tapmag

Call him the Black Kennedy, the Tiger Woods of politics, or the Second Coming. The epithets used to describe presidential hopeful Barack Obama (D-Ill) are a testimony to an election that is so much more than politics.

There is something close to biblical about rain, when the skies give way to an almost cathartic downpour, draining off the drudge, sins and conversation-residuals clogging the streets. In any Hollywood movie (especially considering the writers’ strike) it could have been a Second Coming scenario, yet it was an unassuming Monday with weather more befitting of an unassuming British city pronounced Gloomster (but probably spelled Gleucmcester) in the midst of Berlin. The prophesized savior of American politics, Barack Obama, drew close to a 100 people, who sought shelter in the Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung on this rainy, borderline-suicidal Monday evening, to learn about the self-professed harbinger of a new era – in a country so far from theirs.

Needless to add, Obama himself was not there. Instead we were served a German debate between Christoph von Marschall and Anjana Shrivastava. Marschall is a Tagesspiegel editor and US correspondent since 2005, whose book “Obama – the Black Kennedy” appeared short before Christmas. Anjana Shrivastava, American, a Harvard-graduate and former Wall Street Journal Europe essayist turned Berlin-based writer, currently writing a weekly colum, “Winning the White House,” for Welt Online. Barack hardly needs any introduction: upbringing in Hawaii and Indonesia, white Kansas mother and Muslim, black Kenyan father, his work as a community organizer on the Southside of Chicago, his self-confessed “blow”-record, his being the first black president of the Harvard Law Review, his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, and his catapulting onto the world stage as the most colorful candidate (no pun intended) of the 2008 US presidential election. Still, the quest for “the true identity of Obama” seems never-ending. Is he black or white? Does he have any connection to Osama? Too green, or just what the doctor prescribed? Political pragmatic or polemic stunt? “Hopemonger” or a new Messiah?

Christoph von Marschall, the designated “BaraXpert,” having personally followed Obama on his campaign trail, offered an introduction and projection of his very own “Black Kennedy.” First the standards: Upbringing in Hawaii and Indonesia, white mother, black father – you know where I’m going. Then came the interesting and (sometimes unintended, I reckon) controversial part…

Black Hole or Full Circle?

Be it his autobiographic narrations of his substance abuse to help him through college, or his wife, Michelle’s, (half-joking) accounts of Barack’s smoking habits, the Obamas have done little to seal off the fact that he is human. A gift and a curse, Marschall proposed. “His life story is his political programmatic. Obama has become a parable of the American Dream. His rallies are reminiscent of religious events, and at times a simple sign reading ‘Hope’ or ‘Change We Can Believe In’ – not even mentioning his name – is enough to cause hysteria,” the Tagesspiegel correspondent observed. Ever since his now famous 2004 keynote address at the Democratic National Convention in Boston, MA, Obama has become something like a “’projection screen’ for hopes and dreams not even an Übermensch could fulfill,” Marschall continued.

The symbolic of Obama and his 2004 keynote address was not lost on the analyst, either. The Illinois Congress member won wide popularity with his glorious eloquence, as did another Illinois Congress member, Abraham Lincoln, who won his presidential endorsement at the 1860 Illinois Republican State Convention, and went on to become one of the single most popular presidents in the history of the United States. Should Obama go on to become the 44th US president, this would, according to Mr. Marschall, mean history coming full circle: beginning with Lincoln, hailed as the abolisher of slavery, and ending with Obama, the first African American president in US history. To draw attention to Lincoln’s debatable opportunist use of abolitionist rhetoric to favor the Union would have been futile. To remark that Lincoln self-admittedly would have sustained the peculiar institution to save the Union, and if so would have transformed the “full circle” into a ring of fire, would have spoiled the mood. And, arguably, Lincoln’s early stance on slavery should stand in the shadow of his contribution to its eventual abolishment. Yet, good as Mr. Marschall’s intentions were, and they really were, they somehow seemed symptomatic of a campaign in which gender and race seem to have taken up as much energy and media coverage, if not more, as Iraq, the economy and health care combined. When Marschall mentions something as bluntly stereotypical as Barack and Michelle’s “two cute black girls” as trump cards in the candidate’s campaign-image – as opposed to Hillary’s “old” looks, Bill, or, if Bill’s busy, Chelsea – people can question Obama’s shade of “blackness” till kingdom come. The reasoning seems to question whether Obama would even be where he is now, had he been a mid-40s white Illinois representative named Gill.

