Left on our phone the other night:
“Obama!
“Hey, it’s E____. I had to call you guys and share my happiness about Obama winning at least the first caucus, because we were all sitting there in pain about Gore back in 2000, and finally I have an election that I have a little bit of hope that the person I want may win. Anyway, I just had to say that and I hope you guys have a good night. Bye.”
That was a fun call to get. And E____ and I are in the same camp. Although as I told a John Edwards canvasser, I can’t spell out logically while I’m leaning this way. And after years and years and years of looking for the rationale for my votes and often coming up short, I’ve given myself permission to just go with my instinct on this one.
(One of the best pieces I’ve read about Obama recently came from David Brooks, the New York Times columnist who has played the role of centrist/conservative (the paper recently hired a real conservative for the op-ed page). Brooks argues for Obama on the basis of his personal experience, temperament and intellect:
Moreover, he has a worldview that precedes political positions. Some Americans (Republican or Democrat) believe that the country’s future can only be shaped through a remorseless civil war between the children of light and the children of darkness. Though Tom DeLay couldn’t deliver much for Republicans and Nancy Pelosi, so far, hasn’t been able to deliver much for Democrats, these warriors believe that what’s needed is more partisanship, more toughness and eventual conquest for their side.
But Obama does not ratchet up hostilities; he restrains them. He does not lash out at perceived enemies, but is aloof from them. In the course of this struggle to discover who he is, Obama clearly learned from the strain of pessimistic optimism that stretches back from Martin Luther King Jr. to Abraham Lincoln. This is a worldview that detests anger as a motivating force, that distrusts easy dichotomies between the parties of good and evil, believing instead that the crucial dichotomy runs between the good and bad within each individual.
Obama did not respond to his fatherlessness or his racial predicament with anger and rage, but as questions for investigation, conversation and synthesis. He approaches politics the same way. In her outstanding New Yorker profile, Larissa MacFarquhar notes that Obama does not perceive politics as a series of battles but as a series of systemic problems to be addressed. He pursues liberal ends in gradualist, temperamentally conservative ways.
Technorati Tags: barack obama
I’m with you on this, brother. Tossed 100 clams Obama’s way the other day. First time I’ve given money (though I have given time before).
Maryland sits in the cheap seats when it comes to national elections. No canvassers here, no visits. Even during our primary, the candidates pay little attention to us. Choose wisely for us.
K-
Kem-
If Super Tuesday doesn’t settle things, you might get more attention this year, coming one week later.
Meanwhile, here in Oregon, we vote on May 20. For Democrats, only South Dakota votes later, June 3.
Pete
Hmmm. Personally, I think D. Brooks is playing a double-game on this, as usual. If you read his columns closely, going back to “Run, Obama, Run” one can’t escape the conclusion that he wants Barack to get the nomination because it will help the GOP to win, his never-very-well-hidden agenda, although he’s never out front about it, a la Safire. And if you read the last column, you’ll see that he’s also taken with Obama because Barack emailed him: a clever technique for disarming a powerful pundit, particularly one who shares a similar, quasi-academic, ‘tude. And just out of curiosity, why didn’t Barack respond to fatherlessness – or racism – with rage? A defense mechanism, no doubt, to being Jackson-Sharptonized, but an interesting trait, nonetheless. Brooks likes the professorial, Gene McCarthy types and hasn’t had a Republican he can really get behind (he seems to respond to Huckabee, but can’t quite believe it), but it’s all a giant set-up, whether he admits or even knows it or not. Ad hominem addition: in all the flap abt Kristol’s column being added, it goes barely remarked that Bill singlehandedly killed health care under the Clintons. The Times can hire who they please – freedom of the press is for those who own one – but it’s not exactly a great mark on his resume.
-30 –
Oh, yeah, I don’t expect the leopard (Brooks) to
change his spots. And you’re probably right that he’ll
manufacture a very persuasive set of reasons to follow
McCain or Huckabee or whoever. But I still think
that’s an interesting take on Obama.
I’m not buying that any single person — even Hillary
Clinton — sunk that health care initiative. Yes,
Kristol’s an a**hole par excellence, and a dangerous
one, but having the Times platform hardly makes him
more or less so. Besides, the paper still has some
slightly left-of-center columnists: Rich, Krugman and
Herbert come to mind.