Rupert Cornwell: So is Obama the saviour of his party?
Thursday, 28 August 2008
Finally, the warm ups are over – Ted Kennedy and his farewell call to arms, the Clintons and the latest episode of America's favourite political psychodrama. Even the uncertainty about whether the engaging but irredeemably prolix Joe Biden can keep control of the word count will have been resolved when this article appears. Here in Denver, we've at last got around to the one thing that matters. Barack Obama.
Given the breathless build up that precedes them, and the no less breathless analysis that follows them, you might think convention speeches can decide presidential elections. Almost always, however, they are instantly forgotten. But the speech Obama delivers tonight may be the exception. An angst hangs over the gathered representatives of the Democratic party, as seemingly tangible as the Rocky Mountains etched on the city's western horizon. Their foreboding is simple: have we picked the wrong person – and is it possible we are going to lose the most winnable election in a generation.
Every delegate can reel off the advantages that should make their man a certainty to be behind the Oval Office desk come next January: a desperately unpopular Republican President, an unending war, a lousy economy, a gnawing sense of national decline. Even Mother Nature may be about to cooperate, by delivering a major hurricane in the Gulf of Mexico in the midst of the Republicans' own convention next week, almost three years to the day after Katrina. No wonder in the "generic" polls that measure broad party preference, Democrats have a huge lead, of 12 per cent or more.
But when it comes to specifics, i.e. Barack Obama versus John McCain, their man is running only level. Now McCain might be the best Republican option in this inauspicious year, but he's not exactly a superb campaigner. He's old, a dismal public speaker, and distinctly gaffe-prone. The reason he is holding his own is that people simply don't yet have confidence his untested young opponent is up to the job. Tonight is an opportunity to overcome those doubts, in a prime time speech in which the candidate will have the country's undivided attention. And rightly so. For not only this convention, but this entire election, is now about one thing only: Barack Obama.
Even the Clintons have been a sideshow. Hillary gave a magnificent speech, all that Obama could have asked for and more. Yes, rumours persist about devious Clinton manoeuvres to bring about an Obama loss in 2008, setting her up for a second run in 2012. It has been noted too that, however forthright her support, Hillary did not explicitly state that her conqueror was qualified to take that famous 3am call in the White House. Bill for his part may skip tonight's grand finale.
But ultimately, none of this matters. The nominee's speech will stand or fall on its own merits, whether or not Bill is there to watch. And it is not up to Hillary to stipulate whether her former rival is fit to be commander in chief. It's up to Obama. Nor does Hillary's endorsement alone guarantee that her diehard supporters will return to the fold. Obama must win them back. And he must do it not with symbols, but with specifics.
If anything, in the case of Barack Obama, the country is suffering from symbolism overload. Everyone knows the candidate's astonishing life story, and all that it represents. The very date of tonight's address, the 45th anniversary of Martin Luther King's I Have a Dream speech, is yet another symbol.
In retrospect, the Obama campaign early on was less a candidacy than a movement, inspired by broad themes and soaring oratory. Much of the angst here stems from the fear that it peaked too early. By the end, it was Hillary, not he, who was on a roll. Inspirational mass rallies were out, and facts – which she seemed to supply more of – were in. Moreover, since the end of the primary season the candidate has seemed curiously detached and devoid of passion. If anything, external events have moved even further in the Democrats' favour. But Obama himself has yet to articulate a simple, specific, message.
Part of the trouble is the style of the man. The American political system has an inherent, and sometimes very expensive weakness – that the qualities needed while campaigning for President tend to be the those least suited to being President. During campaigns everything is presented in stark black and white, and George Bush the "decider" is proof of where an unadorned good versus evil approach to the world can get you.
One of the most unusual and attractive features of candidate Obama is that he visibly thinks before answering a question, weighing the pros and cons of an argument. That is an excellent quality for a President. But on the campaign trail it can come across as a lack of urgency. Obama moreover faces an additional difficulty. All along, his candidacy was presented as non-confrontational, based on the premise that he could bring Americans together. Stop thinking and start fighting, worried Democrats now urge. For some, uncomfortable parallels come to mind. Jimmy Carter once ran a campaign as clinically efficient as that of Obama, but probably was too nice to succeed as President.
But Democrats should not despair. Maybe, in those heady days of January and February, Obama wasn't quite the miracle worker he appeared. But now, by the same token, he is probably a better candidate than he has seemed over the last few weeks, as McCain has caught him up in the polls. Angst obscures another truth, that Obama is a quite remarkable politician. He has not only shown a relentless single mindedness to win the crown. As his speech on race after the Jeremiah Wright controversy proved, he can take on the very biggest issues, as few others can.
Of course race, the great unknown of this campaign, could yet be his undoing. But that is an issue beyond Obama's power. What he must do now is to make the sale. He must convince Americans that he is not merely a philosopher, but someone who grasps the problems of everyday life, of stagnant wages, vanishing jobs and foreclosed homes. Symbols cannot do this, vice-president Joe Biden cannot do this, even Hillary Clinton cannot do this. Only Barack Obama can. But if he can make the sale, then a neck and neck contest may turn into the sweeping victory of which those angst-ridden delegates in Denver dream.
