January 07, 2008
spacious skies
1/7/08
My nephew Sean Patrick Williams has always been one of the funniest members of my family, but also managed to pull off something the rest of us have not: quiet, introspective, dogged determination. Sure, some of us have dared "determination" and have been "dogged", but if anyone will end up writing policy for the 21st century, it's him.
.jpg)
Xmas 2002
Having grown up a few miles from my ancient homelands in Iowa City, IA, Sean Patrick has always had an odd front-row seat to politics by dint of the Iowa caucuses. Because of the dick-measuring contests between states determining to be first, Iowa was insanely early this year, which meant he couldn't attend Christmas: he was caucusing for Obama, stumping on rural routes barely making the map. On December 14 of last year (three weeks before the caucus), he predicted Obama would take Iowa and Hillary would finish third, 10 points behind the leader. We were stunned. He went on:
Why do I think Clinton will finish in 3rd place? Fair or not, almost everyone with whom I have spoken has mentioned that Clinton doesn't seem especially genuine. At a house party that I attended with 8 undecided voters last night, all mentioned this as a serious impediment...
I asked him to write today's blog, so here is his report from what might be the first few pages of America's future. On a side note, I've been a huge Obama fan for a while, with Edwards beside him. Imagine the basketball discussions in the Oval Office... anyway, here's Sean:
***
It's hard to write about the Iowa caucus results from a first hand
perspective without descending into hyperbole, especially if you have
drank as many gallons of Obama brand Kool-Aid as I have. Still,
Thursday evening was a pretty big deal.
What always struck me most about Barack is that he doesn't force
progressives into the traditional dilemma they've supposedly faced the
last few elections-- choosing between their heads and their
hearts. In 2004, the Democratic party elected a guy that we could
stomach that we figured everyone else would like, and it ended up
poorly. My fondness for the Howard Dean of August 2003 aside, the
candidate of the "heart" in that field would have proven even
more disastrous than the guy we chose. Obama has finally realized
(a la Paul Krugman, ironically Obama's biggest critic from the
intellectual left) that progressive principles can win elections,
assuming that they aren't put forth in a manner as brash as Howard
Dean (or, perhaps John Edwards of 2007) or as watered down and
poll-tested as John Kerry (or, Hillary Clinton 2007).
Obama's message is unique, then, because it manages to reconcile any
number of values that seem to be mutually opposed. Aside from the
aforementioned "heart vs. head" issue, his campaign's major theme of
"hope" is inherently paradoxical. While that word was so central to
his campaign message that it was the only one on his yard signs, when
you hear Obama speak you quickly realize that his worldview is
actually quite complex.
Obama's politics begin with the assumption
that the American political system is deeply flawed, and rarely
produces positive results. Still, there are certain problems, from
health insurance to global warming, that necessitate a political
solution, and "the size of these challenges had outgrown the capacity
of our broken and divided politics to solve them."
The key idea hereis in spite of. Rather than disagree there is reason for
cynicism, Obama says that we must do something in spite of it. For
all the bad in our political system, there are moments in history when
good does arise, from the civil rights movement to the New Deal.
Obama's brand of pessimistic optimism (to use David Brooks' phrase)
can charm even cynical observers such as myself because he doesn't
deny cynicism; rather, he argues that to cede the realm of the political
to the cynics - and hope things don't get worse - would be disastrous.
John Edwards or Hillary Clinton would have a good shot of getting elected
if they were the nominee. Given the similarity in their policy proposals, it
seems possible a bunch of good policy would make it through what
looks likely to be a Democratically-controlled Congress. What made
Thursday night so exciting to me is that Barack is not only likely to
win the presidency, he has the ability to do so by a margin that would
open the door to a broad progressive agenda.
Right now there are massive numbers of disaffected Republicans and
right-leaning independents just waiting to be swept up by a Democratic
candidate they respect, even if they disagree on substance. The 30% of
the country who still approve of George Bush? They're a lost cause for Democrats,
but the 15% who voted for him in 2004 (and have since come to their senses)
may be up for grabs.
Obama has a very special appeal to these people, and it is certainly
not based upon differences in policy. Just read the glowing profiles of Obama
from any number of Republican authors, from Andrew Sullivan to David Brooks
to Steven Hayes of the Weekly Standard.
After speaking with Independents and Republicans in rural Iowa for the
last month, I've realized these aren't just the opinions of the
right wing media-- they are shared by normal people like my
Grandmother, a lifelong Republican from Cedar Rapids, Iowa who
registered as a Democrat to caucus for Obama. In short, the "I may
not agree with everything s/he says, but I trust and respect him/her"
vote is up for grabs this year, and I am ecstatic that a candidate
like Obama is drawing it in. It is these sorts of voters, by the way,
who are especially turned off by the Clinton campaign.
