03-02-2008, 08:27 AM
The secret to Obama's success
A yearning for a new day in US politics is behind Obama's success, but other factors will determine if he wins the Democratic nomination, says Mike Rosenberg for ISN Security Watch.
Barack Obama by Joe Crimmings. (Joe CrimmingsFlickr)
Image: Joe Crimmings, Flickr
Commentary by Mike Rosenberg for ISN Security Watch (27/02/08)
Europeans are scratching their heads over how US Senator Barack Obama - until recently a politician relatively unknown outside the US - has become not only the front-runner in the Democratic presidential primaries, but also a serious contender to become what is arguably the most powerful political leader in the world.
To understand this peculiar American phenomena - in which the media appear only too ready to compare the Illinois senator to that of US president John F Kennedy without further explanation - one needs to understand not only how most Americans perceive recent presidents, but also how Obama's campaign is the by-product of a deep cynicism that has become ingrained in the past 50 years.
Kennedy is something of a mythical figure that held the Russians at bay and took on the Mafia. Beating out then-vice president Richard Nixon in the 1960 presidential election, he offered a vision of the US that was progressive, while promising to make the world a better place. While Kennedy's administration made a number of mistakes - and his personal life was questionable - he is nevertheless remembered as the US' last great president.
Following Kennedy's assassination in 1963, then-vice president Lyndon B Johnson, a Democrat from Texas, took office. Johnson's presidency was heavily marked by the Vietnam War, for which he is largely blamed.
After Johnson, America fell in love with the late president's brother, US senator Robert Kennedy. After the latter's assassination just before the 1968 Democratic Convention, the party turned to a rather gray but qualified man, Hubert Humphrey, who went on to lose the presidential race to Nixon.
Nixon is remembered of course for bombing Cambodia, losing the war in Vietnam, and authorizing the 1972 Watergate break-in, as well as a number of other "dirty tricks" against domestic opponents.
The disgraced commander-in-chief was followed by a line of US presidents who left dubious legacies: Gerald Ford, remembered for pardoning his old boss, Nixon; Jimmy Carter, who although some believe did a lot of things right, will go down in history for his handling of the Iranian hostage crisis; Ronald Reagan, viewed by many as the country's greatest president and harbinger of tremendous optimism, while others remember him for huge deficits, simplistic views of issues and siestas; and George Bush, who most would say did a credible job, but had the bad luck to run for re-election during an economic slowdown and losing to Bill Clinton.
But while the country did well by most measures during the Clinton years, and he demonstrated a certain mastery of detail and an interest in very complex policy discussions combined with optimism, the lasting legacy of Clinton's presidency is his relationship with a White House intern.
After Clinton, the divided nature of the US electorate was brought to a head and George W Bush won a very narrow and, to some, controversial victory over Al Gore. Since then Americans have seen 9/11, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and lately a crumbling economy.
Yes we can
Into this picture come two very different politicians competing for the Democratic nomination. Obama and his opponent, US Senator Hillary Clinton, actually have the same or similar views on most policy questions. If not for their both having chosen this moment to make their presidential bid, they would probably be allies. Besides the obvious aspects of the first woman and first black American to get this far in their quests for the Oval Office, each offers a compelling vision of how to meet the challenges facing the country.
Clinton projects competence and carefully researched policy positions on a myriad of questions and to some degree tells voters that she can repeat the success of her husband's tenure. Obama, on the other hand, offers hope. He, like Kennedy, Reagan and Bill Clinton, makes people believe that the US can do better on all fronts and terms the presidential race a choice between the "past and the future."
The real success of the Obama campaign has been its ability to penetrate the US' accumulated cynicism and give the country a glimmer of hope that it can actually move beyond its current divisions and come together. He echoes one of Kennedy's most famous ideas, saying that "we are the change we've been waiting for" and telling Americans that they have a role in "healing the nation and repairing the planet."
The role of new media
There is a further lesson in Kennedy's win over Nixon in 1960. The most common explanation of why a relatively young and inexperienced senator from Massachusetts could beat a popular vice president was that Kennedy was the first politician at the national level who understood how to portray himself on television.
