Barack Obama–Grownup
Living in Indiana, I know that my vote in a primary probably won’t make a difference. So I’ve tried to sit lightly in thinking about the candidates in the primaries.
But I have to say, I thought Barack’s speech last night was a tour de force. It was spellbinding, riffing on King and Kennedy while instantiating his own rhetorical style.
Here’s the key thing I noticed–more than the words: Barack Obama is a grownup. He’s not interested in being young or cool. He’s interested in being responsible. He sees himself as having a fiduciary responsibility, not an excuse for a never-ending party. In this era of delayed adolescence, he’s not pretending to be a rock star, or eternal teenager. He’s not playing the guitar on TV with the band (Clinton). He’s not trying to be a cutup and cute. (Huckabee/Norris ad). He’s not proclaiming a rigid inner certainty about what’s right, treating it as a compass in a relativistic ocean (GW Bush, about his own conversion). He’s advocating confidence, not certainty. Judgment, not relativism.
It is this feature, more than anything else that portends the end of the Boomer, forever young mentality. Barack Obama comes across as a grownup. And whether you are a Democrat or a Republican, he’s reminding you that if you’re old enough to vote, you’re a grownup too.
He seems to be very cute with his reference to King and Kennedy, not to mention Reagan. King was a multiple adulterer while Kennedy runs rings around Bill Clinton in extra marital affairs. Further, reporters later felt duped by Kennedys “style” while later admitting that he lied to them continually, Kennedy had no problem paying for votes in West Virginia while escalating the Vietnam war beyond repair. Kennedy and Bobby had no problem leaving their friends when they did not need them anymore.
Carolyn Kennedy pens a shameless article in today’s NY Times Op-ed. Besides not knowing her history, she should know that people are going to give her bs when talking about her father.
Let’s not get carried away. Barack is just another slick politician.
Cathy:
FYI, it’s “Barack” not “Barak.”
God bless,
Peter
P.S. I agreed with everything else…:-)
“He seems to be very cute with his reference to King and Kennedy, not to mention Reagan.” In the talk itself? What do you mean? If I remember correctly, there were riffs on King, but no explicit references.
Peter, thanks!
I went through and corrected. I shouldn’t post before coffee. And I, of all people, should know better–the person whose name is continually misspelled Kathleen Caveny!
What I mean he is mythologizing people who had serious flaws with reference to fidelity while people are crucifying Clinton for lesser infractions. It is a double standard and is hypocritical. Secondly, Jfk was mostly style without substance. He was a good speaker.
What do you mean crucifying Clinton? Which Clinton?
I don’t think people are crucifying the Clinton’s for their marital problems. I think it’s more their low-blow attacks and partisan hackery which are turning people off.
” … he’s reminding you that if you’re old enough to vote, you’re a grownup too.” If you change “you’re” to “you should be” I’ll agree 100%.
I think what happened in SC was a vote on Bill Clinton’s almost disgraceful performance there. If Hillary is going to run a co-presidency candidacy then she had better learn to reign in the Bubba a lot!
Barack Obama was born, I think, in 1961; that makes him a member of the baby boomer generation where I have spotted some other grown ups.
Actually, late baby boomers are frequently included in Gen X:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_X
I’m not saying that there are no grown-ups in Gen X. I’m not even saying that the Clintons aren’t grownups.
I’m saying that the rhetorical appeal, is now, unlike before, and still, in some cases, to being a grown up–not to being young and hip.
I think that Josh Marshall got it just about right: by injecting himself into her campaign in the way he did in SC, Bill Clinton has diminished his wife’s candidacy. Her statement about the spouses of the other candidates at the last debate was fatuous and risible: neither Edwards nor Obama is standing on that stage because of their spouses — after SC can anyone say the same about Hillary Clinton? Message to Bill: if she can’t win with you participating in the ordinary spouse of a candidate way, then she doesn’t deserve it. I had almost come around to accepting her legitimacy as a candidate, but I’m a lot further away than I was even before.
I have to admit that all the commentary both here on dotCommonweal and in the media in favor of Obama and against the Clintons is beginning to influence me in favor of Obama.
But I do wonder if Obama isn’t simply modifying the old Republican strategy of running against government or running against Washington by running against politics (or “politics as usual”). I don’t mean to suggest that it is a cynical ploy, by the way.
