Column: Obama's next test is to be unremarkably competent

Last week Hillary Clinton said that next time, thanks to her campaign, the idea of a woman running for president will seem unremarkable, and of course she was right. Thanks to Obama's campaign, the idea that America's next president will be a black man already seems a lot less remarkable than it did even very recently. My new column for the FT starts with this observation:

When Barack Obama, having secured the presidential nomination, ended his victory speech last week, CNN sought its first reaction from Jesse Jackson – not long ago, the standard-bearer for blacks in US politics. What did it mean for the US, Mr Jackson was asked, that the Democratic party would for the first time nominate a black man for president?

It was a jarring transition, so much so that Mr Jackson’s reply is hard to recall. One’s first thought was, what does this have to do with him? It took a moment to remember.

Race has intruded on Mr Obama’s campaign, to be sure. The raving reverend, Jeremiah Wright, threatened to sink it completely. Polls suggest that racism was a factor in Mr Obama’s defeats in West Virginia and elsewhere. In the end Mr Obama secured the nomination thanks to the overwhelming support of black Democrats. Quite possibly, race could cost him the general election in November. So yes, this election is partly about race.

Yet Mr Obama stayed true to his early promise and ran whenever he was allowed to as an exceptional candidate who just happens to be black. Contrast that with Senator Hillary Clinton, who ran (especially in her campaign’s later stages) not as a strong candidate who happens to be a woman, but as one who was entitled to win because she was a woman, and whose defeat would be an affront to women across the country. (For if Mrs Clinton were not nominated, she seemed to say, what woman ever could be?)

Mr Obama’s victory speech did not even mention that he is the first black American to win the nomination of one of the main parties. As he has all along, he spoke to and for the whole of his party, and to the whole of the US. In no meaningful sense, therefore, is he Mr Jackson’s heir. His break with that style of victim politics is total and that is what makes his nomination so important. He does not belong to the “black interest”, if there is such a thing. It was young people of all kinds and wealthy urban whites who first found him most appealing. Yet as his electability became apparent he has united black voters in their enthusiasm. If ever there were a new kind of politics, this is it.

You can read the rest of the article here.

Comments

Well spoken.

Better times may be coming for America, and if we allow McCain to win and the margin is one covered by race, then as a country we have chosen prejudice over prosperity. I pray that will not be the case.

Posted by Bean | June 9, 2008 9:50 PM

Is this now the promised land? The place which was mentioned by dr king in his last speech and which HE the almighty had let him see from the mountains top? I think not quite. Even when Barack has a black wife and black children he himself has no forefathers which were slaves in this country which allows white people to evade their feelings of guilt. But the promised will be reached, when this feelings will be not evaded but overcame by the white people.

