Obama Still Needs To Show Who He Is
Published in O Globo
(Brazil) on 5/15/2008
by William Waack (link to original)
Obama Still Needs To Show Who He Is
Mauren Dowd, perhaps the harshest of American political columnists, invented a way for Barack Obama to punish Hillary Clinton for everything that she said about him during the internal arguments among Democrats. “Just nominate her as vice-president,” Dowd suggested in the “New York Times”.
By virtue of who she is, the columnist continues, Hillary would have convulsions every day at the mere thought that Obama, and not she, was the American head of state. And might find consolation remembering that fourteen vice-presidents ended up assuming the position.
But the joke ended there for Dowd. She remembers that Obama isn’t the same next to Hillary – the aggressiveness, the tenacity and figure of the opponent seem to paralyze a politician, Obama, who has proven himself exceptional at captivating audiences. Perhaps this was the main “service” that Hillary rendered, albeit involuntarily, during the campaign.
It is clear that Obama has to hurry and show us who he is. Although we are still able to ask ourselves at this late round of the championship if he needs to tell us who he is, does he? He does, in fact. The national election is completely different from the current dispute among Democrats, in which, it happens, Hillary appears to be quite strong in relation to Obama precisely in those highly populated states that are decisive to either Republicans or Democrats in the national vote count.
Hillary made it very clear to the campaign machine what were Obama’s more vulnerable areas: For instance, he needs to start to wear a small American flag on his suit coat. It may seem ludicrous to Brazilian audiences, but to Americans, showing signs of patriotism at every step of the way is fundamental for any candidate.
But beyond research into trends in voting, researchers of American electoral behavior discovered that 45% of electors identify with Obama’s values (which are vague in any case), while 54% of the electorate prefer McCain’s values. Republicans have conditions, having read the results, to wage a campaign based on values, putting aside the economic conditions in the country which is, quite frankly, unfavorable to them in political terms.
Many American commentators are beating the same drum of late: Even in the recent case of the racially-charged comments of Reverend Jeremyah Wright, which Obama was quick to repudiate, there remained a air of doubt if only the phrase, “I understand the situation of black Americans, just as I understand that of white Americans” were sufficient.
When Republicans speak of “values”, what are they referring to beyond clearly ethical and moral questions such as same-sex marriage and abortion? The Republican electoral machine speaks mainly of things such as the affinity for work (instead of government-sponsored job-assistance programs), sympathy for the victims of crimes (as opposed to an “understanding” of the social factors that engender criminals), protecting the borders (instead of tolerating the arrival of illegal immigrants).
Whether a part of the American myth or not, there is something else the electorate of the United States considers important, is what we will call the appeal of armed forces and the projection of American power (considered decadent, imperial or whatever readers want to call it). The fact is that a large contingent of the American electorate that both McCain and Obama hope to win over considers it essential that the president not only talk tough, but that he/she also act tough in foreign policy.
At heart, Obama’s problem is not he not allow himself to be placed by Republicans on the wrong side of what American commentators are calling the “cultural divide” – the fine line by which the electorate he hopes to win (to win the elections) would consider him unreliable.
There is no guarantee for an Obama victory and many that were excited about him here in Brazil, I suspect, will be disappointed with what he will begin to say now.
Mauren Dowd, perhaps the harshest of American political columnists, invented a way for Barack Obama to punish Hillary Clinton for everything that she said about him during the internal arguments among Democrats. “Just nominate her as vice-president,” Dowd suggested in the “New York Times”.
By virtue of who she is, the columnist continues, Hillary would have convulsions every day at the mere thought that Obama, and not she, was the American head of state. And might find consolation remembering that fourteen vice-presidents ended up assuming the position.
But the joke ended there for Dowd. She remembers that Obama isn’t the same next to Hillary – the aggressiveness, the tenacity and figure of the opponent seem to paralyze a politician, Obama, who has proven himself exceptional at captivating audiences. Perhaps this was the main “service” that Hillary rendered, albeit involuntarily, during the campaign.
It is clear that Obama has to hurry and show us who he is. Although we are still able to ask ourselves at this late round of the championship if he needs to tell us who he is, does he? He does, in fact. The national election is completely different from the current dispute among Democrats, in which, it happens, Hillary appears to be quite strong in relation to Obama precisely in those highly populated states that are decisive to either Republicans or Democrats in the national vote count.
Hillary made it very clear to the campaign machine what were Obama’s more vulnerable areas: For instance, he needs to start to wear a small American flag on his suit coat. It may seem ludicrous to Brazilian audiences, but to Americans, showing signs of patriotism at every step of the way is fundamental for any candidate.
But beyond research into trends in voting, researchers of American electoral behavior discovered that 45% of electors identify with Obama’s values (which are vague in any case), while 54% of the electorate prefer McCain’s values. Republicans have conditions, having read the results, to wage a campaign based on values, putting aside the economic conditions in the country which is, quite frankly, unfavorable to them in political terms.
Many American commentators are beating the same drum of late: Even in the recent case of the racially-charged comments of Reverend Jeremyah Wright, which Obama was quick to repudiate, there remained a air of doubt if only the phrase, “I understand the situation of black Americans, just as I understand that of white Americans” were sufficient.
When Republicans speak of “values”, what are they referring to beyond clearly ethical and moral questions such as same-sex marriage and abortion? The Republican electoral machine speaks mainly of things such as the affinity for work (instead of government-sponsored job-assistance programs), sympathy for the victims of crimes (as opposed to an “understanding” of the social factors that engender criminals), protecting the borders (instead of tolerating the arrival of illegal immigrants).
Whether a part of the American myth or not, there is something else the electorate of the United States considers important, is what we will call the appeal of armed forces and the projection of American power (considered decadent, imperial or whatever readers want to call it). The fact is that a large contingent of the American electorate that both McCain and Obama hope to win over considers it essential that the president not only talk tough, but that he/she also act tough in foreign policy.
At heart, Obama’s problem is not he not allow himself to be placed by Republicans on the wrong side of what American commentators are calling the “cultural divide” – the fine line by which the electorate he hopes to win (to win the elections) would consider him unreliable.
There is no guarantee for an Obama victory and many that were excited about him here in Brazil, I suspect, will be disappointed with what he will begin to say now.