![[Het Parool, The Netherlands]](http://worldmeets.us/images/hillaryiowa_hetparool.gif)
In Barack Obama more than a flash-in-the-pan? According to this op-ed article from Germany’s Die Welt newspaper, ‘it’s still far from proven that his ‘Wind of Change’ carries more than pathos and, above all: that behind him hides something of real substance.’
By Thomas Schmid
Translated By James Jacobson, January 4, 2008Germany – Die Welt – Original Article (German)
With Democrat Barack Obama and Republican Mike Huckabee, the Iowa primary [actually, it was a caucus] chose two candidates who embody the word “outsider.” Both claim to be closer to the people that the political machinery. Obama’s success was surprising. But whether there is something substantial behind that success must still be demonstrated.
The United States has an extremely complicated procedure for selecting presidents. It requires the candidates to have not only tremendous physical strength, but great wealth to mobilize. One must also be able to operate amidst great volatility: Those who have good prospects today may loose them the next morning. Timing and luck are both crucial.
The voting in the small state of Iowa, which is populated almost exclusively by Whites, has resulted in a very tangible surprise. At first glance it looks as if Democrats and Republicans, in Barack Obama and Mike Huckabee, have two winning candidates who embody the most esteemed American tradition of being political outsiders: They are two figures who come from outside and claim to be closer to the people than the political apparatus – politics in the garb of anti-politics.
As always in America, there could be something to this. But there is something else astonishing here: Barack Obama’s clear advantage over Hillary Clinton. It wasn’t the victory in itself that was so significant, but the reality that until the moment voting began, Obama was considered nice but naive and, above all, outsider particularly inexperienced with [Washington’s] political machinations.
Flaunting the presumption of a Democratic-crowning – until recently considered to Hillary Clinton’s advantage – could be her Achilles’ heel. The fact that she’s polarizing and perhaps won’t manage to mobilize more than the Democratic base has long been of concern. Now comes the suspicion that the dynastic nature of her campaign could put her at a disadvantage.
