The Obama Bargain
By SHELBY STEELE
March 18, 2008; Page A23
Quote
Geraldine Ferraro may have had sinister motives when she said that Barack Obama would not be "in his position" as a frontrunner but for his race. Possibly she was acting as Hillary Clinton's surrogate. Or maybe she was simply befuddled by this new reality -- in which blackness could constitute a political advantage.
AP
Jesse Jackson and Barack Obama, June 4, 2007.
But whatever her motives, she was right: "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position." Barack Obama is, of course, a very talented politician with a first-rate political organization at his back. But it does not detract from his merit to say that his race is also a large part of his prominence. And it is undeniable that something extremely powerful in the body politic, a force quite apart from the man himself, has pulled Obama forward. This force is about race and nothing else.
The novelty of Barack Obama is more his cross-racial appeal than his talent. Jesse Jackson displayed considerable political talent in his presidential runs back in the 1980s. But there was a distinct limit to his white support. Mr. Obama's broad appeal to whites makes him the first plausible black presidential candidate in American history. And it was Mr. Obama's genius to understand this. Though he likes to claim that his race was a liability to be overcome, he also surely knew that his race could give him just the edge he needed -- an edge that would never be available to a white, not even a white woman.
How to turn one's blackness to advantage?
The answer is that one "bargains." Bargaining is a mask that blacks can wear in the American mainstream, one that enables them to put whites at their ease. This mask diffuses the anxiety that goes along with being white in a multiracial society. Bargainers make the subliminal promise to whites not to shame them with America's history of racism, on the condition that they will not hold the bargainer's race against him. And whites love this bargain -- and feel affection for the bargainer -- because it gives them racial innocence in a society where whites live under constant threat of being stigmatized as racist. So the bargainer presents himself as an opportunity for whites to experience racial innocence.
This is how Mr. Obama has turned his blackness into his great political advantage, and also into a kind of personal charisma. Bargainers are conduits of white innocence, and they are as popular as the need for white innocence is strong. Mr. Obama's extraordinary dash to the forefront of American politics is less a measure of the man than of the hunger in white America for racial innocence.
His actual policy positions are little more than Democratic Party boilerplate and hardly a tick different from Hillary's positions. He espouses no galvanizing political idea. He is unable to say what he means by "change" or "hope" or "the future." And he has failed to say how he would actually be a "unifier." By the evidence of his slight political record (130 "present" votes in the Illinois state legislature, little achievement in the U.S. Senate) Barack Obama stacks up as something of a mediocrity. None of this matters much.
Race helps Mr. Obama in another way -- it lifts his political campaign to the level of allegory, making it the stuff of a far higher drama than budget deficits and education reform. His dark skin, with its powerful evocations of America's tortured racial past, frames the political contest as a morality play. Will his victory mean America's redemption from its racist past? Will his defeat show an America morally unevolved? Is his campaign a story of black overcoming, an echo of the civil rights movement? Or is it a passing-of-the-torch story, of one generation displacing another?
Because he is black, there is a sense that profound questions stand to be resolved in the unfolding of his political destiny. And, as the Clintons have discovered, it is hard in the real world to run against a candidate of destiny. For many Americans -- black and white -- Barack Obama is simply too good (and too rare) an opportunity to pass up. For whites, here is the opportunity to document their deliverance from the shames of their forbearers. And for blacks, here is the chance to document the end of inferiority. So the Clintons have found themselves running more against America's very highest possibilities than against a man. And the press, normally happy to dispel every political pretension, has all but quivered before Mr. Obama. They, too, have feared being on the wrong side of destiny.
And yet, in the end, Barack Obama's candidacy is not qualitatively different from Al Sharpton's or Jesse Jackson's. Like these more irascible of his forbearers, Mr. Obama's run at the presidency is based more on the manipulation of white guilt than on substance. Messrs. Sharpton and Jackson were "challengers," not bargainers. They intimidated whites and demanded, in the name of historical justice, that they be brought forward. Mr. Obama flatters whites, grants them racial innocence, and hopes to ascend on the back of their gratitude. Two sides of the same coin.
