Like it or not, Barack Obama will be the Democratic Nominee in the November 2008 Presidential Election. Mathematically, it takes real work for a Clinton supporter to argue that she will be ahead come the convention. Frankly, the chances of her gathering enough pledge delegates to ouster Obama's substantial lead are about the same as me getting laid this summer.
So, enough with that.
The Clinton v. Obama debate will continue, but the nomination really was cemented when white Iowa voted for and gave the momentum to Black Barack Obama. Collectively, they sent a signal to America - that being wealthy and white is no longer a qualification for leadership. What I am going to address here are the attacks on Obama, particularly those consisting of so-called "weakness" on issues and his appropriation of a populist, image-driven rhetoric.
The debate over the Democratic nomination has recently degenerated into petty polemics and rhetorical attacks against each candidate. Folks hurl the words bitch, liar, cunt, etc. towards Hillary Clinton. Although her image is not as polished as Obama's and she has definitely bended the truth in some occasions (Bosnia and NAFTA come to mind), this is certainly not true. Hillary supporters attack Obama and say that he is "weak on the issues" and that Obama supporters are being brainwashed by his flashy smile and populist rhetoric. To be fair, this is certainly an excellent and often utilized argument. But before I get to defend Obama on this aforementioned appropriation, a word on the actual attacks from the Clinton supporters:
It seems that as much as the "Hillblazers" argue that Obama is weak on issues, they are not certain on the issues that Hillary embodies. In fact, I daresay that as many Obama supporters who are voting based on "image" there are an equal number or more who are voting Clinton based on "issues". This means that while some Hillary supporters are voting for her because she is "good at the issues", they rarely know what these issues are. Forgive me for making a mass association, but I have talked to numerous Hillary supporters that do not know Hillary's stance on issues like education, Iran, or even the much publicized gas tax. So the leveling of attacks verse Obama supporters, although warranted, are made up of a group of supporters who certainly do not have flawless reasons for voting for Clinton.
Now, onto the attacks against Obama's rhetoric.
First of all, it is easy to see that Clinton has utilized this same populist message – especially as of late. The "Yes We Will" speech, a blatant mockery of Obama's brilliant "Yes We Can" speech is just one of the few examples as of late. So, once again, Clinton supporters are making a flawed attack since their candidate appears to be endorsing the same type of rhetoric.
Second of all, one must look at the reason why this populist rhetoric is used. It's because – simply (and excuse my language) – it fucking WORKS! Think about it. If Obama replaced "Yes We Can" with "Let's End The Economic Crisis by Cutting Down on Fraudulent Mortgages", it would not only be a mouthful to say (not to mention hard to cohesively coordinate), but it would be boring. Note: That actually is one of Obama's plans on improving the economy. Obama's rhetoric attracts people. In a age where many are apathetic to politics, a politician who shares a similar hatred against partisanship is refreshing – especially against a member who participates actively in it. Obama wins votes because of his message, yes, but those votes are from people who probably would not have voted. The large amount of people that care about politics and support Obama do not praise him because of his fantastic speeches, but because of his stance on issues.
Third of all, let's look at some of the greatest past presidents. Clinton, Ronald Reagan (debatably), JFK, FDR, Lincoln – the list goes on. What do these people have in common? Yep. You got it. They all have the ability to communicate with others. That is what made them good Presidents – the ability to listen and act. Obama fits into this patriarchal line. Hillary, on the other hand, probably does not. Her best speech, far and away, was when she adopted and manipulated Obama's slogan. I am by no means endorsing Obama as the next FDR (he does not have one quality FDR had -- polio – yeah, I went there).
Finally, an invitation. Go to barackobama.com. Look at the text "Blueprint for Change". As cliché as the name sounds, it is the Obama Bible. This is Obama's message stripped down -- all the "issues" you want.
