Texas Showdown—A Prelude to a Nomination
by Bryan R. Parker
Last night I, like many other Americans, and interested observers from around the globe, watched the debate in Austin, Texas between Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. I was filled with excitement to see who would fare best between these two candidates for the Democratic Presidential nomination. My tact, initially, had been to take notes, grade the candidates, point by point, and see whether the pundits agreed with my choice of a winner. Mid way through the debate, however, my outlook changed. This was not a point by point contest. It was a question of momentum. One candidate, Senator Obama, had it, and the other, Senator Clinton, did not. The question for me then became, could Senator Clinton halt the impressive momentum Senator Obama had established in winning the last 11 Democratic primaries.
Webster’s Dictionary defines “momentum” as the force or speed of movement; impetus, as of a physical object or course of events. By this definition, or most others, it would appear that Senator Obama clearly has the momentum in this campaign. The British Playwright, Tom Stoppard, said in the early 1900s that “[w]e’ve traveled too far, and our momentum has taken over; we move idly towards eternity, without possibility of reprieve or hope of explanation”. I realized what we are speaking of, as it relates to the Obama campaign, a movement, a destiny, one that may not yet be fully understood or explainable, yet one that is moving toward some higher purpose, one that seemingly can not be stopped. That is, after all, the way momentum seems to work. Once you have it, it becomes very hard for another to stop it. Senator Clinton’s task last night, viewed in this light, was simple, score big points in the debate such that she had the momentum heading into the Texas and Ohio primaries, or hope that Senator Obama stumbled badly and lost his momentum.
In my opinion, neither of these things happened last night. The candidates largely volleyed on the issues last night. There were subtle differences on healthcare, the economy and dealing with adverse nations like Cuba and Iraq, however, I think these differences were largely nuances without great substantive difference. Senator Clinton, despite showing a very human side at the end of the debate, stumbled badly earlier in the debate when trying to attack Senator Obama on his use of key words and phrases that were shared with his National Co-Chair, Governor Duval Patrick. Senator Clinton was roundly booed by the audience when she said “I think if your candidacy is going to be about words, then they should be your own words,…[l]ifting whole passages out of someone else’s speech isn’t change you can believe in; its change you can Xerox”.
Senator Clinton, through remarks like the above, and body language and tone throughout, looked very much like a runner-up. A now, all but certain, second place finisher heaving up a desperate last shot with time running out. This shot of desperation appears to have fallen flat for Senator Clinton. Senator Obama, on the other hand, very much played the part of front runner, taking the high road to such remarks, and instead of snipping back sought to focus on the issues and on uniting the party. He did point out that Governor Patrick, one of the National Co-Chairs of his campaign, had offered some of the words in his past speeches and encouraged Senator Obama to use them. He further pointed out that almost every paper in the State of Texas had offered him their endorsement. These remarks were nice “icing on the cake”, however, the most significant strides Senator Obama made last night were showing America and the world that he is indeed ready to be Commander and Chief, and that while his words are indeed very eloquent, they are backed by substance; tangible ideas and solutions that are going to drive the movement of change he has so often referred to throughout his campaign.
In terms of substance, I think skeptics of Senator Obama were given real specifics to back the eloquence of his speeches. I think, these doubters, Senators Clinton and McCain will be hard pressed to continue calling his words ones of hallow eloquence. Senator Obama spoke on Cuba, saying of course there must be pre-conditions to diplomacy, but that the President should lead diplomacy, versus a meeting with the President to achieve such diplomacy being an earned right of these nations with whom we seek to spread the tenants of democracy. He further spoke on the Economy, outlining thoughts on tax breaks for the middle class, trade that focuses on strong labor, the environment and safety standards and the creation of a “Green” economy and how that “Green” economy can lead to the creation of badly needed jobs for many Americans. He was similarly detailed in the areas of immigration, troop withdrawal from Iraq, healthcare and his Presidential readiness.
Looking ahead, against the backdrop of last night’s debate, and the fact that Senator Obama has moved from several percentage points behind Senator Clinton, as little as a few weeks ago, in both Texas and Ohio, to a now statistical dead heat in both those states, it appears the future for Senator Obama remains bright. Senator Clinton did nothing last night to disrupt the momentum of Senator Obama, in fact, with her snipping, she may have further damaged any remaining chances she had for wins in Texas and Ohio.
Momentum is indeed a hard thing to stop. Viewed from the current state of play, I think Senator Obama makes it 12, with Texas, and 13 with Ohio, Democratic primaries in a row on March 4. The larger question is how quickly Senator Obama can get on to the business of battling Senator McCain. There is a movement of change afoot. One that is more than about eloquent speeches. This is a movement of actionable ideas that will make a better America and a better world. It is my hope that Senator Clinton follows the example of Senator Edwards in deciding that what is at stake is the best interests of the American people, rather than an individual candidacy, and she “gets real” and helps the Democratic party’s best candidate, Senator Barack Obama, capture the White House.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Bryan,
It seems that after twenty years (ouch), we still do not agree on much. Back in our Berkeley days, you were certain that Depeche Mode was the epitome of musical genius and tried to convince me accordingly. I responded that their music was crap-on-a-platter and that you needed to re-evaluate your musical tastes. Round and round we went. Fighting tooth and nail as if the fate of western civilization depended on it.