“Der Präsident ist sehr viel learning on the job”

Around this point Anjana Shrivastava joined the debate, and suddenly it became oddly emblematic of the real (U.S.) debate. Before us a middle-class woman, weighing Obama’s lack of experience against Hillary’s, and a white middle-class man, who was coming around to this Obama-spectacle.

What ensued was a long round of pro-Obama/pro-Hillary jabs – because, frankly, no other candidate than “HillaBama” was mentioned, as seems to be the trend as of “late” – and a more-than-occasional collision of misunderstandings.

Principle of Reality Control

Cristoph von Marschall offered that 40% of American voters say they would never vote for Hillary, because of her “polarizing nature,” and therein lies Obama’s strength – in his ability to unite people and work across party lines. Indeed, Obama has proven himself a “complex uniter” – as someone who is not afraid to go bipartisan to seal legislation – a feature not lost on voters disillusioned with the current state of Washington. His tireless rants against the lobbies on K Street have had people rally around his flag, who see the pie getting bigger, but their piece smaller. To gain so much popularity off of going against forces that can usually make or break a candidate (and without being mistaken for Ralf Nader, at that) is nothing short of audacious. More importantly, his ability to mobilize youth is spectacular, considering past records among young (potential) voters. According to CIRCLE estimates, in Iowa alone, the turnout rate amongst youth aged 17-29 increased from 4% in 2004 to 11% in 2008, while the number of youth who caucused almost quadrupled from 14,940 (or 3%) in 2000 to 56,875 this year. Also, bouncing back from initial doubts in both black and white camps as to the “racial identity” and “electability” of Obama, his win in Iowa suggests him gaining a feasible majority of the “black votes.” It is said that the one who wins the “black vote” wins the election. CNN exit polls predicted that Obama would have won 73% of the “black votes” in Michigan had he run – an estimated 22% would have voted for Clinton. This situation has only become more desperate for Hillary, in the wake of her and her husband’s recent rhetorical missteps. That being noted, however, there is nothing new about working across party lines, as such.

The notion of party loyalty in the US, as we know it from Europe, is a common misconception. Surely, since the Democrats won both the Senate and the House in November 2006, the drawing of party lines has become sharper. But in a two-party system, where not even the party of the President can turn a blind eye on the “goings-down” of things, there is a good chance you will find a New York Republican having more in common with a Texas Democrat politically, than with a Utah Republican. The skill to create coalitions and work across party lines is, in many ways, a prerequisite if you want to prove to the voters, who got you into Congress in the first place, that you can bring home the bacon. This explains the 2006-voters’ frustration and disillusion with the Democrats, spearheaded by Miss Pelosi, who have acted as the blueprint of how sticking within party lines can get you close to nowhere. Indeed, the future president will have to balance a double-edged sword: on the one side, the need to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that he or she can single-handedly make tough decisions; on the other, the need to unite, to cooperate and communicate, to move the country in the right direction – even if it takes donkeys and elephants to get there. The latter is where the Bush Administration has failed miserably, and cut itself fatally.

Obama is a political prototype of a “uniter,” which unquestionably worked in his favor in the early stages of the campaign, where he created a warm contrast to the, sometimes, cool machinery of Senator Clinton’s. But both camps have had to realize the complexity a potential president’s character must contain in 2008, neutralizing their weaknesses by borrowing the other’s strengths. What has followed has been a brouhaha of WWF-style “Mr.&Mrs.”-tag-team attacks and misty-eyed masterpieces. Whoever can keep up the act the longest is likely to win the Democratic nomination.