Maybe it's unfortunate that this sort of voter will
make a huge difference in the direction of the country, and
that elections aren't decided by a thoughtful comparison of the
particular policy positions of the candidates, but for at least a
brief moment, the randomness is serving the good guys. I would like to
believe that Obama's paradoxical message is part of his appeal here,
and it isn't a matter of dumb luck.
I'm not sure that being on the ground here in Iowa gave me any special
insight, but I guess that seeing Barack speak several times and
talking to voters informed everything above. I have any number of
anecdotes that will stick with me for a long time, a couple of which I
would like to recount.
On the day before the caucuses, I recruited a precinct captain for
Hills, IA (Population 679) for my friend on the Obama staff. Hills was
always a problem precinct for the campaign, and we were actually
concerned about even achieving viability (15%). On the night of the caucus,
the first individual to arrive told our 18-year old precinct captain
that he wouldn't vote for Obama because he didn't "want a colored man
in the White House for 4 years." Still, Obama ended up with over 55 of the
80ish voters in that precinct. He was competitive in a number of rural,
1-delegate precincts across the state, which is a real feat of organization.
While the racist element may have been present in my 95% white state, it was
dwarfed by the numbers of individuals who involved themselves in the
process.
I have never seen a campaign with so many volunteers, nor have I
encountered such commitment from campaign staff, paid or not. Though
I worked "full time" on this campaign for the last month, I wasn't
even in the top 10 volunteers in Johnson County in terms of hours
worked, and that doesn't take into account the 18 hour days worked by
all of the paid staff. A few days before the caucuses, Hillary's
campaign publicly bragged that she had knocked 30,000 doors that day.
Obama's campaign had more than doubled that total on the same day.
On caucus night, I kept feeling like I hit my emotional peak, only to
experience something even more uplifting. Walking into my elementary
school's gymnasium and seeing the Obama crowd so large it
swallowed both the Clinton and Edwards corners made my jaw drop.
All night long, I was nervously updating CNN.com on my
cell phone until they called the caucuses for Obama, at which point I
threw myself into my dad's arms and burst into tears. I cried again
as he gave his extremely elegant victory speech, and couldn't help but
repeatedly shout the phrase "We fucking WON!" until other people began
to shout it back at me before I even approached them.
I've been saying for months and months that Iowa would decide the
nominee, and at the moment that's looking accurate. While
200,000 people in a small, predominately white state probably don't
deserve the right to choose our next President, I can't help but feel
a bit of pride for Iowa. For once, it looks like we got it right.
P.S. I can't help but publicly boast about my predictions, and their
relative accuracy.
On December 14th, I predicted this finish:
1. Obama
2. Edwards (app. 5 points behind Obama)
3. Clinton, 10-13 points behind Obama
4. Biden, 5-7 percent
5. Richardson, 4-5 percent
6. Kucinich, 1-2 percent.
7. Dodd, between .5 and 1 percent.
I overestimated Edwards strength, perhaps largely because I watched so
many undecideds switch over to the Edwards camp that particular week.
I also overestimated the support of the second tier candidates. I
should have realized that in a field with 3 extremely strong
candidates, it would be difficult to find a precincts where a fourth
candidate could achieve 15% of the vote.
I did not expect this entry to end up this long, I applaud anyone who
has managed to make it this far.
Love,
Sean
I heart Sean Patrick.
WOW! Thank you, Sean Patrick (and Ian for sharing him with us). This is incredibly informative -- personal *and* objective. Sean has shown us concrete reasons why Barack is a different kind of Democratic candidate -- and not the obvious one of race.
Yesterday I was talking to some colleagues about the primaries and pointing out that our optimism about Obama may be skewed by our environment -- the ivory-tower blue state thing. This is borne out by the guy who referred to Obama as a "colored man." Colored??? Who even says that anymore? Sigh.
Who says "colored"? . . . NAACP
My dad was talking with a woman in North Carolina and she said she doesn't care WHO wins, as long as it's not that "Muslim" guy. So Obama will have that plus other race issues to deal with if he gets the nomination. I'm hopeful for him because his rhetoric does sound like a breath of fresh air.
But I seem to recall how easily Jesse Helms thwarted Harvey Gantt's bid for the Senate by not-so-subtle pandering to the worst racist fears of closed-minded whites. At the end of the day, I don't know how Obama can fight that.
Nice summary of your efforts, Sean. Reminded me of the final season of The West Wing. Hopefully, you got to hook up with a good looking fellow pollster, much like Josh got to hook up with Donna.
Dean, the NCAA has nothing to do with colors. Unless you're talking about the light blue hue of the #1 team in the land in men's college hoops!
Thanks, Sean, for that great report!
