The Primaries(1) (Jan.-Feb.2008)

Since joining Newsvine, I have been following various debates, particularly as to why Obama wasn't likely to win the nomination, and have watched with fascination as even the most talented Viners closed their minds to what was possible and stuck with what they 'knew', even in the face of consistent poll results, while finding it difficult to deal with the unknown. But to appreciate why Obama has created history today, and will get to the White House on his own steam, is to understand the power of pioneers. Obama is a pioneer of the first mould. Armed with nothing more than his vision, faith, determination and incredible charisma, he is about to change America's recent impact on the world to something much more positive and to give a glimpse to the nation of what is possible for them.

What has helped Obama in his presidential quest are three major elements which very few members of the biased media were able to take into account:

1. Hillary's own approach to the presidential campaign. She was obviously set on establishing an early lead and raising the most money to prove her electability and suitability for the post, to overwhelm her rivals with high statistics and powerful support. However, she obviously forgot the very important message of that famous song: "It's not where you start, it's where you finish". That is the only thing that matters - finishing. She was so busy concentrating on making a big splash to start, and maintaining it at all costs, even with vindictive personal attacks by members of her team against Obama, she forgot about the power of the underdog to come from behind; that underdogs have nothing to lose but their doggedness! Furthermore, while she was concentrating on wooing women to get the female vote, what happened to the men?

The public hate politicians and the media making up their minds for them, when they are the real deciders with the final votes. I think Hillary sounded her own death knell when she told Katie Couric in December that she would definitely get the nomination. That was really like an arrogant red rag to a simmering bull. A little bit more humility and public appreciation could have worked wonders for her.

2. The support of the youth. Sixty percent of Obama's new caucus voters were people under 25, while most of Hillary's came from women over 65. That youth presence is a powerful endorsement by the future generation of Americans. Despite being in his 40s, Obama's youthful looks have encouraged them to see him as 'one of them', reflecting their hopes and dreams of a united America - for BOTH men and women. Obama has not only impressed and motivated them, but he is also taking the future with him in their powerful show of support. That is a formidable position to be in.

The youth of many countries has always been in the vanguard of change: ready to go on the protest marches, to join debates, to speak out and to make their voices heard. Fearless and far seeing, our youths are phenomenal in being agents of change because they have little experience to keep them stuck in the past and controlled by fear. They have greater visions of what is possible, as they are not hampered by limiting dogma and entrenched positions. They are also willing to experiment, unlike the older folks, they mainly go by their instincts and what inspires them and are keen to defend their beliefs. With such a solid endorsement of youthful support, especially where young people tend to behave like lemmings and word of mouth is very powerful, Obama had to be a winner.

And finally, the main reason:

3. The inability of the pundits to deal with the unknown. Obama was an unknown candidate whose lack of experience kept him out of their orbit. His colour is also a major issue for the racists across America. Put those two factors together and his audacity of hope would have appeared laughable to the many people claiming to know the score in American politics. Their 'experience' would have told them that Obama had not a hope in hell of making much impact because nothing like it had ever happened before. But that's the problem with people who mainly use 'experience' as a guide. Their narrow vision keeps them stuck with past actions and what has been tried and tested, robbing them of the ability to deal with change and the unknown.

But our world has been built by pioneers, with nothing more than their curiosity, faith and determination to guide them. Obama is no exception to this. As such, he has created a major headache for the 'experience' gang. Their closed minds are unable to comprehend this new direction and so the old chestnuts keep coming out like: "Republicans will vote against him if he does get the nomination, so a Republican will win". What tired nonsense. The refuge of the ignorant and fearful. They are still unable to deal with this unknown and continue to clutch at the straws of familiarity. But there will be lots more shocks in store for them by the time they recover from Iowa.

Nothing succeeds like success so, with this historic win in the first primary, watch his bandwagon turn into a juggernaut as the caucuses roll on. The blind mist will slowly clear as the doubters begin to see what is possible. It will be hard to stop him after New Hampshire because everyone likes a winner, especially one who has beaten all the odds to get there.

Quite simply, Americans, and the world, no longer want more of the same negativity and fear. Until the biased media and the 'experienced' political pundits accept that simple fact, they will continue to miss out on one of the biggest historical changes about to engulf America.

