As the race for the Democratic Party nomination heats up; it is becoming clearer where the democrats will pinch their tent. To be clear, I am an Obama supporter. As a black man and a fellow African, naturally, I want Senator Barack Hussein Obama (D-Ill) to win. He is the son of Barack Obama Sr., a Kenyan immigrant, who came to the United States to study and Ann Dunham, a white lady from Hawaii. Obama, whose first name, Barack, comes from the Swahili word for "one who is blessed" -- has not let the color of skin hinder his career.

In fact, every African-American, every African in America and every black man wants Obama to win the nomination and go ahead to win the presidency. Obama deserves lots of credit for the level he has attained in a short period of time. Born on 4th of August, 1961 in Honolulu, Hawaii, he got a BA in Columbia University and law degree at the famous Harvard Law School. He was the first black president of the Harvard Law Review. He entered politics in Illinois, where he practiced civil rights law and taught at the University of Chicago Law School. His first foray into politics came in 1997, when he took his seat in the state Senate, where he served until 2005.

Three years ago when he was scheduled to deliver a keynote address at the Democratic Convention, when many people heard his name, they were startled "Barack who"? However, after he delivered his speech at the convention on July 27, 2004, democrats, republicans and independents alike came to the same conclusion, and that is that this gentleman has a bright political future. Ever since that time, it has been one milestone to another. First of all he cruised to victory over the republican nominee, Ambassador Alan Keyes, a former presidential aspirant and grabbed the senate seat to represent Illinois.

In the US senate, Senator Obama, is a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, which plays a vital role in shaping American policy around world and also serves on the Veterans' Affairs Committee which is focused on providing veterans with the care and services they deserve. In 2005 and 2006, he served on the Environment and Public Works Committee, which safeguards the environment and provides funding for our highways.

However, when he started mulling the intention of running for president of the United States, many people especially black folks did not give him a chance. Many black activists questioned his 'blackness' or whether he is 'black enough' meaning that he never lived a ghetto and never felt what it was to be on the receiving end of American racism.

On April 28, 2007, at Springfield, Illinois, he stated: "And that is why, in the shadow of the Old State Capitol, where Lincoln once called on a divided house to stand together, where common hopes and common dreams still live, I stand before you today to announce my candidacy for president of the United States of America."

After he made that historic announcement, Rev. Al Sharpton, a former democratic presidential candidate said in reaction to Obama's declaration: "Right now, we are hearing a lot of media razzle-dazzle. I think when the meat hits the fire, we'll find out if it's just fat or if there's real meat there".

However, he remained undaunted to his dreams of being the first black president. In the race for campaign cash, he has already raised a staggering $75 million for the nomination contest. He currently leads in the money race. His favorable rating stands at 49% as against his unfavorable rating of 27%; with 23% still undecided. He is not lacking in star support. With personalities like Oprah Winfrey, Will Smith, Halle Berry etc supporting him. He cuts across all races.

But Obama has a big hurdle, named Hillary Rodham Clinton. In this piece of mine, I will try as much as possible to be objective. I do not consider myself a pundit of American politics, but I have followed four presidential cycles to know the pattern and the dynamics of its politics to make an informed and objective analysis.

Hillary Clinton has been tested and trusted. She has already proved that she can withstand the pressure of Republican attack. She runs a formidable, shrewd, competent and highly disciplined campaign. Over the years, the right-wing love to hate her. They cannot stand her! They hate her like a plague and with a passion. I must say that they are obsessed with her. All the talks about her by the republicans is because they are afraid of her. She said in one of the interviews that she has been defeating the republicans all her life and even if by proxy.

In 2000 senate election in New York, they said that she is a polarizing figure and that they would easily defeat her. It turned out to be all talks. Former New York Mayor, Rudi Giuliani was prepping himself to run against her but couldn't muster the courage to do so. He later dropped out of the race because of his diagnosis with cancer. However, a chance presented itself again in 2006 for Guiliani. He was touted by the republicans as the person to stop her in New York. Guilliani also wanted to use the senate election as a platform for a shot at the presidency, but Hillary was again standing on his way. In 2000, his diagnosis was the reason why he did not run against her, but in 2006, what was the reason why he did not run against her? The only apparent reason was that he was scared of losing against her and thereby ending his political career.

The republicans underrate her to their own peril. The fact of the matter is that she knows how to defeat the republicans; she knows how to get into their skin. Some of them are already taking shots at her. GOP strategist and former White House Deputy Chief of staff, Karl Rove, won't let up in his attacks on her. In August, while at NBC's "Meet the Press" Rove called her "fatally flawed" candidate. He also was reported as saying that:
"She enters the general election campaign with the highest negatives of any candidate in the history of the Gallup poll,……it just says people have made an opinion about her. It's hard to change opinions once you've been a high-profile person in the public eye, as she has for 16 or 17 years"
Rudy Guilliani attacked her in the New York Times in response to the Moveon.org's ad against General Petraeus. In fact, all the conservative journalists and talk show hosts like Rush Limbugh, Ann Culter, Bill O'Reilly, Bill Cristol etc make attacking her and talking about her their favorite pass time.

