Barack Obama? … Probably Not
Are Americans really prepared to elect a Black president? According to this op-ed article from France’s Sunday newspaper, Le Journal du Dimanche au Quotidien, if Barack Obama does manage to reach the White House, ‘it will be because his case eases the very conscience of the country … and something really essential will have changed in the United States.’
“Is the United States ready to elect a Black president? In two centuries, only two Blacks have been elected governors. … If Obama does maintain his lead throughout this campaign, it will be because his case eases the very conscience of the country.
The Chronicle of Gilles Delafon
Translated By Pascaline Jay
December 23, 2007
France – Le Journal du Dimanche au Quotidien – Original Article (French)
Is the United States ready to elect a Black president? In two centuries, only two Blacks have been elected governors in the country. So President? … probably not.
Yet a week before the kickoff to the race for the White House, the Democratic senator from Illinois, Barack Obama, born of a Kenyan father, is favored in the polls. He now outstrips his rival Hillary Clinton in the state of Iowa, where the first primary will take place on January 3rd. [Actually, Iowa holds a caucus rather than a primary ]. He’s also catching up in New Hampshire, where voters will decide on the 8th.
Better still, he’s so far the only Democrat that can beat all of his potential Republican rivals on Election Day. This is the hour of Obama. With his freshness and his spirit of “openness,” he says that once elected, he’s prepared to reach out to Republicans, such as Californian governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Prudence is called for, however. Iowa is an epiphenomenon blown out of proportion by hungry media pugilists. Barely 130,000 voters will decide these polls, and they are hardly determinative. Four years ago, Democrat Howard Dean was the odds-on-favorite in Iowa until he confronted maneuvering by supporters of John Kerry. [Most would argue that it was Dean's famous "scream" and the reaction of the media to it that did him in].
9 Responses to “Barack Obama? … Probably Not”
he’s prepared to reach out to Republicans, such as Californian governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.
This more then anything else continues to prove to me that he is talking the talk but will not walk the walk.
Reach out to Arnold? Arnold has become a democrat. He just carries the Republican moniker for now. George Bush promised to be a uniter too until he got in office and then the GOP grabbed him by the lapels, slapped some sense into him(or so they thought) and made him toe the line.
This is not even stepping out of line. This is lockstep in line with the DNC marching orders. Reach out to every RINO they can find and call it moderation.
If I only had a brain. If Obama only had some courage. Mabey we could rewrite the Wizard of Oz.
If Obama wins it will be because people believe in him, not to appease whatever collective conscience the country may have. As an Obama fan myself, what he says makes sense. He listens to folks and seems concerned about their problems (he started out as a community organizer in Chicago- not the best track to make lots of money and gain power). And he taught constitutional law. That leads me to believe he wants government service to be of benefit to the country. Unlike Bush who had to be bailed out of one unsuccessful business venture after another with his father’s connections…. and uses the power of the Presidency to enrich his supporters at the expense of the rest of the citizens. I hope it’s not too late for this country to be bailed out.
Obama took the politically dangerous stand in 2002 and opposed the Iraq war because he thought it was dumb. He was right and he didn’t toe the party line back then.
Is Obama perfect? No. None of the candidates are but I like Obama’s message (and believe him more given his past history) than any of the other candidates. There are a couple troubling aspects about him I don’t like but overall I’m still a huge supporter of his. In fact I sort of feel guilty for not supporting Hillary- but Obama is my man because I like his message. If I were going to vote to appease MY conscience, it would be for Hillary (women in America have been wronged, too).
Remember, Obama is only half black and is not really African-American since his black father was an African Exchange student.
Obama is easy for much of America to vote for because he has so little connection to black American instead of being a solid representative of it. He was raised by his white mother and white grandparents. he attended an elite prep school that is one of the whitest schools in Hawaii. He has graduated from two Ivy league universities.
It is only when he decided to enter politics that Obama dediced to claim his “black” heritage.
The real reasons he can win is the tremendous push that the media has given him. His politics and political background are little different from Illinois’s other Senator Richard Durbin. Would anyone consider Senator Durbin a good prospect for President? Yet, the media presents Senator Obama as a good candidate without any serious questioning.
superdestroyer- I agree with you. And it’s precisely because of Obama’s mixed heritage that allows him to bridge the gap between black and white America. He may not have been raised in “black” America, but he has nonetheless faced many of the problems black Americans have faced- including being on the receiving end of racial profiling. Of course now that he has the Secret Service protecting him there’s no chance of cops pulling him over…
We were ready to elect Colin Powell president more than ten years ago. There is no racist hobgoblin at work here in the USA.