The topic upon which we now seem to share no common ground, ironically enough, has much to do with the fate of the western world. Well, maybe not the fate, per se, but the relative importance of our nation’s Judeo-Christian underpinning is under attack--both domestically and internationally. When viewed from this perspective, the presidential election is really about which candidate has the ability to protect the nation’s people (and I mean all of them) from enemies both foreign and domestic and to ensure that the ideals that have historically made us strong are preserved.
I truly, truly wish that Barack Obama was the “one”. Despite my assertions about his lack of substance and experience, I would be willing to suspend disbelief and give him a pass IF he were not so utterly and completely pro-abortion. As a Catholic Christian, I am called to the vocational responsibility of voting for the candidate who unequivocally supports the lives of the weakest and most vulnerable among us. For any Christian, this must be the starting point in any analysis of a political candidate.
I know this seems narrow minded to some—especially to those who label themselves as “pro-choice” (a cowardly euphemism, if you ask me). But if you believe that life begins at conception, the logical extension of such a position is that one must then defend said life. At all costs. No matter what. If we thought for a moment that millions of 3-day old children were murdered and discarded each year, Americans would move heaven and earth to protect these precious citizens. But we turn a blind eye to those children who are, say…8 weeks in the womb. Other than developmental growth, how is it that the 8-week in utero child is less HUMAN than the three-day old, born child? And if we cannot determine the starting point of life with absolute certainty, isn’t it moral, isn’t it quintessentially American to ERR ON THE SIDE OF LIFE? We wring our hands in angst over depleted natural resources and yet our most fundamental resource, OUR PEOPLE, are discarded like garbage. All in the name of “choice”. The beloved late Mother Theresa noted that, “It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish”.
Drilling down to the debate itself, I do think that Obama was the clear winner last night. Although their policy positions are not substantially different, Hillary just has a hard time exuding sincerity. Maybe Americans have difficulty erasing old tapes from her husband’s presidency. I can’t put my finger on it, exactly, but she just strikes me as condescending and worse yet, overly scripted. And she espouses the standard liberal elitism—that the masses need a guiding hand in the form of government to address every social need. At least Obama couches his verbiage in such a way that he appears to have a little more faith in the resolve of individual Americans. As to whether that will play out in the form of policy…well…that remains to be seen.
I do think that Obama is a decent, accomplished, well intentioned (albeit misguided) man of integrity. He’s just on the wrong side of multiple, key issues facing America today. The sanctity of life is critical but only one of the concerns. We can debate more of these issues another time—once the race is between McCain and Obama—as I believe it will be.
I agree with Leigh. I am tired of the "hope" rhetoric. I know that it will cost me big time. I also know that much of this income redistribution will go to people who, quite frankly, don't deserve it. Already, the working poor do not pay taxes AND receive rebates of thousands of dollars with the EITC. Now, let's expand the social security tax on upper earners and deny them benefits when they retire because why? They planned, saved, WERE RESPONSIBLE. I understand that there are unfortunate stories out there, but when you change policy to reward negative behavior, you get more negative behavior. And it is all because we need to be compassionate. I hate forced compassion. It is not compassion. Obama will create a nation of more and more dependence.
And a weak nation is not what we need in a time of war. We need people who want to take care of their own and then want to fight to preserve what they have WORKED so hard for. That does not happen in a welfare society. And while the Democrats only mention the war on terror in terms of troop withdrawel from Iraq or about the due process rights of the detainees in Guantanamo, it does not mean that there is a very real, deadly serious network of Muslim terrorists who would be thrilled if the USA came to its knees. And while some people think that America is responsible for all the ills in the world and it is our fault these people want to kill us, they are insane. We need a President who understands that there is evil out there and can put a finger on it. Obama can't do it. He is pie in the sky. It will take millions of people dead on US soil to make him act. And he wouldn't be proactive. He would only be defensive. And I disagree with that approach. I say you go after your enemies before they come after you. I think that Obama doesn't even want to think about it.
Iran promises the destruction of Israel in the next few years. Talks about it all the time. Hitler talked about exterminating the Jews years before he built the ovens. No one did a thing, and we know what happened. Obama would not do a thing re Israel and another 6 million would die. And he would feel bad about it, but.....
I want someone who believes that American strength (strength in character, strength in conviction, strength in military) is a noble and just thing. Not someone trying to keep the masses happy with gimmeees.
Actually, Obama, I have HOPE, just not your kind of hope.
Post a Comment