Why Obama is Winning

I watched the debates tonight.  Then sat in stunned silence for hours as it sank in.  The Democratic debates were instructive and moving.  Edwards reminded me why I liked him so much.  We do need a President who feels down to his very soul the necessity of fighting back, and who has proven himself in battle.  Hillary has been on the other side all too often, grinning her “Jack Nicholson as the Joker” grin while sticking a shiv in our backs (she calls this experience).  Edwards is that man, and I still stand beside him as my favorite candidate for President.
But now I am standing firmly in Obama’s camp as well, and feel a great deal of confidence in Barack’s ability to lead this country.  He went from “at least he’s not Hillary” to “I can actually support him” in just a few moments.  I’d like to share those essential realizations with you.

The Power of Words.  Inspiration.  In that word is everything Obama is and Hillary is not.  It is everything I aspired to when I taught, and what moves me to care and act and speak out.  Words do matter, and while Hillary tried to cast them aside, Obama brought them back to the table with an appropriate rhetorical deftness.  You see, words matter because they inspire and unite us.  Words move “we the people” to action, and it is that action that changes history and brings about change.  Change isn’t just something you legislate or negotiate.  Change is something you incite, something you invite and push and explode and challenge.  And Barack Obama understands this with a fullness not seen in many public figures inside or out of what we label politics.

And people know this.  When we see the candidates, Democrats and Republicans, under the spotlight.  When we hear their words and see their actions, those of us who think and feel with our own minds and hearts are drawn towards Obama’s authenticity.  Not merely because it is authentic, as some Republicans have dismissively surmised, but because that authenticity promises a shift in political power.  From the elites to all.   Really the only people left are those Republicans who are casting votes of theocratic lust and faith for Huckabee, those casting their lot with the Elephant who can sound the most like Bush without sounding too much like the guy who got us into Iraq and mishandled Katrina.  The only people left are those of sympathetic hearts and minds voting for John Edwards, and those who are casting votes of fear disguised as pragmatism, votes for Hillary Clinton.

And when it comes down to it, the point isn’t that Clinton and the Rest have so much to lose in the face of such hope.  The point is that Obama has so much to gain.  Because as the excitement of real change begins to sweep this country, the unwittingly cynical marketing pushed by Ron Paul supporters, the idea of a revolution, starts becoming more of a reality.   You see the biggest issue facing our country is our representation in government.  And the only way to start to do that is to involve more people in politics.  Part of that means tackling the owners and their lobbyists.  Part of that involves creating time for people to get informed and take action.  But the very start is to invite more people to take part, and Brarack Obama can do that.  He could do that as President, he could do that as Vice President.  He’s doing it right now, and that is why he is winning.

Advertisements

4 Responses

  1. Agree with much of your post. I thought Edwards won. He comes across as truthful and passionate about change.

    Hillary is having trouble because unlike Edwards or Obama people do not connect to her. All the organization and money in the world won’t cure that.

  2. Obama is an amazing speaker, and inspiring in a way that the other candidates can’t begin to match. What absolutely horrifies me about this is that nobody even cares about his actual platform, which he is very reticent to even talk about: it’s all about “uniting people” and understanding them, and other aspirational messages. He talks about goals, but very rarely about policy.

    So I went back and reviewed his performance on Meet the Press, and it was the same thing. The only strong stand he took in the entire show was that he “wouldn’t apologize for standing up for our security interests in Israel”, which struck me as a kind of bizarre thing for a candidate to say (what security interests?)

    So then, I started looking at the team that he’s assembled around him: Zbiegnew Brzezinski, the guy who, in the Carter admin, began US backing for islamic terrorists in Pakistan. Even today, Brzezinski favors US expansionism around Russia’s sphere of influence, and continued US presence in the middle east.

    Another top Obama advisor is Anthony Lake, who was the biggest proponent in the Clinton admin for invading Haiti and instituting an IMF/World Bank programme which just spread hunger and conflict (and was denounced by Aristide).

    Then you have Dennis Ross, executive director of AIPAC – the most powerful lobby group in Washington, and backer for NPAC (which gave us Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, and Podheretz).

    Based on all this, I am worried that Obama talks a great game of “change”, but when he talks about unity, what he really means is following the consensus of the neocons for a global empire. Obama is not resisted by the elite powerbrokers, because he’s already brought them all onboard on his campaign.

    And that scares the hell out of me.

  3. Tidewater Jackson,

    In terms of who won the debate, Edwards made a number of excellent points, but on occasion he missed some opportunities to strike while his opponents pounced.

    But the key moment came where both Hillary and Obama talked about how the Democrats as a whole were better positioned (both were trying to talk as though they were the nominee).

    Personally, Edwards is still my number 1 after the debate, and I hope his performance gives him enough momentum to secure a close second if not first.

    Daniel Pye,
    I’ll have to look into Obama more deeply then. I’ve had this suspicion that he’s being sold as the consensus candidate as a way to placate the masses. First scare us with Hillary, then have a liberal like Kucinich (who talks amazing game but never seems to accomplish his ends) endorse him, and away we go.

    But when I am not overly cynical and paranoid about such things, I’m not too worried. For two reasons. One, when he speaks, he carries a sincerity that engenders trust. Two, his chief appeal is as someone who will bring more people to the polls and to the halls of power. This will be accomplished whether or not he turns out to be on the level, and if he isn’t, then that newly energized crowd will turn on him quickly and viciously.

    But these questions about his advisors need to be put to him. Just because I like a candidate does not mean he gets a pass on all the sketchy shit he pulls.

    As to these specific folks, where do you get that Dennis Ross is involved in Obama’s campaign? Anthony Lake on the whole actually looks like a fairly good person to have as a foreign policy advisor.

    Brzezinski appears to have endorsed Obama, but is he on his team? Sources please, I’m definitely curious.

  4. Obama’s election campaign is picking up. I remember what he said after his victory in Iowa “…big cities and small towns, you came together to say, ‘We are one nation, we are one people and our time for change has come.'” http://www.electionspeak.com/USElections/obama-and-huckabee-lead-in-iowa-caucuses/

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: