Obama's Big Night + Colin Powell

Saturday has been a very good night for the Obama campaign. A sweep of the Virgin Islands, Nebraska, Washington, and the state of Louisiana has put this race dead even going into tomorrow's contest in Maine and Tuesday's "Potomac Primary." It's even overall, with Clinton holding the superdelegate trump card, but Obama with a lead in standard delegates. Things look great for Obama at this point thanks to a likely sweep of the Maine, Delaware, D.C., and Virginia. There are few projections our there that would suggest otherwise.

In terms of perception, this bodes well for the Senator from Illinois as the talk of the race for three weeks will be fixed on what he's doing right and how she can make up for her failures in the recent contests. With Ohio and Texas, among other states, looming Obama needs that PR and that perception of momentum to gain ground on the frontrunning Clinton. Ohio and Texas can be won over, but she holds fairly sizable leads at this point.

Both candidates have their eyes turned towards John McCain as the Arizona Senator is playing the role of the official nominee for all it's worth. despite the fact that Mike Huckabee is causing him some embarrassment in the conservative southern and midwestern states, while the lunatic radio talk show hosts eat him alive on the air. The main Clinton talking point in painting a contrast between herself and Obama has been her ability to stand up on the same stage as John McCain and hold her own on national security. Given the idea that McCain's only trump card in a general election against the Democratic nominee is the issue of Iraq and the war on terror, she may have a point.

One interesting idea that popped into my head while watching this unfold is the notion that Colin Powell might just play a role in all of this if he should so choose. In an interview on CNN recently, Powell suggested that he is excited about this election and that he reserves the right, as he has during his adult life, to vote for someone of the other party. He has spoken highly of Barack Obama in the past and it would appear that there is some chance that he may eventually speak on behalf of the Obama campaign. Now, that's tricky. Powell's reasons for speaking out may in the end prove to be some sort of redemption for his role in the deceptive leadup to the invasion of Iraq and a rebuff of the Bush administration that cornered him at every opportunity and eventually forced him out. If McCain is out to play that card against Obama in a general election debate, you may just see Powell stand up to cut it off before it happens by offering his advice and counsel to Barack Obama. With a former General and Secretary of State in his corner, a large part of the Republican attack plan would be blunted. Watch for it.....

Super Tuesday Fallout

The potential existed for both parties to lock up a solid nominee on Super Tuesday, although the polls generally showed that things might get close in the Democratic contests. What we saw yesterday was a potential clincher for Sen. John McCain and a near knockout blow to Mitt Romney. Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama used energized voting turnouts around the country to inject an excitement into the Democratic Party that hasn't been seen since Bill Clinton became the "Comeback Kid", and more appropriately, since the Kennedy era.

What does it all mean?

On the GOP side of things, I think the showing in the rural South by Mike Huckabee proved that McCain is vulnerable in that area and that he needs a true social conservative as his running mate to make up for his perceived shortcomings with that base constituency. Huckabee is a virtual lock for that honor, in my opinion, for a few reasons. First, if Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee, she figures to show very strong in Arkansas. With a big win in a southern state like Arkansas, others may follow including Missouri and perhaps Tennessee. Those states, in the Democratic column, might just tip the scales toward Clinton and may even portend a landslide. With Huckabee on the ticket, a former governor of Arkansas, that advantage is completely neutralized.

Second, McCain is considered a moderate by the party's ultra-conservative base, which is harmful to him in many circles, but helps him to stay competitive in the more purple states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan. Huckabee would likely attract the South to the GOP column, where the Dems might otherwise strike a few upsets. A combination of McCain/Huckabee might carry the base in all the constituencies that HAVE to be won, while challenging in the contested areas as well. If Huckabee isn't McCain's running mate, there might be some trouble in GOP land. The other potential candidates won't have enough time to energize the crucial regions of the country that Huckabee has already captured with his presidential run. This campaign began 6 months ago in many ways and the groundwork has been laid for the symbolic association required of the presidential candidate that a running mate will only give a marginal boost. The VP candidate is largely a symbol assigned to fill in gaps in the perception of the presidential candidate. With McCain there are so many perceived gaps in his conservative resume that a last minute running mate can't completely cover. Huckabee has been on the scene the whole time and therefore carries a lot of weight as a #2. Stay Tuned.

The final piece of the GOP puzzle to discuss is the fall off of Mitt Romney. He took a lot for granted in his campaign. He assumed that attacking McCain as a "liberal" would ingratiate him to the conservative base. His rhetoric aimed at presenting himself as the conservative alternative to McCain, but the base knows Romney well enough to know that he was a "liberal" Republican during his tenure as governor of Massachusetts. His flip-flopping on core conservative issues left doubt about his credentials and sent most of the Right searching for an alternative to BOTH McCain and Romney. Whoops. Must have forgotten the other half of the equation when attacking McCain, huh Mitt? He is finished. There's no way he can make up for the failures he endured on Super Tuesday, but he'll keep spending his money for a little while trying to score in the next round. If he doesn't nearly sweep the next set of states, he'll drop out. (He might drop out in the next few days if his family wavers....something to watch.)

The Democrats will spin the results of Super Tuesday to suit their agendas, but both Clinton and Obama have plenty to think over. Clinton was winning most of the Super Tuesday states by double digits for months, and in many of those areas she had 20 or 30+ point leads. Obama's political machine has proved that it has energy, momentum, and a solid plan of attack. Clinton's name recognition and superb political skills set her out ahead of the field by 20 lengths as the campaign began. In fact, her New York Senatorial campaigns were largely seen as warm ups to this presidential run. She's been on the radar as a presidential hopeful for so long that the image has already been solidified in the public's mind. Obama is so savvy and so inspirational that he has closed the recognition gap to a dead heat in a matter of two months. Clinton managed to win the big delegate states, and can therefore crow about her Super Tuesday victory, but the fact is she should have won those states. Obama managed to nearly duplicate her delegate total by splitting the contested states, while racking up wins in the lower point locations.

The Democratic primaries are a much different animal that the GOP contests. A candidate may lose a state by 10, 15, or 20 percentage points, but split the delegates evenly if the local victories occur in the right places. In many cases, Obama managed to pull off that strategy. Clinton has to be very worried about the tremendous climb that Obama has made recently both in the polls and in the finance arena. Obama is out-raising her by $3 to $1 at this point and will have a huge war chest to blitz the remaining states with ads and on the ground volunteers. She may be worried about the momentum and the money, but the climb for Obama is still very steep. He will have to win the remaining big delegate states by convincing margins to catch Clinton. She's ahead and she is still the better known candidate. The Superdelegate situation also favors Clinton at this point. The way it works, Party officials and high profile members get a vote at the convention that equals the total of some Congressional districts. Not only do they get their personal vote, but they get a big enchilada 2nd vote as well. This seems hardly legal in a representative democracy, but that's the system until we change it.

Clinton is a Party insider with a lot of favors to cash in. When Bill Clinton was president he MADE a lot of the people in the Party hierarchy and can claim loyalty from them in support of his wife. That's the shady reality of this process. The hope for Obama is to swell the national tide in his favor, win the big states which remain and take the overall lead, and grab as many undecided Superdelegates as he can. It's an uphill battle, but he has a puncher's chance that could become much more than that in the next two to three weeks.

For my part, I will use this forum to officially endorse Barack Obama. You will find a link to his campaign website in the right column, and I encourage everyone to go take a look at his positions on the key issues of this election and watch some video of his inspirational leadership style. I've donated to his campaign and it was money well spent. If you can afford to drop a small amount of cash in his coffers, I guarantee he will use it well and make a run at representing all of us as president in a dignified and responsible manner. Go Obama!!!!

UPDATE: MSNBC is reporting that Barack Obama leads Hillary Clinton in the standard delegate count by a thin margin of 838 to 834 after the Super Tuesday count is finished. Of course, she has a 100 or so point advantage in the Superdelegate race keeping her the frontrunner, but this is meaningful.

Barak Obama: African-American?

I like Sen. Barack Obama. For the record, I'm more of a John Edwards supporter, although I will vote for whichever Democrat wins the nomination. Each of the Dems has a flaw of one kind or another that leaves me generally apathetic about endorsing them at this point. Sen. Hillary Clinton is a "known evil," so to speak, with a long laundry list of flaws that leaves me lukewarm. She is tied to lobbyists and big money. She's a political animal with strong ties to the Washington process. Hardly a populist. Barack Obama is a lesser known evil, with a slimmer record and a far more vague profile by which to judge his suitability for the highest office. John Edwards suffers the fate of his populist platform. He has done nothing in the abstract sense to build his image as an icon of the largess required to lead us all. He seems too down to earth. He seems local.

In the end, I have no doubt that these three candidates are equally suited to building a new direction of some kind. Having Bush in office for 8 years will almost guarantee a new direction of some kind. His approval ratings will require the successor to do something radically different. I would even argue that Sen. John McCain, should he resist the current regime's established power core, can be a positive force for change. This post is not about the merits or pitfalls of choosing any of these candidates, however. The title of the post betrays the focus on its own.

Among these candidates we have certain symbolic associations that define the roles each fills in the national consciousness. Hillary is the woman. Edwards is the trial lawyer. Huckabee is the preacher. McCain is the P.O.W.. Giuliani is the 9/11 America's Mayor. Romney is the flip-flopping Mormon. And....Barack Obama is the African-American. We hear all the time that Obama is the first legitimate African-American presidential candidate to seek his party's nomination. The mass media rejoices in this characterization and Obama has played it up to his advantage from Day One.

In and of itself each of these characterizations are fairly harmless, generally dulling the senses of the consumer to the depth of the platform and character of each candidate. See my last post for more on this. The two candidates that are painted most broadly by this brush of abstraction are Gov. Mike Huckabee and Barack Obama. Huckabee made a speech in Florida, as his finances wane and his days with them, accusing the media of painting him as the Preacher-in-Chief candidate for his religious background. In fairness to Huckabee, taking into account the power of his religious associations, he stands for much more than Christ. He's been an effective governor for more than 10 years and has plenty of policy expertise that work to his advantage. He's no Pat Robertson. He isn't leaning on organizations like Focus on the Family or the Evangelical block to get himself elected. His campaign has had a religious overtone, but has been as secular in its approach to issues as his competitors. For him, however, it's over. It's over because he never got his message out to the public over the din of his portrayal as a theologian.

On the other side of the political spectrum we have Barack Obama. As the African-American candidate his image has been crafted for the voting public in such a way that it precedes his platform nearly 100% of the time. "Is America ready for an African-American president?" That's the question that continually pops up in the coverage of his campaign. You see this less with Hillary Clinton as the female candidate, perhaps indicating that subconsciously we are more ready for a woman to be Commander-in-Chief than we are a so-called ethnic minority. Nevertheless, it's worth examining the underlying meaning behind Obama's characterization in the media and the effect it has on his electability.

What does it mean to be African-American? Whatever the socio-scientific answer may be, it's clear that it means something particular at the highest levels of abstraction. Symbolically, the notion of African-Americanhood resides in the genetic material that one possesses that is brown, rather than white. Barack Obama, Halle Berry, Derek Jeter and many other well known figures are all Black (or African-American) by definition. There is never a single question about their identity. They are Black. Black, Black, Black. Nevermind that each of these individuals are of mixed-racial background. Nevermind that each of these individuals was socialized in some respect in a White setting during substantial parts of their formative life. Nope. They are Black. Barack Obama is Black.

This ignores an important aspect of identity only found at less abstract examinations of race. Laurence Fishburne is racially distinct from Suzanne Malveaux is racially distinct from Donna Brazile is racially distinct from Wesley Snipes, and so on. Yes, there is an American historical precedent for the classification of individuals along these racial lines. This precedent is as much a tool of the oppressed as it was a tool of the oppressor, but in the end it ignores the depth of experience. It is the very target of Martin Luther King, Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech when he hoped that one day we would judge a man by the content of his character regardless of the color of his skin. Race is a social construction by and large, and in this case robs the American public of deep consideration of the man.

Now, Barack Obama may be counting on the perception of race in his campaign. He may have a strategy for this abstract construct as a tool for building identity and a swell of popular support. It may or may not work. Whatever it does, in the end, it is a veil. It is a distraction. I see Obama using the language of Malcolm X in his speeches in South Carolina. Before a largely African-American audience, Obama used the terms "bamboozled", "hood-winked", and "okie-doke." These terms were made famous by Macolm X on the stump in his days with the Nation of Islam. Obama is attempting to conjure that connection with the South Carolina audience to clue them in to the Clintons' tactics. I guarantee he won't use that lingo in front of whiter audiences because it won't resonate the same way. In this particular example, I watched as a handful of individuals in the background, and two in particular, laughed and rolled their eyes as he invoked the words of Malcolm. They knew the deal.

The fact is, Barack Obama was largely raised by his White mother and her parents. He spent a good deal of time in Indonesia, and in pursuit of his father's African identity. He's a product of the Ivy League, which is virtually lily white. His entire campaign staff at the highest levels is White. None of this is to deny him his connection to the larger African-American community. Clearly his adult life has been spent in the African-American community. The church, the marriage, the work have all been enveloped by this demographic distinction. There is an African-American thread. He is brown in the same way that Derek Jeter is brown and Halle Berry is brown. He may have a hard time getting a cab and more than a few of our most ignorant brothers and sisters have probably used the "N" word to describe him. There is an undeniable mark on Barack Obama beyond his control.

The point of this post is the nonsensical distinction of racial identity in the Obama candidacy that ignores reality. Obama doesn't want to be limited as "the Black candidate" and rightly so. For practical purposes it makes sense to diffuse that distinction to broaden appeal. My intent here is not that. My intent is to point out how little one may determine about Obama when using that abstraction. I'm not concerned how politically inconvenient the label is for Obama. I'm concerned with how inconvenient it is for the rest of us left to make up our minds about a political candidate.

Of course, television deals in stereotypes and generalizations so we're never likely to overcome our artificial fixation about race and what it really means. As long as we absorb important information from television, we will leave our consciousness at the highest levels of abstraction, unable to make more accurate distinctions about our world. As I type this, I'm watching the analysis of the Obama victory in South Carolina on CNN. The main point of analysis regarding the outcome is the breakdown of Black men and women for each candidate, as well as the White men and women's breakdown. It's not their fault that this is the point of focus. There is some abstract level of reality to this breakdown. If we operate symbolically, the analysis will naturally follow this. The problem is not that the analysis is of the highly symbolic. The analysis is a product of the initial presentation of the campaign on symbolic grounds. Once the symbolic system has been formed and disseminated to the viewing public the rest falls in line.

I like Obama. I support his candidacy. I liken his impact on this campaign to Robert Kennedy's approach all those years ago, although he's probably no Robert Kennedy in the end. The abstraction of race doesn't enter the equation in my mind. He's no King and he's no X. He doesn't have to be, and he shouldn't try to be.