Though on a policy/operational sort of level, I do believe that Clinton is the best candidate running, my vote is currently for Obama. And while I believe that Clinton is more genuine than she comes off at the podium, my vote is currently with Obama. I like him, I trust him, and while I sorta wish he had a few more years of 'experience' under his belt, I don't think another politician like him is going to come around for a very long time. It's been said over the last few elections that the grueling election process forces the best people NOT to run...fortunately that doesn't seem to be the case here. I do fear what the Republican 'machine' would/will do to him in a general election, but for now I'm pinning it all on one word. His word. Hope.
Nice work Sean Patrick. It's good to know that there are people like you out there fighting the good fight.
P.S. If Bloomberg enters the race, though I don't think that he will, I reserve the right to change my mind.
"Rather than disagree there is reason for
cynicism, Obama says that we must do something in spite of it."A very important point. Unfortunately, my fear about Obama is that he is going to become one of the many smart, idealistic candidates who gets into the White House and only then realizes that he has to make so many tradeoffs, he begins watering down his policy to the point of it becoming nearly ineffective. That is the problem that some of the ardent Dems had with Bill Clinton after he took office, and the problem they have with Hillary now, despite her good intentions.
Sean Patrick's blog entry gives me more hope.
If Obama is just going to be another smart, progressive guy who becomes ineffective in office because of how politics works, then we might as well elect Hillary, since she at least has the experience of getting SOMETHING through the system (although not everything we wanted). I also am concerned about Obama's lack of foreign policy experience. There are some things you can't simply learn by being a good student. You have to experience them.
Sean Patrick, you make a good case. If Obama understands the cynicism and finds a way to work through it, finally maybe we can get the uninsured insured, and work on some of the other life-and-death issues. There is no excuse for anyone ignoring them. We all remember when Hillary's health care proposal got so bogged down that it was useless - but at least she was trying. Does Obama have a way to help and get it to work? I'll vote for him if he does.
As for the religion problem, GFWD is right...just yesterday someone forwarded me the anti-Obama email that claims he put his hand on the Koran when he took office, etc. (I'm sure many of you have seen it.) The email starts off with, "We checked these things on Snopes.com and they are true." Half of them are actually FALSE on Snopes.com. Of course, I hit "reply all" and pointed that out to the other people who got the inaccurate email.
Though Obama is not my first choice for Dem. nominee, it is not because I dislike him. It is because I like another candidate better. If Obama does win the nomination, he will get my full support (despite the fact that his personal assistant is a dookie). I can't find the Time article where I saw the connection, but here is the scoop:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-body_man_thursnov15,1,7832670.story
OBAMARAMA!!!!
he is the bomb. i've been following him since he ran for Senator and read his autobiography back then. i've been convinced all along he could be another JFK but i've been underestimating how many other folks would see it as well.
i come from the far left side moving in, and i would never in a million years vote for hillary or edwards. i don't vote based on *electability* i vote for the candidate i want to see in the white house. if my candidate doesn't win or doesn't even come close, at least i know i voted for the right person even if no one else did.
so to me it's as amazing as the rise of the internet to see people get on board with obama. but i would definitely vote for obama instead of a green party candidate or kucinich, and other people would vote for obama instead of moderate or right wing candidates.
that's actually real leadership. as for the operations stuff, that's not his job. he will have a staff and aides and hopefully be surrounded by a great support team. for foreign policy, he's the best candidate out there because he's approachable, non-judgemental, and a true negotiator because he speaks to the common ground - basically, he's a natural, he doesn't have to *learn* it. he actually elicits people's trust.
if hillary had a shred of vision right now, she would seek to partner with barack and be his VP nominee. that's where her washingtonian type skills could help.
Xuxe, I agree with your last sentence. Obama, if he has vision, can also ask her...
However, some questions off the top of my head:
>>>as for the operations stuff, that's not his job. he will have a staff and aides and hopefully be surrounded by a great support team.
Like Ronald Reagan?
If he can't handle the hard stuff, why should he get the top post in the country?? To smile for photos?
>>for foreign policy, he's the best candidate out there because he's approachable, non-judgemental, and a true negotiator because he speaks to the common ground - basically, he's a natural, he doesn't have to *learn* it. he actually elicits people's trust.
So did my kindergarten teacher. So's my grandma. Can he keep us out of war???
Scruggs, when I clicked on that link, I nearly spit up my Diet Coke and ruined my monitor.
Reggie Love will always be remembered by me and any other Tar Heel worth his salt for the pictures of him getting "tea-bagged" after passing out at a UNC fraternity.
Obama better vet his other trusted advisors better in the future before he makes another ill-advised personnel choice like he's done with the "dook of Earl Gray".
