Man, Obama sure is upsetting the status quo, isn't he?

[Emit]

And any good DUer should know that the status quo doesn't like being upset.:D

It's enough that we will see the end of the Bush/Reagan failed conservatism crap, but do you think this is a sign that we might see the end of Clintonian Neoliberalism, as well?

The Political Wonder That Is Obama
PTZeleza's picture
Posted February 21st, 2008 by PTZeleza
in

* U.S. Affairs

It has been a dazzling performance, historic in its possibilities: a black man electrifying America’s imagination, pulverizing the ferocious Clinton machine, collecting electoral victories with deceptive and decisive ease, seemingly unstoppable on his amazing journey to the U.S. presidency. That is the political wonder that is Barack Obama. It is an incredible story that has confounded pundits and scholars within the country and appears incomprehensible to many outside the United States. ...

~snip~

What accounts for Senator Obama’s meteoric rise from an obscure community organizer in Chicago to the celebrated frontrunner in the Democratic Party’s nomination for the 2008 presidential elections only three years after his election to the U.S. Senate? How has he been able to overwhelm the fabled Clinton electoral machine, forcing her once assumed inevitable candidacy into gasping for its political breath, a prospect that was unimaginable only a few weeks ago when upstart Obama’s audacity of hope was expected to perish in a Clintonian tsunami on Super Tuesday. If Senator Obama prevails and wins the nomination, and in November the presidency, still big ifs given the unpredictable twists and turns of electoral politics and the historic improbability of his candidacy, his success, and even if he does not win either, his momentous appeal thus far, could be attributed to four sets of votes: against Bush and Billary and for him and the future.


Seven years of the disastrous Bush presidency—perhaps the worst in U.S. history according to some scholars—have left most Americans deeply despondent at home and widely distrusted, if not despised, abroad. They despair over the unending and horrendously costly wars in Afghanistan and Iraq which are draining an economy reeling from a housing crisis and staring at recession and sapping the nation’s notorious self-assurance. They deplore bitter partisanship, opportunism, and callousness that have permeated and poisoned the political culture. The chickens of neo-liberalism and neo-conservatism, consummated during the Bush presidency, have come home to roost and the ugly results have been rather disquieting to many Americans leaving them yearning for new beginnings, for change. ...


It is a vote against the republicanization of America that began with the contested civil rights settlement of the late 1960s and early 1970s and which has finally run its course. Conservative principles and posturing increasingly sound like an old broken record out of step with the tempestuous rhythms of the times. This is what the Obama phenomenon has tapped into, a deep emotional need for change, for hope, for escape from the mean, fearful post-9/11 era. Watching him at his exhilarating multiracial rallies is to witness a more hopeful America gesturing to the future, a different America from that of Senator McCain who is often surrounded by dour old white men, an embarrassing public portrait that history is desperately seeking to leave behind.


If many Americans see redemption in the Democratic Party, within the party itself many are increasingly recoiling from a Clinton coronation, from a dynastic restoration of a Billary presidency. As President Clinton aggressively and angrily campaigns for his wife, Senator Clinton claims experience from her husband’s presidency, thereby both unwittingly suggesting that Hillary’s presidency will be as much Bill’s as the latter's was hers ...

~snip~

Whereas the Clinton campaign concentrated on the large states... and assumed the contest would be over on Super Tuesday and failed to plan for the day after, the Obama campaign prepared for a protracted campaign in every state, big and small, ignoring no community, rich and poor, men and women, democrats, independents and republicans, and all racial and ethnic groups in a methodical drive to win votes and delegates and, more grandly, to build a new democratic majority. No wonder he has increasingly extended his support across all demographic groups including those claimed to be bedrock Clintonites, putting the lie to one claim after another that Obama is only attractive to blacks, the young, men, and those earning more than $50,000 while Clinton has a lock on white women, the elderly, Hispanics, and blue color workers.