But bargainers have an Achilles heel. They succeed as conduits of white innocence only as long as they are largely invisible as complex human beings. They hope to become icons that can be identified with rather than seen, and their individual complexity gets in the way of this. So bargainers are always laboring to stay invisible. (We don't know the real politics or convictions of Tiger Woods or Michael Jordan or Oprah Winfrey, bargainers all.) Mr. Obama has said of himself, "I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views . . ." And so, human visibility is Mr. Obama's Achilles heel. If we see the real man, his contradictions and bents of character, he will be ruined as an icon, as a "blank screen."
Thus, nothing could be more dangerous to Mr. Obama's political aspirations than the revelation that he, the son of a white woman, sat Sunday after Sunday -- for 20 years -- in an Afrocentric, black nationalist church in which his own mother, not to mention other whites, could never feel comfortable. His pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, is a challenger who goes far past Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson in his anti-American outrage ("God damn America").
How does one "transcend" race in this church? The fact is that Barack Obama has fellow-traveled with a hate-filled, anti-American black nationalism all his adult life, failing to stand and challenge an ideology that would have no place for his own mother. And what portent of presidential judgment is it to have exposed his two daughters for their entire lives to what is, at the very least, a subtext of anti-white vitriol?
What could he have been thinking? Of course he wasn't thinking. He was driven by insecurity, by a need to "be black" despite his biracial background. And so fellow-traveling with a little race hatred seemed a small price to pay for a more secure racial identity. And anyway, wasn't this hatred more rhetorical than real?
But now the floodlight of a presidential campaign has trained on this usually hidden corner of contemporary black life: a mindless indulgence in a rhetorical anti-Americanism as a way of bonding and of asserting one's blackness. Yet Jeremiah Wright, splashed across America's television screens, has shown us that there is no real difference between rhetorical hatred and real hatred.
No matter his ultimate political fate, there is already enough pathos in Barack Obama to make him a cautionary tale. His public persona thrives on a manipulation of whites (bargaining), and his private sense of racial identity demands both self-betrayal and duplicity. His is the story of a man who flew so high, yet neglected to become himself.
Mr. Steele, a research fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution and the author of "A Bound Man: Why We Are Excited About Obama and Why He Can't Win" (Free Press, 2007).
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120579535818243439.html?mod=djempersonal
Interesting. While there are some valid points there, I can't help but feel more than a little uneasy at the idea that there are still so many people in the world that see a person's color as some way of identifying the person.
I disagree with the notion that him being black is an advantage. Its just as much as a curse, as it is a positive. For every person that will give him an extra look because of skin color, there's one or two that will turn him off because of the same exact thing. This argument sounds more like an excuse to explain why his campaign has turned out better than originally expected to this point and only takes us away from learning how he and the other's propose to carry out their plans.
The term "Anti-American" is used far too liberally by people these days.
I actually sorta get what she was saying. Obama represents a first in America. We have a black candidate who is a populist, doesn't seem to kowtow to any group (Except the far left) and is palatable to a much larger group of people than just black voters (Ala Jesse Jackson in 88)... for example, would Corrine Brown win in any district other than a predominantly black district, even if it were still predominantly democratic?
I think what you are seeing is the natural progression of white guilt in many ways. younger white people are jumping at a chance to prove how un-racist they are, and Obama represents that chance. Hey eveyone look at me, Im not a racist because I voted for Obama.
That said, I think most thinking adults realize who you vote for doesnt dictate if you are a racist or not. But I understand what she was saying, and in fact, the very fact she CANT say it without being jumped on very much proves her point.
While I am not enamored with his politics, I very much like Obama. He is charismatic, he is moving, and he seems to be willing to talk about the very difficult issue of race in the country. Its a conversation we need to have as a nation, and who better to lead it than a black president.