What is clear about the Obama campaign is that it is using the internet in a way that has never been used before to raise money and awareness, as well as to organize voters at the local level to register and vote in the caucuses and primaries.
The success of his campaign is due, to a large extent, to a "viral" movement begun many months ago that used the internet as a key ingredient for spreading its message of hope and change and "infecting" potential supporters.
Both the message and the medium appeal particularly to people under 35, who are supporting Obama in record numbers. Currently, around 100,000 people send the campaign donations every month. For many, this is the first time they have contributed money to a political campaign.
My European friends have a hard time seeing the simplicity of the message for what it really is and accepting that millions of Americans are ready to suspend their disbelief and support what the Obama campaign calls a "movement for change."
The role of the super-delegate
Will Obama's campaign go all the way? Will the momentum continue to build until the national convention in August? The race is far from over and the Clinton campaign is betting heavily on winning in Ohio and Texas on 4 March.
But the story â as perhaps it can only be in the US â doesn't end there. Perhaps the most interesting question is assuming that Obama goes into the convention with a lead in delegates, will the roughly 800 "super-delegates" split evenly across the two candidates or would they, as a group, come out for Clinton?
This is not a question in vain.
Unlike the Republicans, Democrats, prompted by the battle between Walter Mondale and Gary Hart in 1984, instituted a system whereby super-delegates can have the final say of who will be the party's presidential candidate.
Super-delegates are political insiders, senators, representatives and governors who are not bound by any previous primary vote to cast their selection for the presidential candidate. In essence, they are free to cast their vote as they wish, however, in practice their vote may be susceptible to political pressures. In the end it is these super-delegates that may very well hold the keys to the White House.
Obama has said that he feels it would be "unwise" for the party officials to go against the will of the people â in reference to delegates awarded in the various primaries. However, to see if the Democrats are willing to listen to the voice of the people we may have to wait until the convention in Denver.
Mike Rosenberg is a professor of strategic management at IESE Business School, Barcelona, Spain.
The views and opinions expressed herein are those of the author only, not the International Relations and Security Network (ISN).
A yearning for a new day in US politics is behind Obama's success, but other factors will determine if he wins the Democratic nomination, says Mike Rosenberg for ISN Security Watch.
Barack Obama by Joe Crimmings. (Joe CrimmingsFlickr)
Image: Joe Crimmings, Flickr
Commentary by Mike Rosenberg for ISN Security Watch (27/02/08)
Europeans are scratching their heads over how US Senator Barack Obama - until recently a politician relatively unknown outside the US - has become not only the front-runner in the Democratic presidential primaries, but also a serious contender to become what is arguably the most powerful political leader in the world.
To understand this peculiar American phenomena - in which the media appear only too ready to compare the Illinois senator to that of US president John F Kennedy without further explanation - one needs to understand not only how most Americans perceive recent presidents, but also how Obama's campaign is the by-product of a deep cynicism that has become ingrained in the past 50 years.
Kennedy is something of a mythical figure that held the Russians at bay and took on the Mafia. Beating out then-vice president Richard Nixon in the 1960 presidential election, he offered a vision of the US that was progressive, while promising to make the world a better place. While Kennedy's administration made a number of mistakes - and his personal life was questionable - he is nevertheless remembered as the US' last great president.
Following Kennedy's assassination in 1963, then-vice president Lyndon B Johnson, a Democrat from Texas, took office. Johnson's presidency was heavily marked by the Vietnam War, for which he is largely blamed.
After Johnson, America fell in love with the late president's brother, US senator Robert Kennedy. After the latter's assassination just before the 1968 Democratic Convention, the party turned to a rather gray but qualified man, Hubert Humphrey, who went on to lose the presidential race to Nixon.
Nixon is remembered of course for bombing Cambodia, losing the war in Vietnam, and authorizing the 1972 Watergate break-in, as well as a number of other "dirty tricks" against domestic opponents.