Posted by maz hess | June 10, 2008 7:56 AM

President Obama

Forty years ago in 1967 Carl B. Stokes was elected the first black Mayor of a major American city. I was the operations manager of that campaign along with my partner Geraldine Willliams. In 1965, Stokes had run and almost won in a city that was 70% white and 30% black. In 1965 he had come so close to winning that there was a recount. His victory in 67 was hailed as one the greatest moments in the civil rights struggle and also a triumph of the brotherhood of man. Partially, yes----partially, no. In the 1965 campaign there were practically no white votes for Stokes. In 67 there was only 15%. Not exactly a triumph for the brotherhood of man.! In fact, in 1965 I was his “white” aide and traveling companion to show not only the white community, but also just as importantly the black community that he had white support. Many in the black community said “it’s not time”---he’s not ready---will he win and bring disgrace to the community---will he be killed by the racists” Do these same sentiments sound familiar in 2007?
Also, in 1965 he was up against a potent political machine, one that regularly ”bought off” members of the black community. There were city councilman and black pastors all of whom had ties to the white establishment. Sound familiar in 2007?
In both 1965 and 1967 it was the black community that turned out in large numbers and then voted 97% for Stokes. He still lost in 1965 because the councilman and pastors disaffected some of the black vote but it was so close that in 1967 and with the blessing of the establishment he won----but by a very small margin. Again, it was the black turnout and overwhelming percentage of vote in his favor that carried the day.
How does Barack Obama’s campaign of 2007 differ from those two campaigns of long ago? He is running against the establishment (the Clinton machine) and there are black ”leaders” that are staying with the establishment. Polls are showing that many in the black community are saying the same things that they said in 1965-----it’s not time---he’s not ready---he will be killed if he is elected. Are these sentiments carried down through time going to defeat him in 2007?
Here is the reason that the campaigns are not alike. The white support for Obama is huge compared to the white support for Stokes forty years ago. Who would have dreamed then that a black man running for the President of the United States could garner such white support, attract such crowds, and be so close to winning. When I see campaign crowds, I see a sea of white faces cheering him and I see a much different time than that of 1965 & 1967.
Following is an example from the 1965 campaign. It shows how extraordinary the idea of a black mayor (there are now hundreds) was to the black community at that time.
The last weekend before the election we had a parade through the streets of the East Side of Cleveland. It wasn’t much of a parade, as parades go, a handful of cars with balloons and banners on the them, horns honking, people waving, and Carl and is wife sitting on the back of the last car. I was in the front seat. As the caravan pulled past the corner, there was a small boy about ten or eleven standing in the middle of a group of children. The cars had been going past honking with signs “Stokes for Mayor” on the sides. As the car with Stokes sitting on the back came to the corner the boy stood straight up, his eyes widened at the sight of Carl and he cried out, “HE’S COLORED.” He started to clap his hands and jump up and down. “HE’S COLORED, HE’S COLORED,” he cried out to no one in particular. “HE’S COLORED, HE’S COLORED” and he started to skip down the street after the car. I looked back as the cars picked up speed and left the little boy in the distance. He was still running and clapping his hands. I turned around to Carl and caught a very different expression on his face, part smile and part a distant look in his eyes. “I think it’s all been worthwhile,” I said. A quick but soft-spoken reply, “Yes, I think you’re right.” That’s how it was back then. A little boy thought, “this couldn’t be-----his parents and grandparents thought---could this possibly be? And a city and a nation wondered if history was in the making.
I sometimes wonder where that little boy is now, forty years later. What about his children and grandchildren? Does he remember how he felt that day? Does he remember the wonderment of seeing a black man siting on the top of a convertible, his skipping down the street in that wonderment of a black man striving for the impossible? How do his children and grandchildren feel today? Will they participate in today’s “impossible dream”?
Now, forty years later I see the crowds, more white than black, cheering a man of color. Now, forty years later, I see polls showing that this man of color could likely be the next President of the United States. I see now, forty years later, that dreams do come true-------and a little boy of so long ago could still clap, skip down the street and cry out----“He’s colored—He’s colored---- he’s colored”.
Will the black community support Obama as we Irish Catholics did for John Kennedy in 1960, as the Mormons will do for Mitt Romney this year, as every ethnic group has done for their history making candidates since the country began. It is the black vote that can insure victory for Barack Obama. This is the year. This is the time. This is history in the making.

The face of The United States of America is about to change.

Posted by b kenneth mgee | June 10, 2008 9:20 AM

http://cgi.ebay.com/MCCAIN-DECAL-STICKER-MCSAME-OBAMA_W0QQitemZ270245147917QQihZ017QQcategoryZ82502QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

Posted by McSAME | June 10, 2008 1:11 PM

It is ridiculous to say Obama moved past "victim politics" or that he made race a "non-issue" and then continue to harp on the white race's need to feel guilty about slavery. Obama's loud and obnoxious WHITE supporters kept playing the white liberal guilt card over and over again and can't seem to stop now. I'll say this to the white guilt croud: white people who have never owned slaves have NOTHING to feel guilty about with regards to slavery. That's the past. Obama is the present. He's just another politician and its time for white bloggers to do a little transcending of race of their own.

Posted by Nathan | June 11, 2008 4:29 PM