Barack Obama is
running for President on the premise of ‘Change.’ Arguments abound
on whether or not he’ll be able to make good on his promises of it,
but there is no doubt that he is indeed running on and for
Americans’ overwhelming desire for it. Change is attractive as a
concept, as an abstraction, as a promise, and as a chance. It is
also, perhaps, one of the few things that all Democrats (and
Republicans, for that matter) may agree upon - that Senator Obama
successfully defined himself as the ‘Change’ candidate before the
Iowa caucuses, and he has since kept the title. Senator Obama also
enjoys some advantages that the other Presidential candidates –
Senators Clinton and McCain – simply couldn’t and cannot lay claim
to, respectively. He’s new. He’s inspiring. He’d be truly
groundbreaking, as the first African-American President. He has the
youth vote. And, of course, his campaign is flush with cash.
These days Senator Obama is indeed the likely Democratic nominee,
and how could it be any other way with such advantages as I just
listed? Besides being actually African-American instead of just in
gesture, he has essentially the same list of attractions that were
unique to Bill Clinton in 1992, and those proved to be the deciding
factors in that primary season as well. (Though Clinton wasn’t
black, he was often referred to as “The nation’s first black
President,” for all of his work in race relations and civil rights
throughout his career, so Obama’s advantage in this case is even
greater than what Clinton enjoyed.) Senator Obama sounds like the
nominee, he looks like the nominee, and he feels like the nominee.
Whether or not it reaches officialdom sooner or later, Senator Obama
is indeed the Democratic choice.
Why, then, are there problems for Senator Obama’s general election
prospects that remain irreconciled? We know the stories, for it is
either that their headlines have become familiar to us in their
seemingly cyclical resurrection (the Reverend Wright issue, as
revived by last week’s diatribe against Senator Clinton by Father
Pfleger, a long-time associate of Senator Obama), or it is that the
occasional mention of the issue over time has led to its premise
being accepted through the force of repetition (Obama’s weakness
with blue-collar voters, senior citizens, white women, and his
weakness in swing states such as Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida).
These are events in the campaign season that haven’t derailed
Senator Obama from making it to the position of sureness in which he
now finds himself, and they can probably be overcome before
November, given enough time, work, and campaigning.
But there are other issues swirling around Senator Obama, if
silently and in the background, given the mainstream media’s
relative lack of coverage of these threads. They are but whispers,
rumors, and hearsay, passed from person to person, from email
account to email account, and they spread their messages with an
insidious efficiency. I know that I personally have seen them and
you probably have, too - they’re the e-mails that claim, variously,
that Senator Obama is a Muslim; that he refuses to put his hand over
his heart during the national anthem; that he was sworn into the
Illinois State Legislature on a Koran rather than a Bible. All of
these rumors are, of course, just that – rumors.
The origins of these rumors are tied to stories that were written in
proximity to his own, but were thoroughly unrelated. Senator Obama
himself is not a Muslim, though his father was; Obama the elder
eventually became an atheist. Senator Obama’s supposed refusal to
place his hand correctly during the Star Spangled Banner was a tale
that was probably spawned from his lack of desire to wear a flag
lapel pin. Senator Obama was indeed sworn into the Illinois State
Legislature on a Bible; it was Minnesota Congressman Keith Ellison,
the first Muslim to be elected to Congress in the United States, who
was sworn in on a Koran.
These instances of anti-Obama rhetoric are easy enough to be
dispelled – as I just proved, it only takes a paragraph or so of
clarification to set the record straight. It is the larger problem,
the unchanging problem, if you will, to which these smaller issues
speak. Why are voters prone to believe that Senator Obama is a
Muslim? Why are some prone to believe that he is somehow not
sufficiently patriotic? And why - having taken into account his
oratory skills, his ability to draw and motivate crowds, and his
proven ability to bring the correct people together to arrange a
strong campaign – why did it take him until the very last night of
primary voting to secure the nomination?
The answer might seem simple, to the point that it discounts its own
seriousness – there is, in this country, a rampant distrust of
Senator Obama. It is not necessarily pandemic, as not everyone
subscribes to this doubt, but it is large enough that, in a general
election year that by all standards should be a watershed for
Democrats, it puts the White House at risk for the Democrats and
into play for John McCain. The distrust of Senator Obama operates in
much the same way as the likeability factor did for Senator Clinton
during the campaign – for some reason, some people “just don’t like
her,” or something to that effect. If you change the verb to “trust”
and the object to “him,” you’ll have the situation for Obama.
The current scenario has, in fact, caused me to reconsider a
previous assertion that I made in this column – I no longer think
that Senators Clinton and Obama could not be placed on the same
ticket together. Indeed, I now believe that it would be foolish for
them not to do so. They each have their own appealing factors, and
their résumés would complement each other beautifully – his
freshness, her experience; his inspiration, her policy savvy; his
ability to bring new states into the Democratic playbook, and her
ability to win the traditional and swing states alike. The same
people who are prone to believe the aforementioned rumors about
Senator Obama are, for better or worse, part of the same demographic
that voted for Senator Clinton and might be likely to vote for
Senator McCain now the Obama is the Democratic nominee. With so long
a time spent trying to find reasons to dislike Obama, it is no
wonder that some are likely to hold steadfastly onto these claims –
they were looking for something wrong with Senator Obama, and now
that those weaknesses have been exploited, the only way to reconcile
these issues is, in my opinion, to form a combined ticket.
An Obama-Clinton ticket would be, quite simply, a combination of
strengths that has not been seen since Kennedy-Johnson, and would
have a serious chance at steamrolling its way to Washington. The
unchanging problem about Obama – the distrust – offers to Democrats
the opportunity of a political lifetime. In one sweeping gesture, a
combined ticket would unite the party, reconcile most of the hurt
feelings, bruised bones, and bloodied skins of the primary season,
and would, most importantly for the Democrats, neutralize both
Obama’s and Clinton’s problems, while making use of their greatest
assets. With abilities synergized, problems marginalized, and a
united campaign organized, 270 electoral votes will seem like
nothing in comparison to the Democratic primary.
In sum, the unchanging problem is the one that, if tackled in the
best way, offers the chance to change everything, and in 2008,
‘Change’ is indeed just that - everything.
- Bill Maddock
Author, Election 2008
bill@lieconomy.com
