and home of "That Singing Feeling" workshops
| Home |
| Biography |
| Reviews |
| Journal |
| Recordings |
| Workshops |
| Links and Likes |
| Contact |
JOURNAL
September 2008
DEMS DON’T GET IT
As a longtime liberal New York Democrat, I’m going to get myself into some trouble with my friends on this one, but after watching the two conventions during what is the most exciting election of modern history, it has become clear to me that my fellow Democrats just don’t get it. And their insistence on keeping their heads in the sand is going to cost them another presidential election.
Many Dems wouldn’t even watch the Convention: “More of the same,” they’d sigh, echoing Obama’s tired campaign phrase of late. That is to their own peril: one needs to know what the other side is saying and doing--and seeing the reaction to it--in order to fight back.
But fighting doesn’t seem to be what Obama wants to do. Perhaps he’s
Having studied a lot of literature on the topic and having immersed myself in positions working with diverse populations for my entire adult life, I am well aware of the ugly shadow that race casts over our politics and day to day life, although I have obviously never experienced it firsthand. It is the elephant in the room nobody wants to talk about.
All of that perhaps has Obama treading lightly, afraid to be “too aggressive” as a black male so as not to appear threatening to white voters. The result is that he has come off as too effete--thoughtful, soft, elitist. I’m not sure that’s what Americans want. My guess is that if Jesse Jackson Jr. (who recently chastised his own father) or JC Watts (a Republican) or Harold Ford Jr. were on a major party ticket, they’d be getting more votes. And what about Oprah!
His race alone is actually a compelling reason to vote for Obama. His election would go a long way toward bridging a divide that has left people mistrustful of one another since the birth of our country. Also, the fact that two hundred thousand people showed up to hear him speak in Berlin (how many would have shown up for Bush?) says a lot about his ability to inspire and move people of all nationalities. That is a big, influential pulpit and that kind of voice is perhaps needed on the international stage.
But the campaign has to be more than that. Obama’s stirring speech at the Democratic convention was long on promises but short on specifics. Sure, we want all those things--but how will he deliver?
More troubling, his pick of Joe Biden as his running mate offered no bump to his campaign. Obama, who championed change all through the primaries and pretty much said that a vote for the Iraq War showed unfit judgment to be Commander-in-Chief, ended up picking a man who has spent nearly his entire adult life in the Senate and--you guessed it--voted for the Iraq War. They can spin all they want about what a down-home guy Biden is, but for most voters, actions speak louder than words. Perhaps this is what happens when you have a Kennedy (Caroline) on the vetting committee--the Kennedys as agents of change expired about forty years ago.
The Dems rode a wave into Congress in 2006 on the promise to end the war, but as of this writing, nothing has changed there--except the surge, which Obama now says “has worked beyond our wildest dreams.” Thanks for nothing, Nancy Pelosi.
On the other hand, John McCain--whom Dems are trying to paint as another George Bush--has a long record of working with those on the other side of the aisle, most notably on campaign reform and immigration. He has challenged Bush on his handling of the Iraq War. During his own Convention speech, he railed against the corruption in his own party and vowed to give jobs in his administration to anyone who is qualified, regardless of party affiliation. You sure didn’t see Obama putting down the triangulation politics of the Clinton years. No, he had both Bill and Hillary shilling for him big-time.
What’s more, McCain’s choice of maverick Sarah Palin as a running mate was very risky and, ultimately, inspired. Giuliani said that with that choice, McCain chose for the future, while Obama reached for the past. Yes, it was pure politics in part, trying to grab disaffected women voters left unhappy by Hillary Clinton’s treatment. And the TV commentators wasted no time counting Palin out before she even came to the plate.
In one speech, Palin managed to shut their yaps. The CCN pundits were noticeably quiet about her record after the speech. What’s worse, Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid immediately called her speech shrill. Good job pulling in those women with comments like that, Harry. (One wonders what he thought of bitchy Rudy Giuliani.)
The liberal Dems are hoping by speaking the same old lines (“she’s too extreme for America”) they can dispense with Sarah Palin. What they fail to understand is that her out-of-the-Beltway status is seen as a plus, not a drawback. They also refuse to acknowledge that most voters are not one-issue candidates. While the Republicans may be anti-Choice, their energy policies might appeal to a voter’s pocketbook issue, and thus trump the former. While the Republicans may be soft on the idea of gay marriage, having a strong woman in the White House might help a gay voter overlook that for now.
So, as we head into a long 60-day homestretch to the election, it is valid to ask which candidate is the candidate for change. The answer is not at all obvious.
The Democrats had better start swinging and move to a slogan more inspiring than “more of the same” if they want to march into the White House and make history. They don’t have time to waste because right now the Republicans are on their game.
If the Dems lose, the Obama campaign will probably say, in so many words, that 1) Hillary didn’t do enough to help, or 2) America isn’t ready to elect a black man for president. Let’s hope he takes a good, hard look in the mirror as well and faces up to the mistakes made in his own quest for the highest office in the land.
What's Your Opinion?
KevScoHall@Verizon.net