The disgraced commander-in-chief was followed by a line of US presidents who left dubious legacies: Gerald Ford, remembered for pardoning his old boss, Nixon; Jimmy Carter, who although some believe did a lot of things right, will go down in history for his handling of the Iranian hostage crisis; Ronald Reagan, viewed by many as the country's greatest president and harbinger of tremendous optimism, while others remember him for huge deficits, simplistic views of issues and siestas; and George Bush, who most would say did a credible job, but had the bad luck to run for re-election during an economic slowdown and losing to Bill Clinton.
But while the country did well by most measures during the Clinton years, and he demonstrated a certain mastery of detail and an interest in very complex policy discussions combined with optimism, the lasting legacy of Clinton's presidency is his relationship with a White House intern.
After Clinton, the divided nature of the US electorate was brought to a head and George W Bush won a very narrow and, to some, controversial victory over Al Gore. Since then Americans have seen 9/11, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and lately a crumbling economy.
Yes we can
Into this picture come two very different politicians competing for the Democratic nomination. Obama and his opponent, US Senator Hillary Clinton, actually have the same or similar views on most policy questions. If not for their both having chosen this moment to make their presidential bid, they would probably be allies. Besides the obvious aspects of the first woman and first black American to get this far in their quests for the Oval Office, each offers a compelling vision of how to meet the challenges facing the country.
Clinton projects competence and carefully researched policy positions on a myriad of questions and to some degree tells voters that she can repeat the success of her husband's tenure. Obama, on the other hand, offers hope. He, like Kennedy, Reagan and Bill Clinton, makes people believe that the US can do better on all fronts and terms the presidential race a choice between the "past and the future."
The real success of the Obama campaign has been its ability to penetrate the US' accumulated cynicism and give the country a glimmer of hope that it can actually move beyond its current divisions and come together. He echoes one of Kennedy's most famous ideas, saying that "we are the change we've been waiting for" and telling Americans that they have a role in "healing the nation and repairing the planet."
The role of new media
There is a further lesson in Kennedy's win over Nixon in 1960. The most common explanation of why a relatively young and inexperienced senator from Massachusetts could beat a popular vice president was that Kennedy was the first politician at the national level who understood how to portray himself on television.
What is clear about the Obama campaign is that it is using the internet in a way that has never been used before to raise money and awareness, as well as to organize voters at the local level to register and vote in the caucuses and primaries.
The success of his campaign is due, to a large extent, to a "viral" movement begun many months ago that used the internet as a key ingredient for spreading its message of hope and change and "infecting" potential supporters.
Both the message and the medium appeal particularly to people under 35, who are supporting Obama in record numbers. Currently, around 100,000 people send the campaign donations every month. For many, this is the first time they have contributed money to a political campaign.
My European friends have a hard time seeing the simplicity of the message for what it really is and accepting that millions of Americans are ready to suspend their disbelief and support what the Obama campaign calls a "movement for change."
The role of the super-delegate
Will Obama's campaign go all the way? Will the momentum continue to build until the national convention in August? The race is far from over and the Clinton campaign is betting heavily on winning in Ohio and Texas on 4 March.
But the story â as perhaps it can only be in the US â doesn't end there. Perhaps the most interesting question is assuming that Obama goes into the convention with a lead in delegates, will the roughly 800 "super-delegates" split evenly across the two candidates or would they, as a group, come out for Clinton?
This is not a question in vain.
Unlike the Republicans, Democrats, prompted by the battle between Walter Mondale and Gary Hart in 1984, instituted a system whereby super-delegates can have the final say of who will be the party's presidential candidate.
Super-delegates are political insiders, senators, representatives and governors who are not bound by any previous primary vote to cast their selection for the presidential candidate. In essence, they are free to cast their vote as they wish, however, in practice their vote may be susceptible to political pressures. In the end it is these super-delegates that may very well hold the keys to the White House.
Obama has said that he feels it would be "unwise" for the party officials to go against the will of the people â in reference to delegates awarded in the various primaries. However, to see if the Democrats are willing to listen to the voice of the people we may have to wait until the convention in Denver.
Mike Rosenberg is a professor of strategic management at IESE Business School, Barcelona, Spain.
The views and opinions expressed herein are those of the author only, not the International Relations and Security Network (ISN).