Principle of Experience

Back to Berlin where Shrivastava played the “inexperience” card: Against Clinton, Obama was too young and green (and we’re not talking hybrids here) to get the nation back on the right path. “If Daimler Chrysler were to propose a 21-year-old to get them out of a crisis, people might be skeptic, too. I am not willing to experiment!“ she reasoned. People got it. “Der Präsident ist sehr viel learning on the job,” Marschall responded. People got that, too. In the meantime, Shrivastava reloaded, took aim, and fired…hitting nothing but air. “International experience.” “Foreign policy experience.” “Obama’s been to London once, on a lay-over.” In her defense, this was in part brought on by the audience, who had inquired about a future president’s (read: HillaBama) interest in Europe.

Nonetheless, claiming “international experience” as a disqualifier for the presidency is a clear stab in the dark for two reasons:

1. For one, a considerable portion of the United States’ citizens has never traveled outside US borders, let alone to Europe. In 2005, the Economist reported that only 34% of Americans over the age of 18 have passports. Admittedly, that does not add up to not caring about international affairs; by all means, Americans have experienced first-hand the effects a bad image can have on a nation. Yet, the Bush Administration’s fatal ventures into distant plains (Iraq) coupled with domestic catastrophes (Katrina), a near-recession national economy and growing social differences, has created an urgency among the public for the next president to direct his or her focus inwards, and “stop playing cowboys” for the taxpayers’ money.

2. Most senators, who make up a significant part of presidential candidates, have little to no international experience. Their main concern is to represent the voters of their State and maybe an occasional business trip – something that requires a thorough national and regional knowledge, but does not necessitate a half-full “Where I’ve Been”-map. That happens when an Administration is appointed. Undoubtedly, Hillary has the advantage of having spent 8 years in the White House, “but during those two terms in the White House, Mrs. Clinton did not hold a security clearance. She did not attend National Security Council meetings. She was not given a copy of the president’s daily intelligence briefing. She did not assert herself on the crises in Somalia, Haiti and Rwanda,” NY Times revealed on Dec. 26, 2007. The “third” contestant for the Democratic nomination, John Edwards, spent 2001-2004 organizing “tutorials, roundtable discussions with foreign policy analysts at his Georgetown home, trips to hot spots abroad and meetings with foreign leaders to prepare for his presidential campaign,” according to a 2004 Washington Post article.

If we move to the Republicans, usually “international credentials” have consisted in serving in the military, possibly in Vietnam. But even here, Senator McCain is the only candidate left, who can claim that title. Giuliani was reclassified from a 1-A (available for military service) to a 2-A (civilian occupation deferment) in 1969 – having been rejected once in 1968, Giuliani was not granted deferment until his employer, Judge MacMahon of NY, “took care of things”; Huckabee was too young to be drafted for Vietnam; and the only “service” Romney has done is mission service. Matter of fact, only 5 of 15 presidential candidates served in the military: Ron Paul (R), John McCain (R), Duncan Hunter (R), Mike Gravel (D), and Chris Dodd (D). But, let’s be frank, we are not looking at no “Minister to France”-Thomas Jeffersons here.

Even so, Marschall pointed to two experiences that only Obama can boast: intercultural (USA and Indonesia) and interconfessional (Christian mother and Muslim father). And though the “Muslim-side” of Obama has received mixed reviews in the public debate, these qualities just might prove more decisive for the future of the United States than his cross-party line qualities, should he become elected. But there is a long and bumpy road ahead, with roadside bombs sure to be planted by both Republicans and Democrats. Whether Obama is truly experienced enough will depend on his ability to keep cool and steer clear. Then he might just navigate his way to the White House.

Who was Obama?

Outside the rain had subsided, the streets bathed in the golden light from the lampposts. Two hours past, and the notion of who Barack Obama really is seemed no clearer than the Berlin sky. Colorful politician or unelectable man of color? Political prophet or America’s next president? As Marschall said, “Obama’s political program is his life story – a parable of the American Dream.” But there is a long way from Lincoln’s one-room log cabin childhood in Hardin County, Kentucky, to Obama’s childhood in Honolulu, Hawaii. Dare the Americans keep the Dream alive – full circle?

By Peter Dahl