I thought it was interesting that Cokie Roberts on This Week with George Stephanopoulos was criticizing Hillary Clinton for not using it to her advantage that in the senate, she works with those across the aisle to get things done instead of being an idealogue. Obama has never really defined in practical terms how his “new” approach will work, but wouldn’t that have to be part of it?
I just read Caroline Kennedy’s op=ed endorsement and found it hard to see as “shameless.”
In the same Week In Review, I was hardly moved by Frank Rich’s blast at Bilary, but…
My fear is that in the racial stuff in South Carolina, Hillary may win the (nomination) battle bu tlose the war.
There’s lots of(preconceived) stuff on this blog about Clinton/Obama. i just think when people go into the voting booth, they’re not into how politically savvy or how hip or cute a politician is, but rather what’s affecting them right now.
I ‘d like to see, I must admit, Bil Clinton’s huge talents beingg applied elsewhere – maybe helping Kofi Anan in Kenya.
I must say, on the other hand, a Deo Gratias, that Rudy G.
s ca,paign keeps slupping back -with a huge boost from the same NYT editorial board/
David, you raise good points. I am not trying to suggest that the speech last night was a decisive reason for a voter in the Democratic primary to vote for Obama over Clinton in the end. I do think it was a masterful piece of political rhetoric, with the underlying “grown-up” image deflecting concerns that he is too green for the job, and simultaneously putting in the audience’s mind the stereotype about the immaturity of older boomers.
ET tu Barbare! Gore and Kerry refused Bill Clinton’s help which was a huge mistake. Bill is the best campaigner ever. It is not fair to condemn her for having him campaign. She did the same for him. But, of course, the man knows best??
There are two things working here as I see it. misogyny is still a huge factor as many women are beginning to realize. Second, Barack benefits by being a fresh and attractive candidate, however, inexperienced. Notice that voters in SC, said that experience was a very small factor.
Hillaryhttp://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/01/27/ED6EUKN15.DTL
Jimmy (or anyone),
How can a Democratic president “set partisanship aside” unless the Republicans do also? And will they? I don’t even see how it will be possible in the campaign for the general election, let alone in the White House.
Perhaps I lack imagination. But this is my biggest question about the Democratic primaries. Since it is almost universally acknowledged that Obama, Clinton, and Edwards do not differ much on policies, how can Obama become president, remain true to his policies, and “set partisanship aside”? It seems to me partisanship is more than tone–much more.
If Obama faces McCain or Romney in presidential debates, when the Republican candidate points out the difference between his position and Obama’s, will Obama say, “Well, let me tell you how I intend to arrive at a bipartisan compromise on that issue”?
I am not being facetious. I really want to know how a Democratic president can “set partisanship aside.” As a committed Democrat, I’m not sure that’s what I want, but I would still like some idea of how it can be done. I am at present totally mystified.
The link which Jimmy Mac provided (two comments above) doesn’t work; the problem is that the first seven letters (Hillary) shouldn’t be there.
It should be
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/01/27/ED6EUKN15.DTL
David Nickol said he wondered about Obama’s “approach:”
According to a Washington Post op ed, the answer is yes, Obama’s approach would included “work[ing] with those across the aisle to get things done.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/03/AR2008010303303.html
The op ed, “Judge Him by His Laws,” was written by Charles Peters, former editor of the Washington Monthly. Excerpts:
It’s clear that many people believe they shouldn’t be anywhere.
If you read my comment closely you will see that I was not criticizing Bill Clinton for campaigning for his wife, qua spouse, I was criticizing his campaigning for his wife, qua ex-president. Trying to put the thumb of his influence as ex-president on the scale of the outcome of an intra-party contest is a lot different from being asked to do the same thing on behalf of the candidate already chosen by the party against the other party. The fact that he is doing so in order to better the chances of his wife makes it even worse.
Therefore, what he did or did not do (whether requested to do so or not) in the 2000 or 2004 GENERAL presidential ELECTION isn’t really relevant to what he is doing now on behalf of his wife in the party’s presidential PRIMARY process. There are objective grounds for crticizing the Clintons that are not misogynistic.
David: I have no doubt that Obama will be able to hold his own in the give and take of the runup to the Presidential election. Just because he is “young” (as Bill C constantly wants to warn us) doesn’t mean that he has not proven himself to be capable of surviving the vicissitudes of elected office. He survived in Illinois, did he not? That is not exactly playing in the sandbox.
It is time, however, for rolling in the mud and grabbing for the private parts to stop being the norm in electoral politics. If Obama can begin to take us away from that, he will be 100% better than the B&C show have shown themselves to be!