For rolling comment on the US election visit: independent.co.uk/campaign08
-
Print Article
-
Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2008 Independent News and Media Limited





Comments
12 Comments
No, Obama is not a savior, he is still opaque. There is no way to know who or what he is until it is too late. McCain is no better. Is he really going to be the third term of Cheney/Bush, or will he discover where he left this backbone, guts, and heart and suddenly become a statesman instead of a eunuch hack? It is a bad bet either way. It is tragic that the future of the USA hinges on such a Hobson's choice.
RL
Posted by Robert Lamb | 29.08.08, 15:11 GMT
Dear George B,
Given the actions of the "qualified" once in the Oval Office I think the world might just be better off with someone vastly unqualified for a change...
Posted by Robin Cowley | 28.08.08, 21:54 GMT
Bush had been Governor of Texas -- the second largest state. And was still considered unqualified in 2000. Al Gore was far more qualified. So tell me Emery if experience should matter.
In addition to having served his country with honour for 25 years -- McCain has been in Congress for 26 years. It's at least a relevant resume you must admit.
Barack Obama was a community organizer for 5 years. And again, if you can come to Chicago and point out his organizational accomplishments -- I'd be in your debt. He was then in the Illinois Senate for 8 years. Did you look-up home rule, Emery?
If you did you would find that much of what the Illinois Senate does, does not apply to the two-thirds of the state population that lives in Chicago. I leave it to you to determine how important the Illinois State Senate is.
Obama may be a man of extraordinary talent and intellect. But based on his life's work, how are we to know, Emery?
Posted by George B | 28.08.08, 19:27 GMT
Ellen O and George B,
Has the non-spelling puppet George W. Bush, without the strings attached, ever done anthing of merit previous to becoming president, and since then? How can John McCain be an expert in Foreign Affairs when he does not even have a grasp of basic high- school geography? Does the fact that he was shot down over Vietnam and tortured make him more knowledgible, or is it the solitary confinement that made him an expect in International Relations? The greatest and most responsible job on the planet should be reserved to someone of extraordinary talent and intellect. Not cluless intellectual midgets like Bush and McCain.
Posted by Emery | 28.08.08, 18:43 GMT
Ellen O has it exactly right.
Democrats and Europeans want to Obama to win as a social statement. But the man is the least qualified person to run for the job since WWI. And independent voters get it.
Come to Chicago and you can see why black leaders like Jesse Jackson don't respect Obama as a "community organizer." Love Jesse or hate'em -- his group has a nice, big building down on East 50th. And you can watch folks go in and out all day drawing on the services it provides.
If you're looking for what Obama "organized" -- you can go to his old professor's office at the U of Chicago. I guess that's where he put together pick-up basketball games and his runs for office.
If you are further interested in Obama's scant experience -- Google Illinois Senate, Cook County and "home rule." You will quickly understand how minor a job Illinois State Senator is.
Posted by George B | 28.08.08, 16:48 GMT
I couldn't care less. People massively overstate the impact US politics has on us British. Sure, giving preference to US politics makes everything nice and easy for reporters (since they don't have to know another language like with European elections) but all US presidents act the same so who cares which ones in charge.
It's all just a way for 'correspondents' to grab a free holiday which incurs a mere half-hours work a day!
Posted by Matt Peacock | 28.08.08, 15:57 GMT
When I read Obama's resume I develop ambitions of my own. Obama who has not managed or run anything cannot hold a candle to my experience managing several thousand emplyees of an extended period.
The only problem is that I have a white face. The Dems are looking to make a bigger point - and Obama is the man. An empty suit with a gilded tongue, but very little else except a shaky history in the cut and thrust of Chicago's murky politics.
Will it work? It might given the unpopularity of the Republicans, but throughout the land there is serious doubt about the man. If only Colin Powell was running.
Posted by EllenO | 28.08.08, 15:29 GMT
If Obama wins, he will be just another front man, dancing a jig for the jabbering media. Nothing will change. He is bringing back the same old gang of back-biters, schemers, and rusty imperialists from the Clinton administration. A slick, lightweight shyster such as Obama, even if he means well, cannot change the direction of the corrupt, moribund, cloddish American experiment. The rich will get richer, the others can go hang.
Posted by Marla DuPre | 28.08.08, 13:33 GMT
This election is Obama's to win. As an American and an Obama supporter, I think he will. His speech tomorrow is critical, as will be his performance in the next couple of months in debates and the campaign. But what he needs to do, to succeed, I think, is to blend is great vision with a more practical articulation of how he will address the issues stated in the last paragraph of the author's article, that is, real issues to Americans.
I think he will.
Posted by tevis | 28.08.08, 10:18 GMT
To many voters Obama will be the picture of what is wrong with politics. We are asked to support a collection of special interests, not the interests of the majority. To many, the choice of Obama is like saying "It is the black's turn". The fact that Edwards offered ALL the working class more benefits than Obama has offered (and he will have no mandate to do more), has been pushed aside to elect a black man and show we are not prejudiced. Well, some of us have not been prejudiced for years, and don't need to prove it. If elected, McCain may free himself from his party's shackles, and be able to get things done. Obama has not shown leadership, or been the "go-to" guy on any issure. He is black and not Bush. That is exactly how we got Bush, he was not Clinton. We got Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court because he as not white. He as done nothing for blacks. We need to end racism by picking the best person, not by having turns based on color.
Posted by Harrison | 28.08.08, 10:08 GMT
12 Comments