Could it be that much of America is not impressed by the other two candidates? I know that's the camp I fall in. I feel I know what I'll get with McCain (more of the same), Clinton has been proven to flop in the direction of wind blowing and Obama promotes change. Now I'm waiting to see if there is any substance behind "change" and how he expects to pull "change" off.
Neverthess, I think while what has been said in the article has some truth to it, Obama also mobilizes the ultra conservatives to band together in the same light (just watch FOX News), which is why I believe race is as much as a curse as it is a blessing.
Quote from: thelakelander on March 19, 2008, 12:42:47 PM
Could it be that much of America is not impressed by the other two candidates? I know that's the camp I fall in. I feel I know what I'll get with McCain (more of the same), Clinton has been proven to flop in the direction of wind blowing and Obama promotes change. Now I'm waiting to see if there is any substance behind "change" and how he expects to pull "change" off.
Neverthess, I think while what has been said in the article has some truth to it, Obama also mobilizes the ultra conservatives to band together in the same light (just watch FOX News), which is why I believe race is as much as a curse as it is a blessing.
Fox News and the ultra conservatives would band together to sling mud at whomever was the Democratic nominee. There have a swiftboat for everybody.
Apparently Obama's speech was self written.
Having a president that can read and write would be pretty cool.
Quote from: Lunican on March 19, 2008, 01:48:02 PM
Apparently Obama's speech was self written.
Having a president that can read and write would be pretty cool.
I am pretty sure Cheney can do both.
FYI: Shelby Steele is a black man.
The whole notion that electing a black person who is a far left ideologue in disguise will somehow bring America together is ridiculous. There will always be divisions between right and left. These exist all around the world in homogeneous countries and heterogeneous ones. And, Obama has shown absolutely no talent for unity once he gets elected. Do not fall for the smoke and mirrors. His whole campaign is a sham.
Quote from: Lunican on March 19, 2008, 01:48:02 PM
Apparently Obama's speech was self written.
Having a president that can read and write would be pretty cool.
I am pretty sure you need to be able to read and write to obtain degrees from Yale and Harvard, no matter the family connections. Do you have degrees from Yale and Harvard, Lunican.
Oh and BTW, dont believe the Obama propaganda that he wrote it himself. This was no doubt penned at least in part by David Axelrod, Obama's far left strategist and handler.
Quote from: RiversideGator on March 19, 2008, 01:58:01 PM
FYI: Shelby Steele is a black man.
The whole notion that electing a black person who is a far left ideologue in disguise will somehow bring America together is ridiculous. There will always be divisions between right and left. These exist all around the world in homogeneous countries and heterogeneous ones. And, Obama has shown absolutely no talent for unity once he gets elected. Do not fall for the smoke and mirrors. His whole campaign is a sham.
It's not just Obama, it's anyone who has ever run for a elected office. That's the very definition of politics. It's a sales strategy, except you sell yourself instead of the next cheap gadget you can make with slave labor.
Politicians will say and do anything to get the votes they need, overpromising and under-delivering in the process. NONE of them can be trusted. The real change happens with the average people of this country, the ones that have skin in the game. We're the ones that make or break our society, not some figure-head sitting in his/her ivory palace.
Well RG, maybe Bush should have hired David Axelrod to write his speeches.
I'm not promising to vote for Obama, but a president that isn't a total embarrassment at the microphone would be a good change. Maybe that's what Obama means when he speaks of 'change'?
Quote from: RiversideGator on March 19, 2008, 01:58:01 PM
FYI: Shelby Steele is a black man.
The whole notion that electing a black person who is a far left ideologue in disguise will somehow bring America together is ridiculous. There will always be divisions between right and left. These exist all around the world in homogeneous countries and heterogeneous ones. And, Obama has shown absolutely no talent for unity once he gets elected. Do not fall for the smoke and mirrors. His whole campaign is a sham.