To quote David Brooks of the New York Times:
"Iowa won’t settle the race, but the rest of the primary season is going to be colored by the glow of this result. Whatever their political affiliations, Americans are going to feel good about the Obama victory, which is a story of youth, possibility and unity through diversity — the primordial themes of the American experience.

"And Americans are not going to want to see this stopped. When an African-American man is leading a juggernaut to the White House, do you want to be the one to stand up and say, No?
Obama has achieved something remarkable."

Who, indeed, would dare to do that, for a variety of reasons?

After Hillary's dismal third-place race in iowa, she and her team quickly headed to New Hampshire. No sooner had they landed, when her campaign press secretary, Jay Carson, and the campaign's chief strategist, Mark penn, began the damage limitation exercise by dissing Iowan people and belittling their importance.

Unloading to the Wall Street journal, Jay said, “Iowa is so small, it’s like a mayor’s race in a medium-sized city. It wouldn’t be wise to put too much emphasis on it.”

Mark Penn put the knife in even further and turned it brutally: “The worst thing would be to over count Iowa and its importance. Iowa doesn’t have a record of picking presidents.”

So, there! (noses turned up disdainfully, perhaps?)

Whether that is true or not, that was not the thing to say when, just a few months before, Ms Clinton was lauding Iowa, expressing her admiration in fulsome terms and was praiseworthy of their state. However, as Iowans obviously rejected her in the face of all that appreciation, it stung deeply and the criticisms began in earnest, which is the most telling aspect of Hillary Clinton: her lack of leadership skills and genuine sincerity.

The Essence of True Leaders
True leaders are not poor losers. They are also inclusive, not divisive. They are sincere in their objectives, even if others are cynical of their efforts. They soon learn that they can get someone to do far more for them by valuing that person than being mean to them. Not for Senator Clinton. It seems that if you do not vote for Hillary then you are against everything she is for, and if you are not a supporter, you are of no value to her. As she expects to win, the implication for voters is that she is THE only choice they have. Should they resist that idea, then they are not really significant in the scheme of things, and shouldn't be taken too seriously. They've failed at the task, served their purpose, and can expect to be punished with barbed criticisms some time later.

That is just manipulating the public for one's own ends. Voters know exactly what they are doing for their own aims, not hers. Their actions might not agree with the self-styled critics and pundits who feel they know best, but voters like to exercise that individual, hard-won right even if their choice seems bizarre to others. The appropriate reaction to any polling result is a huge thank you amid the tears and appreciation for considering her in the first place, not putting voters down the minute it goes pear-shaped because one never knows when they might be needed again - and voters have elephant memories. There really is nothing like a poor loser, especially one who gradually reveals her true ambition as the race gets tougher.

It is sheer arrogance why Mrs Clinton has been on a losing streak this month. This lady, in her bid to show how powerful and supported she was all those months, forgot two important things about any competition:
a. the power of the underdog to come from behind and bite you on the leg, and
b. never to count one's chickens before they are hatched!

The Clinton team are now being nice and fuzzy to their voters in New Hampshire, with Hillary even visiting homes personally to get her message across. The smiles are broader and the expectations broader still. When those are dashed on Wednesday, and she heads for South Carolina, will it be the turn of New Hampshire to get it in the neck? How can voters trust such a chameleon who seems to react favourably and appreciate them only when she is winning? That's no leader at all. That's just an opportunist.

As a 'concerned' supporter of Senator Clinton commented: "If Hillary cannot manage 'a mayor's race in a medium sized city', how can she manage the nation?"

How, indeed?

Many African Americans are happy Barack Obama is running for president, but they regard him as 'half black' or not 'not black enough', and not someone who has gone through a 'typical black American experience'. But what is a 'typical' black American experience? No one in the world has a typical experience. Each person's life is unique and no matter what part it might share in a human trend, no one knows the other person's pain, joys, laughter or sorrow.

It is a kind of arrogance to believe that because we all share an outward skin colour that we all share the same 'typical' experiences. Not even when we are in the same proximity with each other, we don't share anything exactly with our neighbour. We might share a world perspective, and a particular cultural view, or even similar aspirations, but we are not clones of each other. That difference is guaranteed by personal perception which dictates our reality.

