Obama the redeemer
 |
|
Harlem for Obama |
Barack Obama won the Democratic caucus in lily-white Iowa in part because he comes across as a postracial candidate. An Obama presidency might let average people absolve residual guilt for America’s history of slavery:
All the Obama volunteers told me how hard it was, even in Harlem, to convince folks that an Obama presidency was possible. Not just because Harlem now lies in the shadow of the Clinton building, but because people in Harlem’s barbershops, restaurants and schools didn’t think a black man could win. The very circumstances of our own lives pushes the possibility past the realm of belief.
But Harlem believed last night. We all believed last night… One man last night said, “This isn’t just a victory for Harlem. This is a victory for all the Harlems across this nation.” [Link]
Is Obama America’s Manmohan Singh? Singh’s elevation to PM excited many Sikhs, who saw in it an implicit apology for the anti-Sikh pogrom of ‘84.
Obama is also a second-gen immigrant, much like Bobby Jindal. But in one key way, they’re poles apart. Afraid of being niched as an ethnic politician, rather than just an American politician, Jindal has by and large refused to speak out on desi issues after collecting checks from cardiologist uncles. When two Indian LSU students were murdered in their homes, Jindal remained conspicuously silent until even white Louisiana politicians nudged him to speak.
Back in Khanpur, Jindal’s relatives tried to call him with congratulations but got an answering machine instead. Even though they haven’t heard from him, extended family members bicker over who is closest to Jindal’s father and who has received more letters from him. [Link - thanks, Anil]
In contrast, Obama has not divorced himself from one of his ancestral homelands. Last week he issued a statement on the post-election violence in Kenya:
Obama, who seeks to become America’s first black president, said he was “deeply troubled” by the turmoil in the east African country. “The instability and tragic violence pose an urgent and dangerous threat to the people of Kenya… Now is the time for this terrible violence to end.” [Link]
on Monday, January 7th, 2008, 4:30 pm in Barack Obama, Bobby Jindal, Issues, Politics › 
Email this
› 
Facebook this
› 
Reddit this
› Link
› Reader links
I don’t think average white folk are supporting/voting for Obama out of guilt. Nor do I seriously think that we’re all subconsciously thinking “if I vote Obama, it’ll prove that I like Black people and am sorry for what happened in America.”
He’s a qualified, charismatic, passionate candidate. Those seem to be the primary motivators.
Obama also won the caucus in Iowa because of the giant youth vote; young people turned up in droves. The younger generation has a different exposure to (and relationship with) race and diversity than the Boomer generation (and, to an extent, Gen-X). Do they consider this “absolving the past?” Is there guilt involved? Check Facebook. The sentiment is simply “Obama is SO AWESOME!”
Here’s commentary by Doug Saunders on a the European reaction to the rise of ‘the son of a Kenyan goatherd’.
After watching presidential debates and all the democratic candidates public speeches, I felt that obama is an excellent charismatic public speaker…from his soft tone, his speeches on hope and dreams for better future, the way he wants to bring democrats and republicans together I think makes people feel that he is their man and will take America to a brighter future..People are reminded of John F kennedy…even in last weeks presidential debates on abc, he seemed more poised, spoke more precisely than all the candidates though he is youngest of all..
In Iowa record number of people turned up for the caucus to vote which shows how he is able to mobilise the crowd who never got into politics that much…
Hillary has more experience but is not able to capitalize on that..she is not a good public speaker and has no charisma..she constantly criticises others in the race during her speech , makes comparisons which is having a negative impact on her own campaign..Hillarys voice was all over the place, angry sometimes, sometimes jealous, sometimes cut to the chase that people are not inspired by her as they are by obama…
obama also knows how to avoid issues..Hillary was pointing out to bills where he made mistakes and he avoided answering directly about them and started speaking of hope with such lovely quotes that you are left mesmerised with his poetic inspiring speeches and you tend to ignore his record and experience and everything else..