I'm concerned that neither Obama, McCain nor Clinton have presented a plan of any substance up to this point. I hear the promises, but no steps in how to get from Point A to Point B. Although, after hearing the guy speak, I can see why ultra conservatives are so concerned about him. He'd rip McCain to shreads in a head to head battle of campaigns with no substance. The best thing for them would be for yahoo Wright to take him down, making Clinton McCain's opponent.
Quote from: thelakelander on March 19, 2008, 03:25:09 PMHe'd rip McCain to shreads in a head to head battle of campaigns with no substance. The best thing for them would be for yahoo Wright to take him down, making Clinton McCain's opponent.
This is why RG and Ann Coulter are rooting for Hilary.
Actually, after the Rev Wrong episode, Hillary is now polling better against John McCain than is Obama.
Quote from: RiversideGator on March 19, 2008, 01:58:01 PM
FYI: Shelby Steele is a black man.
The whole notion that electing a black person who is a far left ideologue in disguise will somehow bring America together is ridiculous. There will always be divisions between right and left. These exist all around the world in homogeneous countries and heterogeneous ones. And, Obama has shown absolutely no talent for unity once he gets elected. Do not fall for the smoke and mirrors. His whole campaign is a sham.
I'm sure you like to think that, because the only way that the GOP can usually win is to divide the citizenry against itself. Left against Right, White against Black, the overtly religious against the more secular, gay vs. straight, etc.
Actually, both Eisenhower and Kennedy governed from the middle, and enjoyed bi-partisan support at home and abroad. It may not happen in every generation, but such leaders do occasionally emerge. This country has become very partisanly divided in the last 16 years. I've had my fill of it, and that is one big reason why Obama appeals to me, although I am not commited to voting for him at this point.
BTW, after a horrible week for Obama, Clinton has 'surged' to a 1-2% lead over Obama in General election matchups against McCain. In my opinion that shows just how weak she is. Now that her White House schedule has been released, we will really see just how much of a 'leader' she was during that time. It may be her turn for a 'horrible' week or two.
As for a disguise, the 'far Left ideolugue' might be the disguise, to get the nomination.
As for a sham, what was the 'W' adminstration, or should I say the Cheney administration?
Quote from: vicupstate on March 19, 2008, 06:47:07 PM
I'm sure you like to think that, because the only way that the GOP can usually win is to divide the citizenry against itself. Left against Right, White against Black, the overtly religious against the more secular, gay vs. straight, etc.
Actually, both Eisenhower and Kennedy governed from the middle, and enjoyed bi-partisan support at home and abroad. It may not happen in every generation, but such leaders do occasionally emerge. This country has become very partisanly divided in the last 16 years. I've had my fill of it, and that is one big reason why Obama appeals to me, although I am not commited to voting for him at this point.
Well, if you are concerned with bipartisan governance, the only candidate with a clear record of doing so is John McCain. I am sure you are familiar with his many instances of this, including the Gang of 14, immigration bill, etc. Note that I do not agree with his actions in these cases, but he has demonstrated a willingness to work with the Dems to get things accomplished.
BTW, Eisenhower and JFK were both center right leaders. I would love it if we could get a President nowdays who would implement Eisenhower's plan to deal with illegals (which he carried out with great success) and JFK's low tax, pro growth policies which started an economic boom in the 1960s.
QuoteBTW, after a horrible week for Obama, Clinton has 'surged' to a 1-2% lead over Obama in General election matchups against McCain. In my opinion that shows just how weak she is. Now that her White House schedule has been released, we will really see just how much of a 'leader' she was during that time. It may be her turn for a 'horrible' week or two.
We shall see. It will be interesting.
QuoteAs for a disguise, the 'far Left ideolugue' might be the disguise, to get the nomination.
Sure. This must be why he has consistently been rated on of the most liberal US Senators and why he was a lefty activist in Chicago and why he attended the racist, anti-American church in Chicago for 20 years. Now it all makes sense. ::)
Quote
As for a sham, what was the 'W' adminstration, or should I say the Cheney administration?
