someone to doubt the accuracy and wisdom in Obama's forecast. Undetermined cost? Yes. Occupation of undetermined length? You betcha. Fanned the flames of the Middle East and encouraged the worst impulses of the Arab World? Si, senor. Not opposed to all wars, he says he is- simply, dumb wars. Has the Iraq War been dumb? Hmmmmm...
If that isn't enough, consider the following statement that a: shows how the generational divide between Obama and Clinton leaves the latter more prone to be afraid of, and divided from, right-wingers than the former and b: backs up Obama's statement in a July debate that he would readily negotiate with so-called global pariahs immediately upon taking office (and why it represents a politically divisive stance not to do so):
"A generational divide also separates Clinton and Obama with respect to domestic politics. Clinton grew up saturated in the conflict that still defines American politics. As a liberal, she has spent years in a defensive crouch against triumphant post-Reagan conservatism. The mau-mauing that greeted her health-care plan and the endless nightmares of her husband’s scandals drove her deeper into her political bunker. Her liberalism is warped by what you might call a Political Post-Traumatic Stress Syndrome. Reagan spooked people on the left, especially those, like Clinton, who were interested primarily in winning power. She has internalized what most Democrats of her generation have internalized: They suspect that the majority is not with them, and so some quotient of discretion, fear, or plain deception is required if they are to advance their objectives. And so the less-adept ones seem deceptive, and the more-practiced ones, like Clinton, exhibit the plastic-ness and inauthenticity that still plague her candidacy. She’s hiding her true feelings. We know it, she knows we know it, and there is no way out of it.
Obama, simply by virtue of when he was born, is free of this defensiveness. Strictly speaking, he is at the tail end of the Boomer generation. But he is not of it.
Partly because my mother, you know, was smack-dab in the middle of the Baby Boom generation,” he told me. “She was only 18 when she had me. So when I think of Baby Boomers, I think of my mother’s generation. And you know, I was too young for the formative period of the ’60s—civil rights, sexual revolution, Vietnam War. Those all sort of passed me by.”Obama’s mother was, in fact, born only five years earlier than Hillary Clinton. He did not politically come of age during the Vietnam era, and he is simply less afraid of the right wing than Clinton is, because he has emerged on the national stage during a period of conservative decadence and decline. And so, for example, he felt much freer than Clinton to say he was prepared to meet and hold talks with hostile world leaders in his first year in office. He has proposed sweeping middle-class tax cuts and opposed drastic reforms of Social Security, without being tarred as a fiscally reckless liberal. (Of course, such accusations are hard to make after the fiscal performance of today’s “conservatives.”) Even his more conservative positions—like his openness to bombing Pakistan, or his support for merit pay for public-school teachers—do not appear to emerge from a desire or need to credentialize himself with the right. He is among the first Democrats in a generation not to be afraid or ashamed of what they actually believe, which also gives them more freedom to move pragmatically to the right, if necessary. He does not smell, as Clinton does, of political fear."
Finally, Sullivan closes with an incredibly powerful and duelistic look into what vorers face when they hit the polls this primary season. Take one final look:
Clinton Presidency:
"The paradox is that Hillary makes far more sense if you believe that times are actually pretty good. If you believe that America’s current crisis is not a deep one, if you think that pragmatism alone will be enough to navigate a world on the verge of even more religious warfare, if you believe that today’s ideological polarization is not dangerous, and that what appears dark today is an illusion fostered by the lingering trauma of the Bush presidency, then the argument for Obama is not that strong. Clinton will do. And a Clinton-Giuliani race could be as invigorating as it is utterly predictable."
Obama Presidency:
"But if you sense, as I do, that greater danger lies ahead, and that our divisions and recent history have combined to make the American polity and constitutional order increasingly vulnerable, then the calculus of risk changes. Sometimes, when the world is changing rapidly, the greater risk is caution. Close-up in this election campaign, Obama is unlikely. From a distance, he is necessary. At a time when America’s estrangement from the world risks tipping into dangerous imbalance, when a country at war with lethal enemies is also increasingly at war with itself, when humankind’s spiritual yearnings veer between an excess of certainty and an inability to believe anything at all, and when sectarian and racial divides seem as intractable as ever, a man who is a bridge between these worlds may be indispensable.
We may in fact have finally found that bridge to the 21st century that Bill Clinton told us about. Its name is Obama."
Folks, I can't sit by and watch and hope that the candidate I believe can change the world gets elected. And so, on January 1st, I'll hit the road heading for Iowa. I will do my best to ensure that the coming generation has what it needs in terms of a leader who can unite a fractured county and restore the U.S.' image in the eyes of the world. Our choice is clear, and I urge each of you to take action.