He knows how to market himself well and Hillary doesnt.. charisma is the big thing..
BTW Iam so so glad that finally Manmohan singh became the PM..He is such a great man, so well read, so clean, the man behind India’s liberalised economy…I have great respect for that man…He has no charisma and does not even speak much on TV but quietly does the job well and is such a learned man..I just admire him a lot..Obama might be americas manmohan singh though I dont think he has experience or such a great record as Manmohan singh.. I dont know how clean obama is though he promises he wont allow people to lobby with money to get things done..
Am I the only one not taken by Obama mania? Yes, yes, he’s nice and all that. But for the love of pete, you’re electing the president here. Enough about how important it is to be a charismatic and inspirational leader. I saw the debates and he had very little credibility behind his plans. Lots of idealistic talk but lacking details that would confirm he had thought through his ideas. Aside from his historical opposition to the war and his clear policy on Pakistan I am not sure what is so great about him.
Edwards was worse because his idealistic rubbish had less detail than Obama and was said with a southern drawl.
Clinton at least knows what she’s talking about and any day I’d prefer a chief executive who knows what she/he is doing rather than a charismatic one. That said, gosh she is difficult to listen to for an extended period.
Blue: Maybe not, but the first black president will be quite a milestone for America.
Juice: At first I thought Obama was a single hot-speech lightweight. But aside from being right on three of our biggest foreign policy issues — Pakistan, Iraq, Iran — and Hillary voting on the ass-backward end of each? He’s been on the right side, and Hillary on the wrong, of torture and (to a lesser extent) the Fascist Act as well. People are sick of Darth Cheney, and Obama has explicitly modeled himself a progressive Reagan, down to his rising sun campaign logo.
This is a change vote. Just be thankful it isn’t a security vote, like the jackass we re-elected in ‘04. Shook my faith, that did.
The election could be over as early as this evening, barring late-breaking skeletons or swiftboating. The Dem nominee is likely to win, and Obama is leading in the NH polls.
Anyone know how many second-gen immigrants have been nominated in modern times? Off the top of my head — Obama, Dukakis, Ferraro.
Erm, my comment should have appeared like this, sorry:
I am not American; however, I harbour some strong opinions on who should be lording over me as the all powerful leader of the hegemon. I was all for Obama and his agenda of change, inclusive oneness, and dreams of a world of peace and tranquility. That’s until Hillary got all mushy on TV last night. Now, I can’t wait for her to become the next president. All you Americans have a moral obligation to vote for her now. Change and all that idealistic crap can wait. She is the real deal and will provide the rest of the world with some phenomenal TV.
Pssst… don’t tell anybody but Obama has a black baby.
Obama has been nominated ? Is it July already? :)
Also, in 84, Ferraro didn’t run in the primaries, she was just picked up during the Convention by Mondale, for Veep on the Dem Ticket. So in recent times, Dukakis 88 is all you got.
I’d be more cautious in interpreting Obama’s win in Iowa. He brings to mind Jesse Jackson, who did surprizingly well in Iowa in 1988, though he didn’t win. In some ways race is far more incidental in Iowa than it is elsewhere in the country. Also, caucuses operate in a curious way, and I bet that had something to do with his win. If he actually wins the nomination, of course I’ll agree it really is a new day. The election is not over by any means, it’s barely just begun.
Obama and his Nan. Coolest picture ever.
you had me going there for a while :-)
Here’s what the local paper had to say. they may have a point. the flip side is that this emotion is a sign of defeat. either way she is portrayed- cynical or defeated - it wasnt a good moment for her campaign.
.
Prakruti - “BTW Iam so so glad that finally Manmohan singh became the PM..He is such a great man, so well read, so clean, the man behind India’s liberalised economy…”
Manmohan is not responsible for India’s [i assume you are referring to the 91 reforms, which stemmed from the balance of payment crisis?] economic reforms. That singular honor goes to the then Prime Minister - Narsimha Rao.