Ahh, the evil puppetmaster Cheney who controls the world from his undisclosed location... ;D
Quote from: RiversideGator on March 19, 2008, 07:12:29 PM
Ahh, the evil puppetmaster Cheney who controls the world from his undisclosed location... ;D
(//)
Quote
Cheney Attempting to Constrain Bush's Choices on Iran Conflict: Staff Engaged in Insubordination Against President Bush
There is a race currently underway between different flanks of the administration to determine the future course of US-Iran policy.
On one flank are the diplomats, and on the other is Vice President Cheney's team and acolytes -- who populate quite a wide swath throughout the American national security bureaucracy.
The Pentagon and the intelligence establishment are providing support to add muscle and nuance to the diplomatic effort led by Condi Rice, her deputy John Negroponte, Under Secretary of State R. Nicholas Burns, and Legal Adviser John Bellinger. The support that Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, and CIA Director Michael Hayden are providing Rice's efforts are a complete, 180 degree contrast to the dysfunction that characterized relations between these institutions before the recent reshuffle of top personnel.
However, the Department of Defense and national intelligence sector are also preparing for hot conflict. They believe that they need to in order to convince Iran's various power centers that the military option does exist.
But this is worrisome. The person in the Bush administration who most wants a hot conflict with Iran is Vice President Cheney. The person in Iran who most wants a conflict is Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Iran's Revolutionary Guard Quds Force would be big winners in a conflict as well -- as the political support that both have inside Iran has been flagging.
Multiple sources have reported that a senior aide on Vice President Cheney's national security team has been meeting with policy hands of the American Enterprise Institute, one other think tank, and more than one national security consulting house and explicitly stating that Vice President Cheney does not support President Bush's tack towards Condoleezza Rice's diplomatic efforts and fears that the President is taking diplomacy with Iran too seriously.
This White House official has stated to several Washington insiders that Cheney is planning to deploy an "end run strategy" around the President if he and his team lose the policy argument.
The thinking on Cheney's team is to collude with Israel, nudging Israel at some key moment in the ongoing standoff between Iran's nuclear activities and international frustration over this to mount a small-scale conventional strike against Natanz using cruise missiles (i.e., not ballistic missiles).
This strategy would sidestep controversies over bomber aircraft and overflight rights over other Middle East nations and could be expected to trigger a sufficient Iranian counter-strike against US forces in the Gulf -- which just became significantly larger -- as to compel Bush to forgo the diplomatic track that the administration realists are advocating and engage in another war.
There are many other components of the complex game plan that this Cheney official has been kicking around Washington. The official has offered this commentary to senior staff at AEI and in lunch and dinner gatherings which were to be considered strictly off-the-record, but there can be little doubt that the official actually hopes that hawkish conservatives and neoconservatives share this information and then rally to this point of view. This official is beating the brush and doing what Joshua Muravchik has previously suggested -- which is to help establish the policy and political pathway to bombing Iran.
The zinger of this information is the admission by this Cheney aide that Cheney himself is frustrated with President Bush and believes, much like Richard Perle, that Bush is making a disastrous mistake by aligning himself with the policy course that Condoleezza Rice, Bob Gates, Michael Hayden and McConnell have sculpted.
According to this official, Cheney believes that Bush can not be counted on to make the "right decision" when it comes to dealing with Iran and thus Cheney believes that he must tie the President's hands.
On Tuesday evening, i spoke with a former top national intelligence official in this Bush administration who told me that what I was investigating and planned to report on regarding Cheney and the commentary of his aide was "potentially criminal insubordination" against the President. I don't believe that the White House would take official action against Cheney for this agenda-mongering around Washington -- but I do believe that the White House must either shut Cheney and his team down and give them all garden view offices so that they can spend their days staring out their windows with not much to do or expect some to begin to think that Bush has no control over his Vice President.