~snip~

The votes for Senator Obama of course also represent a vote for the future as seen most poignantly in the way his candidacy has fired up the imaginations of the youth. In a way this is a generational contest, between the post baby-boomer and post-civil rights generations and the depression era and baby boom generations. Senator McCain, 71, the presumptive Republican nominee and Senator Clinton, 60, the fading Democratic aspirant represent the latter, respectively, whereas Senator Obama, 47, was born a year after John F. Kennedy, another inter-generational icon whose mantle Obama relishes, was elected in 1960. For older and establishment politicians including African Americans some of whom are anguishing over and even recanting their earlier support for Senator Clinton, the Obama juggernaut has been quite bewildering.


It shows that there might be a new postcivil rights generation—in terms of both age and sensibility—that does not find the idea of a black president such an improbable proposition. This hip hop and multiculturalist generation has grown up seeing blacks occupying high political offices in unprecedented numbers from mayors to governors to senators to judges to cabinet secretaries, and as professionals, not simply as idols of popular culture in sports and entertainment. This is to suggest there may be a cultural shift taking place in American society, a new social imaginary of citizenship might be emerging, underpinned by the very limited dispensations of the civil rights settlement the Republicans have worked so hard to overturn, as well as by new productions and consumptions of popular culture, and transformations in domestic and global racial geographies as articulated in demographic shifts and the circuits of globalization.

~snip~

However, as inspiring as his ascent would be, the import of his achievement would be more symbolic than substantive. In other words, a President Obama would not fundamentally alter the structural and social impediments that have long faced African Americans, nor would it significantly temper the imperialist impulses of the United States in Africa and other regions in the global South. This is because as important as the presidency is, it is only one center of power in the American hegemon dominated by the military, prison, corporate, and media industrial complexes. And Senator Obama is not, in any meaningful way, a radical, let alone a revolutionary figure; if he was he would not have gone this far in the deeply conservative American political system and culture. He is as ensconced in the American mainstream as are all the white men and the white woman who have sought the presidency during this presidential election cycle. That does not mean I will not welcome, or even celebrate his victory. After all, I have made a small contribution to his campaign, my first in an American election, and his victory would be a welcome return on that investment. More importantly of course it would offer us all some respite from the unrelenting terror and mediocrity of the Bush years.

http://www.zeleza.com/blogging/u-s-affairs/political-wonder-obama

[Cha]

1. Excellent read, Emit..thanks..

I'm just getting started but this caught my eye..'cause I was just thinking that hilary and her supporters are still wallowing back in Feb's Super Tues, stunning blow.

"Whereas the Clinton campaign concentrated on the large states... and assumed the contest would be over on Super Tuesday and failed to plan for the day after, the Obama campaign prepared for a protracted campaign in every state, big and small, ignoring no community, rich and poor, men and women, democrats, independents and republicans, and all racial and ethnic groups in a methodical drive to win votes and delegates and, more grandly, to build a new democratic majority. No wonder he has increasingly extended his support across all demographic groups including those claimed to be bedrock Clintonites, putting the lie to one claim after another that Obama is only attractive to blacks, the young, men, and those earning more than $50,000 while Clinton has a lock on white women, the elderly, Hispanics, and blue color workers.

The Whole US..what a concept.

[Window]

3. That's awesome.

[Emit]

5. I thought so, too, zidzi

Here's some info on the author. I was unfamiliar with him and was curious as to his background:

Paul Tiyambe Zeleza is a historian, literary critic, novelist, short-story writer and blogger at The Zeleza Post - <1>.

~snip~

Personal background

Zeleza was born in Salisbury, Rhodesia, now Harare, Zimbabwe, in May 1955, of Malawian parents. His parents returned to Malawi in 1956 before returning to Zimbabwe in 1972. Zeleza attended primary school (1961-1968) and secondary school (1968-1972) in the cities of Lilongwe and Blantyre in Malawi, and went to college at the University of Malawi (1972-1976) where he received his BA with Distinction, majoring in History and English. He served as a Staff Associate at the University of Malawi's Chancellor College from 1976-1977 before he proceeded to Britain for his graduate studies. He earned an MA in African History and International Relations at the University of London's School of Oriental and African Studies and the London School of Economics and Political Science (1977-1978), then a Ph.D. in economic history at Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada (1978-1982).