Black people have no monopoly of life experiences than any other race. ALL the experiences within a culture identifies that culture- whether relating to rich, poor, great or small, strong or weak. The total of the sum of each part defines us. But those limiting thoughts of not being 'typical' could be what has kept many Black people down all this time: those negative thoughts assume that only people with really bad experiences can really be Black. Cripes. Give me strength.

And then this obnoxious thing about being 'half black' or 'not black' enough. What an insult to human beings and the variety of emotions and perspectives that make us up. Please don't start me off on this ghastly topic. My mother was regarded as 'white' though she had some mixed race from her grand parents and that simple fact robbed me of a grandfather. When she fell in love with my dad (who was Black) her father disowned her, cut her out of his life and they never spoke again. That is the effect of simple, sad minds on colour. They only see that colour, not the wonderful people beneath it. Yet the consequences can be truly tragic for those on the receiving end of that racism.

Perhaps it is truly time for Black people to stop allowing themselves to be merely defined by their colour; to stop being racist to themselves; stop rejecting themselves because of their shade and quantity of 'black' and to give that respect to themselves that they seek first, before they can ever hope to get real respect from others.

Many people (White ones mainly) are always keen to boast how 'colour-blind' they are. But if race and gender are the two key aspects which make up our identity, why are they not gender-blind too? Yet, in view of the rush of female support for Hillary Clinton in the New Hampshire primary, women who openly admitted rallying behind her because they perceived she had been treated in a 'sexist' manner by the media, they are certainly NOT gender-blind too. We tend to acknowledge women first, then worry about how they fit in with our perspectives later. We don't believe they are pseudo-men to make ourselves feel better. And very few men would boast of being a woman! They value their masculine persona and are proud of it.

Whereas with colour, it's a different story. Being colour-blind is actually treating people as 'honorary' versions of ourselves so that we don't have to address that difference at all, and reduce our own discomfort in the process. Whenever we lack the skills to deal with anything unfamiliar and perceived to be threatening, we either relegate it to the same level as us, treat it with contempt beneath us, act superior towards it or ignore it altogether by being superficially 'blind' to it!

The function of any of those approaches is simply to help us to cope with difference. When the recipents insist on being treated according to THEIR expectations, we are likely to object because, not being able to deal with such difference, we then belittle its relevance and/or negate its presence. WaltD(a fellow Newsviner) once said in a comment, in dealing with anyone, the ideal is that:

"We start with the most obvious traits - gender, race, age. We then go through culture, taste, personal history, etc. Eventually we see the person as Human and ultimately as another version of ourselves. To skip any of these stages is wrong....it's like skipping to the last page of a book.

That should be framed and put on every wall! It is apt because it is precisely what the familiarisation process with each other is all about - really getting to know people, allowing them to reveal themselves to us and not trying to be blind to what is important about them. Trouble comes when we do the short hand route, skipping out the bits which define that person, because we feel uncomfortable handling them, and then we are left wondering why we are no nearer to understanding that person or feeling at one with them. So it seems acceptable for women to rally behind Hillary Clinton and protect her because she is a woman and they are women, but with Barack Obama, similar support on racial lines is not deemed acceptable. One should see only his talents and not his colour. That's impossible in view of human nature.

In every new interaction, acknowledgement of the superficial and eternal elements should come first, then we move away from them to explore the similarities. By being 'colour-blind', we refuse to acknowledge something important about that individual, while it gradually becomes an invisible barrier, a taboo subject, thwarting greater understanding and empathy of their perception and practices, while they morph into acceptable versions of ourselves to prevent us feeling threatened.

Some people might argue that class outweighs race in defining people of colour in the USA. But that is not quite true. Class might have worked in every other sphere for blacks, but it certainly hasn't worked for them so far in the race to be president, otherwise there would have been a black incumbent of the White House by now. It seems that in recent years, the idea of a black person as president has become more 'acceptable', regardless of his/her class. That is what makes Barack Obama's achievement of being the most 'acceptable' so far in the 21st century, to the majority white voters and getting so much money as well, so remarkable.