The dus lakh rupaiya question is whether Obama can win in November 08?
i agree with you. i’ve always felt there was a strong parallel between PVNR-Singh (in India) and Chretien-Martin (in Canada). Chretien was a flawed man - but a cutthroat politician who knew how t ograb power and hold on. martin was his finance minister and the man who cleaning up canada’s financial mess. here’s where the analogy ends. martin was ambitious as the son of a man who scaled political heights but never got the top job. he had a group of people within the party who eventually managed to get him pm, but he could not hold on - and the party lost the parliament. Singh has been astute in this way by not being the absolute leader, and handing over party leadership to gandhi (or vice versa, as the cynics might say) - thus sharing some of the burden with being the leader.
totally unaligned with the discussion at hand - but wanted to drop the mental load. cheers.
Ich bin ein Obamer!
I hope not. In my opinion, being completely brutal, he best thing that happened to Kennedy’s legacy was Oswald. Otherwise, he’d have been holding the bag for Vietnam instead of Johnson.
Kautilya - from what I read in news papers and websites Manmohan singh is the architect of modern liberalised indian economy starting in 1991. PV Narasimha Rao was the PM then and he let Manmohan singh who was then minister of finance come up with the idea. Manmohan singh was by then known well all around the world as an economist working for International monitary fund and is the brain behind the liberalization.
I checked a couple of websites and all websites say the same
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manmohan_Singh
websites say
http://inhome.rediff.com/money/2004/may/20man2.htm
His first budget in July 1991 was pathbreaking where he did away with industrial licencing, liberalised trade policy and slashed expenditure in the backdrop of a foreign exchange crises forcing a devaluation of the rupee by 16 per cent and again by 6 per cent.
http://www.hindustantimes.in/news/specials/leadership2005/manmohan_singh.shtml
Dr. Manmohan Singh, much before taking over reins of the country, was the architect of India’s 1991 liberalisation policy. He brought about a revolutionary change in the way the country’s state-directed economy was run.
Singh boldly attempted to cut fertiliser subsidies where he encountered stiff political resistance. His axe fell on capital expenditure and on health and education.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1191515.cms
http://indiauncut.blogspot.com/2006/12/whos-real-manmohan-singh.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_India
coming back to obama -hillary battle
obama positives - great public speaking skills, charisma, reminds people of JFK or martin luther king or reagan, is young, even women voters and young voters favor him over hillary, successfully wrote two best selling books, seems honest, big oprah support and all stood against war and he is the one who started campaign saying he is the change, hope…which now other contestants are also saying ten times they are the change, he is magnetizing crowds with his great inspiring speeches that a lot of voters are just turning out to caucus polls, obama factor working with both black white young old female voters too..but in a long run he has to prove himself beyond speeches with his track record and what he really did in action..but he has such magnetism in his soft voice and speech that people are overlooking his experience and track record..
Hillary positives - lots of experience as first lady, senator..has great education, track record, could be first woman president, was a successful lawyer, works hard..but not a great inspiring public speaker..she is not capitalizing on her experience and is not marketing or selling herself right, keeps criticising people, her nervous breakdown yesterday humanizes her but could be a negative factor for her showing her weakness, not able to get women voters or youth support, she supported war and backed out later. She has no charisma too.. If she wants to win she needs to speak well, stress on her positive points and need to connect to audience well. sometimes comes out as shrewd and cold..she needs to change her campaign strategy and speak more precisely and should try to inspire audience with hope and promise rather than compare herself with other candidates…
Interesting race..
I know. That’s why it’s great that he’s the current front-runner. People aren’t voting Obama just to “get the milestone” (that is, they’re not voting Obama on the grounds that “we should have a Black president someday, and this guy will do as well as any,” which I got the feeling was the sentiment around Hillary and “first female president”), but that doesn’t make the possibility of the milestone any less cool.
This did Obama in New Hampshire, then?