It is not that Cheney wants to bomb Iran and Bush doesn't, it is that Cheney is saying that Bush is making a mistake and thus needs to have the choices before him narrowed.
-- Steve Clemons
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/002145.php
Using liberal bloggers as a source is not a particularly persuasive method of argument. In any event, I believe Cheney has a large role in the administration but he is clearly not in charge.
Quote from: RiversideGator on March 19, 2008, 03:52:19 PM
Actually, after the Rev Wrong episode, Hillary is now polling better against John McCain than is Obama.
The Republicans would rather face her, no doubt about it. However, it's going to be near impossible for her to get enough deligates at this point.
Quote from: RiversideGator on March 19, 2008, 11:56:44 PM
Using liberal bloggers as a source is not a particularly persuasive method of argument. In any event, I believe Cheney has a large role in the administration but he is clearly not in charge.
Manifest apologies, Auspicious Comrade Riverside Gator, in the future, I shall only quote from publications and authors appearing on your approved list.
Quote from: Midway on March 20, 2008, 11:32:06 AM
Quote from: RiversideGator on March 19, 2008, 11:56:44 PM
Using liberal bloggers as a source is not a particularly persuasive method of argument. In any event, I believe Cheney has a large role in the administration but he is clearly not in charge.
Manifest apologies, Auspicious Comrade Riverside Gator, in the future, I shall only quote from publications and authors appearing on your approved list.
How about using actual news sources, such as established periodicals or other newspapers or journals rather than opinion pieces. I am not asking you to cite National Review. ;)
Quote from: copperfiend on March 20, 2008, 06:27:14 AM
Quote from: RiversideGator on March 19, 2008, 03:52:19 PM
Actually, after the Rev Wrong episode, Hillary is now polling better against John McCain than is Obama.
The Republicans would rather face her, no doubt about it. However, it's going to be near impossible for her to get enough deligates at this point.
I actually think we would demolish Obama in the general election. He is a light weight charlatan with a racist tinge. Hillary, on the other hand, has some personal issues from her past but these are already known and have been digested by the public. I support Hillary because she is the more reasonable, moderate and responsible Dem candidate. This is all.
Actually, this is why Rush and Gator support HRC....
Listen to the LAST minute of this 3 minute clip.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/23714100#23599001 (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/23714100#23599001)
AND the entirety of this 10 minute clip...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/23714100#23697447 (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/23714100#23697447)
Note that but for GOP votes, Obama would have won Texas. A win in Texas would have been the next to the last nail in hte HRC coffin.
As for crossover voting, I don't have a problem with it per se, but for future reference, TWO sides can play that game.
Gator supports HRC because he wants her to do the GOP's dirty work and he knows he will be tougher to beat.
Perhaps I could borrow your mind reading device when you are finished telling people what I "really" think, vic. :D
Or, maybe you could take me at my word. I want the most responsible person to lead the Dem ticket. This is it.
Quote from: RiversideGator on March 20, 2008, 03:01:48 PM
Perhaps I could borrow your mind reading device when you are finished telling people what I "really" think, vic. :D
Or, maybe you could take me at my word. I want the most responsible person to lead the Dem ticket. This is it.
I'm touched by your concern for the Democratic party.
Quote from: RiversideGator on March 20, 2008, 03:01:48 PM
Perhaps I could borrow your mind reading device when you are finished telling people what I "really" think, vic. :D
Or, maybe you could take me at my word. I want the most responsible person to lead the Dem ticket. This is it.
Here you go. Pleased to oblige. You can thank me later.
:D :D
Quote from: RiversideGator on March 19, 2008, 07:12:29 PM
Quote from: vicupstate on March 19, 2008, 06:47:07 PM
I'm sure you like to think that, because the only way that the GOP can usually win is to divide the citizenry against itself. Left against Right, White against Black, the overtly religious against the more secular, gay vs. straight, etc.