Work Experience

Upon completing his Ph.D. in 1982, Zeleza took up an appointment as a Lecturer in the Department of History at the University of the West Indies, Mona, Kingston, Jamaica where he spent two years. He relocated to Kenyatta University in Nairobi, Kenya in August 1984, the country on which he had done his Ph.D. dissertation and where he had spent a year between 1979-1980 conducted research. At Kenyatta he taught African economic history and began his extensive research on the subject that would eventually result in his award winning book, A Modern Economic History of Africa (Dakar: Codseria Book Series, 1993), which was partly financed by a Rockefeller Foundation "Reflections on Development Fellowship" administered by the Council for the Development of Social Science Research (CODESRIA). He was promoted from the position of Lecturer to Senior Lecturer in 1987.

In January 1990 he left Kenyatta University to work on the his African economic history research project, which took him to the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, and his alma mater, Dalhousie University in Canada, where he spent the next six months conducting research. In July 1990 he relocated to Trent University, Ontario, Canada, where he was appointed Assistant Professor in the Department of History. A year later he received tenure and was promoted to Associate Professor, and three years later to Full Professor. In 1994 he was also appointed Principal of Lady Eaton College, one of the five constituent colleges of Trent University, as well as Acting Director of the Trent International Program.

In August 1995 he was recruited to become the Director of the Center for African Studies and Professor of History and African Studies at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, in the United States, where he spent the next eight years and where he produced some of his most important academic work. In August 2003, he relocated to the Pennsylvania State University where he was appointed Professor of African Studies and History in the Departments of History and African and African American Studies.

Since January 1, 2007 he has been Professor and Head, Department of African American Studies at the University of Illinois at Chicago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Tiyambe_Zeleza

He provides an excellent summary (even thought it's a little outdated now that we're into the month of March). Interesting to get the perspective of a foreigner, especially one from Africa, and especially one who has devoted his life to African and African American Studies. Fascinating perspective, culturally, historically, and of the moment, IMHO.

edited to add info

[Cha]

6. This highly educated man has been

around the world and his writing regarding Obama and the US election resonates with me here in New York.. This is all so obvious but to be able to write about it like this is a gift.

"If he wins I suspect his organizational prowess will be studied more closely than the boisterous rhetoric of his speeches. Senator Obama has out-financed, out-organized, and out-maneuvered Senator Clinton at every turn except when it comes to launching negative attacks, which do not seem to have worked so far, not least because he has refused to be swift-boated. On this basis alone, he has proved a superior candidate to Senator Clinton who squandered an early lead, run out of money after raising nearly $120 million, and has managed a leaky operation that has been revamped several times, and has failed to find her voice despite the much-trumpeted 35 years of experience and her self-proclaimed readiness to govern from Day 1."

"While the race card divorced the Clintons from Black America, negative campaigning reminded the rest of the electorate of the unprincipled politics of the Clinton Administration, the emptiness of triangulation, the moral decrepitude of the impeached president, which paved way for the moralizing terror of the current Bush Administration. While some trumpted the good old days of the 1990s, others remembered that it was under President Clinton's watch that the Democratic Party lost both houses of congress, many governorships and state legislatures, and the rightwing agenda of dismantling the welfare state was pursued with vigor. As Cassandra R Veney stated on The Zeleza Post, Clinton was not a friend of black people whether in America or Africa contrary to the popular mythology. The fresh senator from Illinois benefited from the rising discontent with the Clintons, which overshadowed the historic importance, in gender terms, of Senator Clinton’s own candidacy..:

[Emit]

8. It's a stinging criticism of the Clinton era, and he does an excellent job of

explaining why Hillary's run is so tied to the past:

...If many Americans see redemption in the Democratic Party, within the party itself many are increasingly recoiling from a Clinton coronation, from a dynastic restoration of a Billary presidency. As President Clinton aggressively and angrily campaigns for his wife, Senator Clinton claims experience from her husband’s presidency, thereby both unwittingly suggesting that Hillary’s presidency will be as much Bill’s as the latter's was hers...