However, without sounding patronising, the effects of colour, both negative and positive, and its perception by people of colour, will never be understood by a white person in any number of years. Unless one has experienced those effects and borne endemic discrimination simply through being a particular colour and nothing else, one really cannot understand how that is ever felt, perceived and interpreted. One would also find it difficult to empathise with the continual focus on it.

For blacks everywhere, Obama is a beacon of hope and pride. He is enormously talented but that is dwarfed by the fact that he is the first black candidate to be in sight of the White House and might actually get there. Those who wish to pretend his colour does not matter in this case are doing him a great disservice. The first of anything matters, big time. Fifty years from now when there have been half a dozen more black presidents, his colour will cease to be an issue. Precedents would have been set. But now it does matter to the many black voters who will see him as a much needed- and overdue - role model.

White critics might disagree with that, because they have always taken representation for granted. Power comes easily to the white majority and is expected like some given right. Fact: all 43 presidents have been white. It is easy to ignore that inherent racism when being white and male have ben regarded almost as automatic for America's top leader. That's why they can afford to be colour-blind. For them, presidents can come in any colour, so long as it's white!

Being a black Briton, I do not expect the feelings towards the Senator, that myself and other Black Britons have expressed and felt, to be appreciated by others who might use a different yardstick of interpretation to view the world. It really does not relate to abstract tables, statistics or even class. It is about emotions and perceptions. And those can never be rationalised, even with the best arguments in the world. :o)

I have heard people say that Barack Obama is the same as everyone else; that the media needs to stop dwelling on his skin and start focusing on his brain. That is true to a great extent, but not really possible when it comes to the first of anything. If there had been other black nominees before him who stood a chance of winning, then Barack's colour would not be an issue. But he will be creating history, should he win, as the first African American president. That fact should not be denied him in a superficial colour-blind approach, nor something that can be ignored or brushed aside for the purposes of fake equality.

People generally find it hard to deal with difference because any kind of difference often appears threatening until it is understood or there is some familiarity with it. So difference tends to be approached in 5 stages:

First: Fear of it and some tension (a desire to retreat from it or explore it)

Second: Interpreting it in known terms (i.e they are like us, so we are comfortable with that, hence colour-blindness)

Third: Acknowledging its value without sharing (no desire to ignore their identity, but a detached alignment)

Fourth: Understanding the difference and accepting it on its own terms

Fifth: Celebrating its presence and value (emulating that difference, respecting it fully, enjoying/adopting their cultural norms as on par with our own etc.)

One cannot move from the first stage to the fifth in rapid succession because without understanding there is no alignment or acceptance. Transition takes quite a while, depending on the degree of interaction between the parties, the level of education between them and the level of fear involved. Where there is little interaction, like never coming in contact with someone black/white, and little education the Fear stage will dominate for a very long time. The Third Stage usually happens when people live like distant neighbours but don't really mix together, a kind of 'live and let live' approach, which is common in the UK. Very few people manage to reach the Fifth stage: accepting difference to the extent of celebrating it. Such people tend to be highly confident in themselves, secure in who they are and don't mind crossing cultural boundaries to appreciate the real people behind them and even to emulate them.

Thus the essence of diversity and equality is not the desire for sameness. It is actually acknowledging that difference, then moving away from any difference, once we feel comfortable and secure with it, to share the similarities. But that difference has to be positively acknowledged and respected first, not wished away as though it isn't a key part of that person. Racists merely see the differences, not the similarities. Yet we do not forget gender and pretend a person isn't male or female. We fully acknowledge their sex and move beyond it.

The clear stages in coping with difference means that one has to get over that fear BEFORE they can see the person as 'normal'. So there will be much focus on Barack's race until he is in the job and doing it well or badly, then the focus will shift to other things. But we cannot hurry the interaction process because it is a perfectly natural human one of overcoming the difference first, to align it with our expectations, before we can see past it. Except where some people cannot cope with colour and then pretend it isn't there to make themselves feel comfortable!

For example, Formula 1 fans might not have cared about Lewis Hamilton's colour, but I bet he cared about it - a lot - because he was making history on all fronts and he would have been judged purely on it before he proved himself! He would also have taken great pride in being the first Black person to achieve that accolade.