Actually, both Eisenhower and Kennedy governed from the middle, and enjoyed bi-partisan support at home and abroad. It may not happen in every generation, but such leaders do occasionally emerge. This country has become very partisanly divided in the last 16 years. I've had my fill of it, and that is one big reason why Obama appeals to me, although I am not commited to voting for him at this point.
Well, if you are concerned with bipartisan governance, the only candidate with a clear record of doing so is John McCain. I am sure you are familiar with his many instances of this, including the Gang of 14, immigration bill, etc. Note that I do not agree with his actions in these cases, but he has demonstrated a willingness to work with the Dems to get things accomplished.
BTW, Eisenhower and JFK were both center right leaders. I would love it if we could get a President nowdays who would implement Eisenhower's plan to deal with illegals (which he carried out with great success) and JFK's low tax, pro growth policies which started an economic boom in the 1960s.
QuoteBTW, after a horrible week for Obama, Clinton has 'surged' to a 1-2% lead over Obama in General election matchups against McCain. In my opinion that shows just how weak she is. Now that her White House schedule has been released, we will really see just how much of a 'leader' she was during that time. It may be her turn for a 'horrible' week or two.
We shall see. It will be interesting.
QuoteAs for a disguise, the 'far Left ideolugue' might be the disguise, to get the nomination.
Sure. This must be why he has consistently been rated on of the most liberal US Senators and why he was a lefty activist in Chicago and why he attended the racist, anti-American church in Chicago for 20 years. Now it all makes sense. ::)
Quote
As for a sham, what was the 'W' adminstration, or should I say the Cheney administration?
Ahh, the evil puppetmaster Cheney who controls the world from his undisclosed location... ;D
McCain is bipartisan and if it comes down to Obama and McCain, I will have a tough (but fortunate) decision to make between potentially two good or even excellent choices. That would be a first in my lifetime. McCain is his own man and will not blindly follow a rigid idealogy, thereby being a decided change from the present incumbent.
Any elected official must temper, at least to some degree, his own personal beliefs with those of his constiuents. Obama has always represented a left of center constiuency, particularly in the IL senate. He also had to vote left of center in order to be a serious contender for the Democratic nomination.
If he gets elected, he will have a much freer hand to govern as he truly desires, because his constiuency(the entire country) will be in the middle, not on the far left. That's not to say he will (or even could) become another Reagan, but he will not be an LBJ either. He is obviously very intuitive and intelligent politically. As such, he surely realizes that their is a HUGH hunger for a centrist to lead the nation, and that what happened to Clinton in '94 could happen again.
Also, I think he understands as very few do, the incredible power that a country UNITIED behind it's president can be. He isn't running to 'top off the resume' like Bush-41 did, he wants to be President that history will remember. That requires substanial achievement, which only comes with the backing of a significant majority. In order to do that, he either has to move the country to HIS ideas (assuming he is in his heart a liberal), or he has to move to where the country already is at, which is the center.
What makes him stand apart from HRC and nearly every politician of our era, is his ability to UNITE the country, ideally towards a common vision.
Lastly, GOVERNING, as opposed to CAMPAIGNING is ALWAYS a moderating factor.
BTW, Kennedy would have been considerable more Left of Center if he had been more successful getting his initiatives through Congress.
i think that Obama is going to win the nomination this week. it looks like we shall get our chance to see how the "Obama Bargain" plays out.
"Blessed are the poor in spirit, for they shall see God."
I am still trying to figure this out, Hillary claims she won the popular vote, but Obama won the super delegate votes....did he steal the election from her? Is this a democratic issue because I seem to remember another couple of elections where people were complaining about "stolen elections".... Why would the popular vote not carry the day and who in the heck do super delegates think they are voting for whomever they want and ignoring the popular vote? So why even have a vote? I wouldn't waste my time voting if super delegates are not even going to pay attention to the actual people’s choice?
Hillary did win the popular vote by a fair count of it. Obama won the delegate count (so far at least - they have to vote for it to count). This is because of both the arcane rules of the Democrats and their superdelegates who are not accountable to the people.