Obama is a classic Chicago-area machine Democrat. He’s relatively inexperienced (and by implication, untainted) in Washington, and is young enough he is the darling of the naive, idealistic youth vote, and being black and a youth-darling he is treated as a saint by the liberal media. (Talk about “affirmative action” at work!)
Yes. He’s putting out a positive message, no matter what people may think of the details (or lack thereof that are provided) aided by a positive image.
Normal people don’t have collective guilt about race. The Civil Rights battle was won in the 1960s (“a century after Appomattox”). It was one of the last positive successes of liberalism in this country. There is no institutionalized racism here, there is no guilt over it among normal people, and people will judge him on his personal qualities and his stance and plans on various issues against the same criteria with the other Dems and with the GOP candidates. (Please, try not to forget or neglect them, once you stop laughing.)
I’m currently trying to grapple with making a determination from what I observe, if support for him now exceeds that for Howard Dean not too long ago (by largely the same crowd — the crowd for Obama seems larger, including a number of GOP supporters).
That’s what passes for “moderate Republican” or “conservative” (as opposed to “far right” [sic] or “extreme right”) by most liberals and Democrats who are politically active, including here.
Note that it’s especially tempting because the RINO candidates for the Presidency (Giuliani and Romney and often McCain, when it’s not All About McCain instead, in the case of the latter) are weak and unappealing. It’s time to do some undermining…why wouldn’t the Demmies do that?
Why is it that whenever a Republican manages to reach out to Democrats he’s accused of becoming one? Arnold is an example of someone who responded to the will of the people and has led the nation on controversial issues like global warming. I would classify him as a moderate Republican ruling a blue state- pretty similar to Romney, before he began his presidential run. Other moderate Republicans are Linc Chaffee, Olympia Snow and Charlie Crist.
K., Lincoln Chafee, Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, etc., are classic RINOs. Also on the list (and coming closer to what McCain is) is Arlen Specter.
The Northeast, especially New England, is often well left of the mainstream, and particularly left of the more modern, developing, growing, often more vital parts of this nation.
California is notorious for its “Massachusetts Lite” politics and seedbeds of liberalism to radicalism (Berkeley, more famous than Cambridge, MA; Hollywood, Santa Monica sometimes, etc.), along with (and, more importantly) long-established control of the state legislature by the Democratic Party and typical special interest groups there (including public employee unions). (You may remember “Willie Brown” as the mayor of San Francisco, a notorious position in a notorious city often outdoing New York City; did you know where he truly became famous and powerful? The state legislature in Sacramento.)
Having to appeal to many people well left of the mainstream in those states forces those people (as is true with Mike Huckabee in Arkansas) to engage in much compromise. But how much compromise is acceptable versus what may be excessive or wrong-headed, to mainstream true moderates (often mislabled “far right” or “extremist” by those well to the left)?
In the next 10-20 years we’ll likely see Republicans in Oregon and Washington who act like lightweight dim-bulb Dem (Dim) Washingtonians-gone-to-DC Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell.
Non-liberals aren’t going to like this.
As I wrote elsewhere, which merits repeating here,
too many old-line liberals are like General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler, and even more so, the UAW, and have minds locked in the past, defining normality as the Democratic-liberal hegemony of the 1950s and 1960s, with the New Deal and Great Society unquestioned, and only feeding ambitions for even more breathtaking accomplishments such as a minimum guaranteed income to everyone to follow.
You have been the reactionaries since Reagan was elected — you’ve hated Reagan and Republicans in Washington, and even more, the many voters who haven’t fallen lock-step with the obsolescent scene of the 1950s and 1960s.
This is in addition to the post-mid-1960s radical Left, which is often delusional (thinks the USA is riven with systems of oppression, is the great enemy of decent people worldwide through neo-colonialism and such, the media here are conservative, etc.). They are on the fringe and lately have gotten behind Nader or the Greens, and can largely be counted on to outgrow such nonsense while still in their twenties.
The American Public is not (all) like Detroit, and this is no longer the McGovernite 1972 high water mark of US liberalism. Only in decaying, long-in-decline places in this country is the Gospel of Government, with the response to anything being higher taxes and more spending and intervention, never to be questioned or criticized (which is blasphemous to heretical), still read and obeyed.
It’s not 1972 any longer. The US is not like, nor defined by, Detroit (or Chicago, not to mention New York City and Berkeley, CA and Cambridge, MA).
It’s 35 years later, going on 36, and much has changed, and much has (largely) been discarded, because it has been wisely questioned and rejected. Wake up, Rip van Winkle.