However, I do agree that Barack also deserves to be heard for his talent and not just noted for his colour because he is pretty inspiring. The key here is not to just emphasise one aspect of a person to the detriment of the other, nor to ignore the bits we can't cope with to show how 'fair' we are. That's a spurious form of equality which robs the person of their own identity so that we can pretend they are really like us; that there is nothing different about them. We need to appreciate everyone fully without denying them parts of their identity.

Barack Obama recently commented that there were three people instead of two in the race between himself and Hillary Clinton for the Democrat nomination: her husband Bill being the third. He felt there was some unfairness in recent remarks made by Bill about him and the active part he is playing in the campaign. I agree on both fronts.

There is no harm in Bill advising his wife, from the sidelines or in the background. Wives and husbands have a great role to play as supporting members of the team, from a respectful distance, not as the main players themselves. In this case, there are two main things wrong with Bill Clinton's current role.

First, Hillary is either running for president or it is her husband who is running again. But they cannot have it both ways. She cannot use her husband so publicly, then claim to be the one fit for office when Bill is doing most of the work to get her back in. If she is capable of being President of the United States, then she should be showing the American people how SHE alone is capable, not her husband. By employing Bill Clinton in such a visible way, even to attacking other candidates, she is giving a very powerful message of her own ineptitude in defending herself, setting out her stall and fighting her own battles. What she is actually saying, by allowing Bill to speak for her so blatantly, is: "Please vote for me, but it will be my husband who will be de facto president as I cannot achieve it on my own."

It is difficult to believe in someone who needs another person's help so publicly to put out their message. That's an admission of one's incapacity to deliver the goods. Bill Clinton might be great at drawing a crowd, persuading them into action and have the charisma she lacks, but Bill Clinton has already served his presidency and should be firmly in the background, if he is not to give the lie to the notion that we are really getting Hillary this time round. It doesn't seem like it at all. We appear to be getting a shared nomination, regardless of Hillary's intention, because there are clearly two people running this race.

Second, it should not be allowed for non-candidates to be making public derogatory comments about the named candidates in the campaign. It is unethical and unfair. One should be engaged in a fair contest with other candidates, not the rest of their families as well. It gives Hillary Clinton a clear advantage to have her husband acting like a candidate too.

I think it is time Bill Clinton stop campaigning on behalf of his wife so publicly, or stop making public statements against her opponents, for the integrity of the election process and the fairness required in that process. Otherwise, Bill's presence might help Hillary to get into the White House, indeed, but what kind of president would she really be in view of that, and just who would be the next president, in reality?

There has been some fierce debate on Newsvine during this past week about the role of the two-headed Clintons in South Carolina, especially the ferocious dual attack on Barack Obama. Those attacks were unprecedented, coming as they do from a former president who, in my opinion, should have been gracefully retired, supporting his wife from a respectful distance, and not sinking to the low level of the scrum to denigrate another candidate in his own party.

The office of President of the United States of America (at least to outsiders like me) should carry special kudos and weight. It is the highest in the land, the acknowledged leader of the free world. Even if the incumbents weren't perfect in their actions while in office, once they leave it, they should behave in a dignified manner as befits former presidents. Otherwise, what is the point of aspiring to such a lofty position if one is going to behave in a common, vulgar manner, suitable to a street yob? Thankfully, their actions did little good except to paint them as street rabble and deliver a stunning victory to Barack Obama.

*Quote 1, was precise in the reason: “The Clintons will now have to deal with a perception of hollowness about her strategy, that she is leaving it to her husband to take care of things and allowing him to overshadow her political message,” said Blease Graham, a professor of political science at the University of South Carolina." Exactly.

Hillary gave mixed messages in South Carolina, especially ones that suggested she couldn't deal with Obama on her own, she needed her husband to help get her the presidency and it was a dual candidacy, not a single ticket anymore, as the public had thought. That could have new repercussions for her in the coming state contests on Feb.5. She has shown herself in a new light; emphasising the renewed presence of Bill Clinton, when many voters might have thought they were getting real change in Hillary. Not anymore.