[Cha]

9. He has no problem with combining

their first names to suggest their co-dependency. America could do itself and the Planet a favor and retire them to the boneyard of self absorbed politics.

[Emit]

25. I caught that, and at first thought it was unnecessary, as those kinds of nicknames sometimes seem

childish. But, you are right to point out that it fittingly suggests their co-dependency, and this piece is far from childish. It will likely bother many Clinton supporters, though, who will not be able to comprehend the criticism without bias.

[polpilot]

30. .'...boneyard of self absorbed politics...' great line. This is a war for the future of America and

the post accurately reflects a post civil rights greneration bored with the racist tendencies of the past. This generation actually knows the 'person of color' on the other side of the economic/political fence. Hillary would fit perfectly on the McCain ticket. McCain would fit perfectly on a Hillary ticket. It could be the new co-dependency as the McCain/Clinton presidency could continue to bomb and kill the people and planet, Hillary with her head bobbing 'strong on security' and McCain just grinning and bombing. I have known the Clintons since their days in Arkansas and to have a history of their 'words and promises' v. their 'actions' is invaluable. It is absolutely amazing that given their path of destruction for the U.S. and the world (NAFTA, the Iraq War, her 'promise' of working for universal healthcare since 1992, 1992!!!, Bill's ties to H.W. Bush)that they still are believed to be 'democratic' or part of the solution. When Bill ran for his 1st term I had friends who called with glee to have this 'Bill Clinton' who so talked the talk. My reply was simple. 'They're both basically sociopathic liars who take advantage of society's weakest members.' and on we go...

[niceypoo]

31. I will never understand why Obama supporters default to attacking Bill Clintons presidency

In a storm or Republican onslaught, he was one of the most effective democratic presidents in history. Again, Obama supporters can not hold up Obama on policy so they default to negative attacks.

[Emit]

32. Change Won And The Status Quo Lost It

You can start at this link, although there's a laundry list that I don't have time to post now:

http://www.johnedwards.com/news/headlines/20080106-nh-debate-change-won/

As an Edwards supporter, I assumed you might already know the answer.

[NDambi]

17. There was a big discussion on Obama and how he has changed the "normal" way of doing politics on

CNN last night...and how his organizational skills will be studied for years to come, even if he does lose.

I mean, if you think about it..he toppled the "inevitable" candidate, not just toppled her, but actually left her in the dust.

[Emit]

20. I don't get cable

wonder if that is on line. I'll try to check it out; was it just talking heads or a produced show?

[Window]

2. Great article.

Thanks for sharing.




Peace:thumbsup:

[Window]

4. Had to come back to K/R.

:kick:

[Emit]

7. Thanks, in GD:P, if it takes more than a few seconds to read, or if it isn't hyperbole

and flamebait, it sinks like a rock. Or so it seems that way sometimes.

[Window]

11. Yeah, I know. That's why I revisit and kick.

:kick:



Peace:thumbsup:

[Emit]

26. Forgot to say thanks for that kick

:hi:

[Mike03]

10. This is an excellent post. Hope people take the time to read and consider it thoroughly. NT

[Emit]

15. Thanks for noting that, Mike03

Things sink pretty damned fast these days, it's sometimes hard to have a coherent discussion on any topic or article.

[kentuck]

12. I hope he is wrong about this:

"And Senator Obama is not, in any meaningful way, a radical, let alone a revolutionary figure; if he was he would not have gone this far in the deeply conservative American political system and culture."

================================

Of course, if he was a radical, he would not be here today. Literally.

[LWolf]

13. Upsetting the status quo is good.

I don't see Obama bringing anything to the table that would upset the status quo. Obama isn't going to end neoliberalism; he IS a neoliberal.