"my fear about Obama is that he is going to become one of the many smart, idealistic candidates who gets into the White House and only then realizes that he has to make so many tradeoffs, he begins watering down his policy to the point of it becoming nearly ineffective."
That certainly has happened in the past, but my hope is that Obama will be as dogged and determined as Bush has been. But instead of sticking to his guns disastrously as Bush has done, my hope is that he will stick to the ideals and ideas and beliefs he goes in with, doggedly going the right direction instead of the horrifically wrong one Bush has stuck to. Of course he will have to be flexible... no one knows what may happen. But "watered down" is what I hope NOT to happen. I have a feeling he could lead us out of the wilderness, in spite of reality and compromises and necessary adjustments.
I have been voting longer than most of Ian's readers have been alive, and it's been a damn long time since I had anyone I could vote FOR, instead of against. I read that Obama's Kenya relatives are praying for him. If I knew how to pray, I would do the same. In any case, I can hope. And vote.
g
Well-put, mom. If he does that, I'm in.
Prayer comes in many forms, and your comment was one of them.
"...and it's been a damn long time since I had anyone I could vote FOR, instead of against."
Just felt in needed repeating.
"...and it's been a damn long time since I had anyone I could vote FOR, instead of against."
Just felt it needed repeating.
...though I didn't purposely repeat it twice.
Well, the great literary gene certainly got passed down your side, Sean. That was a great summary of the things I'd been thinking/feeling about Obama but couldn't really express. Thanks for that.
I've never donated to a campaign before but after watching him speak a while back and reading his agenda, he got my money (and I'm cheap), so count me in as an Obama Mama.
I did hear something concerning today at work as I was eavesdropping on our staff chatting. The medical assistants (who are high school level educated and both black and white) were discussing the democratic candidates and they all came to the conclusion that it wasn't worth supporting Obama because "he's likely to get assassinated". What is that about? I guess in their minds it's not worth supporting someone who moves people so much (a la JFK) because they move people to both extremes. That's a sad statement to make about our country when we'd rather have boring and safe than interesting and inspiring.
Nicely put, and I agree with much of what Sean says. One (admittedly small) point that doesn't really work for me is the idea that the New Deal was as substantively new or revolutionary as its defenders seem to think. As a revolution in political style, on the other hand, it was as great as any since the election of 1828, which was why FDR enjoyed favorable ratings for his first seven years despite the fact that the New Deal didn't do much to alleviate the Depression--indeed, FDR seemed scared to really pull the trigger on deficit spending in any meaningful way--and also despite the fact that he was much more willing to violate the constitution to gain his ends than even George W. Bush.
Will someone please explain in greater detail the connection you Democrats make between BO and JFK? I know BO is charismatic, articulate (to quote Biden), etc. Are his polical positions similar to JFK? For example, JFK was a staunch supporter of tax cuts as a way of stimulating the economy (a la Reagan). He was also a huge proponent of the Tenth Amendment and state sovereignty except in the obvious sphere of civil rights -- a federal domain anyway.
Hell, based on those 2 positions, he'd likely be a Republican if he ran today.
By the way, when a political party says that their candidate is going to surround himself with great advisors, it is often a tactit admission that the candidate does not have the chops. We Republicans said the same thing about GWB when he had Powell, Rice, Cheney, et al.
Or is it that I am missing something -- is BO banging today's equivalent of Marilyn Monroe? And, if so, who exactly is today's equivalent to Marilyn Monroe in this context?
I think the biggest connection is largely emotional, ie. tied to how he moves people with his words, his energy, his vision, his youth, etc...
And let's see, today's Marilyn Monroe? Would that be Lindsay Lohan?
saying Obama should have top advisors and staff to support him on operational issues doesn't in any way mean he doesn't have chops.
it's the difference between being a CEO and a COO. we need a world class leader, and all world class leaders surround themselves with talented, smart people they can delegate to while they focus their time where they should be focused - on leading.
if your grandma and kindergarten teachers had that skill, then yes, they could prevent war.
we are no longer in a cold war age of speaking softly and carrying a big stick. we don't have any more sticks. the economy is in a long term secular decline. we no longer have the military power to run pell mell all over the world inflicting our will, and we have proven that we can't defeat guerilla warfare.
we are in a world where we have to avoid war by strategic alignment of interests - cultural and economic, we have to forge new global relationships and find new common ground and allies because we've become more and more isolated due to George Bush and all the neo-fascists.
and so if you need to repair your damaged reputation and image and declining status like the US does, if you've still got a seat at the table but you're not the most powerful person in the room, then you'd better be the most trusted and respected person in the room, and the person everyone likes.
i'm not going to start praying now, i'm going to start praying if we DON'T get Obama into office.
Excellent post, you have inspired me to do more in my home state to help this man get elected.