In the end, the attacks backfired and Obama got an overwhelming victory, 28 points clear of Clinton. I noticed the negative colour angle already creeping up in the reporting to dilute the power of his win and detract from its effect: that Obama won only by a massive black vote and he would need more than that for Super Tuesday. But I didn't see the same racist comment when he won in Iowa by a massive white vote. That seemed okay then. Neither was there a similar comment when Hillary won in Nevada and New Hampshire. She had a massive white vote in her favour, but that didn't seem to matter either. Colour comes into it when it can be dismissed. The message appears to be: Black people voting en masse only carry Black appeal. White people voting en masse, for whatever candidate, is perfectly fine and shows cross-cultural appeal. Give me strength to deal with such naked racism!

I applaud Mr Obama for hitting the nail on the head in his victory speech: the divisiveness of the Clinton campaign which is what they would be giving the country much more of, if they were elected. As reported:

*Quote 2: In his victory speech Saturday night, Mr. Obama indeed sounded like a candidate with a cause, saying that the fight for South Carolina produced not only a personal victory but also progress over the divisive politics of the past. His target was clear enough without his naming names.

All through the campaign I kept wondering that if the Clintons were treating a fellow Democrat in that manner, how would they treat an enemy? It doesn't bear thinking about! Thankfully, the public has the last say with their votes and they spoke with a vengeance against that kind of divisive politics.

It was left to Caroline Kennedy, in a surprise endorsement of Obama today, under the amazing headline, 'A President Like My Father', to put the finishing touches on this man's incredible journey to the White House, in spite of all the odds he'll face. She has already crowned him as the successor to John Kennedy's legacy with her poignant, personal letter, and only history will prove whether she is right, but what an ace out of the pack.

As she noted unambiguously:
Quote 3: "Sometimes it takes a while to recognize that someone has a special ability to get us to believe in ourselves, to tie that belief to our highest ideals and imagine that together we can do great things. In those rare moments, when such a person comes along, we need to put aside our plans and reach for what we know is possible.

We have that kind of opportunity with Senator Obama. It isn’t that the other candidates are not experienced or knowledgeable. But this year, that may not be enough. We need a change in the leadership of this country — just as we did in 1960."

Amen to that, and thank you, Caroline. :o)

I came across this quote about HOPE from Barack and felt goosepimples as I read it:

"Hope is not blind optimism. Its not ignoring the enormity of the task ahead or the roadblocks that stand in our path. Its not sitting on the sidelines or shirking from a fight. Hope is that thing inside us that insists, despite all the evidence to the contrary, that something better awaits us if we have the courage to reach for it, and to work for it, and to fight for it....Hope is the bedrock of this nation--the belief that our destiny will not be written for us, but by us. By all those men and women who are not content to settle for the world as it is--who have the courage to remake the world as it should be. Together, ordinary people can do extraordinary things." Barack Obama

It is so uplifting and motivating, not least for the last sentence,
Together, ordinary people can do extraordinary things. Amen to that!

When we are stuck in a rut, in a certain outdated mindset, used to negative actions instead of encouraging ones, it is easy to dismiss Barack's comment as mere empty words and political fodder. It is difficult to change from being positive to negative overnight without the necessery 'proof we require to believe it. Difficult to see another way of achieving things, when everything has been so disappointing. Difficult to see how his words can change into reality when one has seen it all promised before and fallen by the wayside. But the key here is that Barack isn't trying to promise us anything. He is not promising to do anything himself either, which makes those who love to blame and expect actions from others perhaps feel uncomfortable.

Barack is, in fact, putting the ball into our court. Showing us that though we are ordinary beings, together we can be almost invincible. We can do things we never even dream of if we have the hope, the faith and the will to change our world, change our actions and thus change ourresults. We can, in fact, be quite extraordinary, if we choose, or quite ordinary and powerless if we hang back.

What is giving life to Barack's words just now, making them stand out, are three crucial things: the need for something different, the negativity that surrounds us and the timing. That timing is so important. At any other time, Barack's words might have fallen on deaf ears; they would not have made an impact or taken root. But the fact that they are like sparks falling on dry timber says where we all are at this moment and the need to feel empowered to change our situation. Not by Barack alone promising what he cannot deliver, but by us all joining him to give life to those words in our way, not his, and to realise what could be possible!

He cannot do it alone. Notice how many times he says 'you' in his speeches. He knows that without us, he can do very little. He needs our trust, faith and help and that makes him stand out from all the other politicians doing things in the same old way through those continuing empty promises.