<snip>

Never mind, for example, that Obama was recently hailed as a "Hamiltonian" believer in "limited government" and "free trade" by Republican New York Times columnist David Brooks, who praises Obama for having "a mentality formed by globalization, not the SDS" Or that he had to be shamed off the "New Democrat Directory" of the corporate-right Democratic Leadership Council by the popular left black Internet magazine Black Commentator . . .

Never mind that Obama has lent his support to the aptly named Hamilton Project, formed by corporate-neo-liberal Citigroup chair Robert Rubin and "other Wall Street Democrats" to counter populist rebellion against corporatist tendencies within the Democratic Party. . . Or that he lent his politically influential and financially rewarding assistance to neoconservative pro-war Senator Joe Lieberman's ("D"-CT) struggle against the Democratic antiwar insurgent Ned Lamont. Or that Obama has supported other "mainstream Democrats" fighting antiwar progressives in primary races . . . Or that he criticized efforts to enact filibuster proceedings against reactionary Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito.

Never mind that Obama "dismissively" referred - in a "tone laced with contempt" - to the late progressive and populist U.S. Senator Paul Wellstone as "something of a gadfly." . . . Or that "he posted a long article on the liberal blog Daily Kos criticizing attacks against lawmakers who voted for right-wing Supreme Court nominee John Roberts." Or that he opposed an amendment to the Bankruptcy Act that would have capped credit card interest rates at 30 percent. Or that he told Time magazine's Joe Klein last year that he'd never given any thought to Al Gore's widely discussed proposal to link a "carbon tax" on fossil fuels to targeted tax relief for the nation's millions of working poor . . .

http://prorev.com/2007/05/few-things-to-forget-about-when.htm

[Emit]

14. Sadly, you may be correct in that assumption

as I myself have discovered. Neither he nor Clinton offer much difference in foreign policy, for example, with the exception perhaps of HRC's war vote and Obama's anti-war stance.

If accurate, all of this in the piece you posted, concerns me, too, although I haven't researched it all to verify. It's a little late, 'cause I've done cast my vote.

But, I also find him making steps in the right direction:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=4933865#4934265

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=obama+lobby+reform&btnG=Google+Search


But, as the author of this piece in the OP notes:

... In other words, a President Obama would not fundamentally alter the structural and social impediments that have long faced African Americans, nor would it significantly temper the imperialist impulses of the United States in Africa and other regions in the global South. This is because as important as the presidency is, it is only one center of power in the American hegemon dominated by the military, prison, corporate, and media industrial complexes. And Senator Obama is not, in any meaningful way, a radical, let alone a revolutionary figure; if he was he would not have gone this far in the deeply conservative American political system and culture. He is as ensconced in the American mainstream as are all the white men and the white woman who have sought the presidency during this presidential election cycle. That does not mean I will not welcome, or even celebrate his victory. After all, I have made a small contribution to his campaign, my first in an American election, and his victory would be a welcome return on that investment. More importantly of course it would offer us all some respite from the unrelenting terror and mediocrity of the Bush years...

I am not so naive as to believe Obama is the panacea. Nor was I naive enough to think that my first choice, Kucinich, had a snowball's chance in hell of winning over the electorate or playing the Military/Prison/Corporate/Media/Military Industrial Complexes Election game, either.

I mean, what's the alternative now? Nader? ;)

[LWolf]

16. There is no good alternative.

:(

[Emit]

18. kick n/t

[redqueen]

19. Sure seems that way.

I like it. :)

[indimuse]

21. yeah..for all you McCain ..comment lovers..

he equated Hillary with BUSH! More of the same...Status quo...blah blah bla!! REZKO!

[Capn Sunshine]

22. btw, (you spelled "People" wrong in your sig line)

:hi:

[indimuse]

23. kewl thanks...

twas ruhsde

[Emit]

24. Did you even read the piece?

[Orsino]

27. Compare his voting record to Clinton's.

He came to office eager to support the status quo.

[Emit]

28. Yes

I am aware that his voting record is very similar to Clinton's.

I doubt the author of the piece in the OP would argue much with you on that either.

[Emit]

29. kick n/t