But the intriguing question is why? Why are they attacking her? The fact of the matter is that they are scared of her. All the attacks and all the bad things they say about her had never moved the negative opinion of her to go up. The more the White House and the conservatives spar with her, the more they bolster her anti-war credentials; placates liberals who are skeptical of her stands on some of the issues; and transforms her into a "change" candidate, all these constituencies are supposed to be Obama's.

This election is a special one. Special in the sense that it comes at a very crucial period of American history. September 11, 2001, changed U. S. policy in a very significant measure. The country is at war, at war against terrorists. National security credentials are front and center at this period. A candidate with a foreign policy and military experience has an edge over other candidates. However, in the democratic party, there is no candidate with military experience. Even among republicans, the leading candidates have no military experiences except Senator John McCain, who is considered by many as too old and too close to the war-mongering Bush's ideologues. The other republican candidates are only tough on television, Guilliani as a spent candidate was ironically rescued by the terrorists activities on September, 11, and former Senator Fred Thompson, often seen by some as a lazy candidate with no reasonable senate bill to his credit is only seen as tough in the eyes of television program, "Law and Order".

Hillary Clinton is touting her experiences as first lady. Her aides point to her extensive travel to more than 80 countries as First Lady and her 1995 speech at a U.N. conference on women in Beijing.

In combating Clinton's criticisms, Obama has an unlikely ally in Bill Clinton. Obama aides discovered comments from Bill Clinton's first campaign, in which he eloquently deflected the same kinds of charges of inexperience she's now leveling at Obama. Bill Clinton had no foreign-policy experience when he entered the Oval Office. During his declaration for president he said:

"I know that I haven't spent a lot of time learning the ways of Washington, but I've been there long enough to know that the ways of Washington must change"

Also Obama argues that it is about better judgment and not many years of experience. Citing the fact that the President George W. Bush, surrounded himself with national-security experts—Dick Cheney, Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice. However, with over seventy years of combined foreign policy experience of his team, the country suffers the worse foreign policy blunder in its history.

Again, Obama's supporters like to compare the freshman senator to another popular Democrat who entered the White House with little experience in global affairs: John F. Kennedy, who though lacked foreign policy experience but successfully resolved the Cuban missile crisis.

But time has changed people. Senator John F. Kerry (D-MA) was able to defeat former Governor Howard Dean, not because of the latter's temperament, but because of Kerry's military service and foreign policy credentials. The democrats believed that Kerry was better qualified to take on George Bush. But at peace time, it would have been different. It is arguable if Bill Clinton would have been president if it happens to be this period of time.

At this time, national security is the key. Not that Hillary Clinton is herself a national security wonk, but she has an edge having been in the corridors of power from 1992-2000. She served two terms as 'co-president'. She has been a senator representing New York for more than six years and serves in the Armed Services Committee and Foreign Relations Committee.

In the new poll, Clinton has gained among both women and men. She leads Obama in the race for the Democratic nomination by 22 percentage points among men, and by 42 points among women. Fully 57 percent of women said they would support Clinton in a primary, compared with 15 percent for Obama and 13 percent for Edwards.
Since early September, Clinton has picked up support both among Democrats (up 9 percentage points) and independents that lean toward Democrats (up 16 points). For the first time, a majority of married women, 56 percent, back Clinton. There is little difference between people who are tracking the campaign closely and those who are paying scant attention: Majorities in both groups said they would vote for Clinton if the election were held today.

Clinton also has a wide lead among whites, besting both Obama and Edwards by a 3 to 1 ratio. She has a narrower edge among African Americans: 51 percent support Clinton, compared with 38 percent for Obama.

Whether she can continue to consolidate support will be the test over the next three months, as the contenders head into the first primary contests in January. The poll indicates that, at least right now, she is well positioned to do so.

Clinton's backers remain firmly behind her candidacy. Sixty-one percent of those who said they would vote for her support her "strongly." In another sign that Clinton has neutralized skepticism of her acceptability as a candidate, about three-quarters ranked her as a first or second choice. Half rate Obama in the top two; a third do so of Edwards.

After Clinton out raised Obama in the third quarter, her advisers worked to maximize the news. The campaign stayed silent on Monday as Obama announced his $19 million fundraising total, then released its total yesterday morning, just as Obama was poised to begin a major speech about the war in Iraq.

For the first time since Clinton launched her campaign in January, her financial success appears to have turned much more directly on the support of small donors -- a domain that Obama and, to a lesser extent, Edwards had dominated in the first six months of the year. Clinton reported receiving money from 100,000 new donors this quarter -- double the number she recruited during the first three months of the campaign.

Although they are running neck to neck in Iowa with polls showing a three-way tie between, Hillary, Obama and Edwards, but that could change anytime from now. In fairness to Obama, he has competed with Hillary for every dollar and has an astute fund-raising machine. However, his lot has not bettered in the polls. Hillary has been leading the pack in the national polls consistently. If the polls do not change quickly in his favor, donors and even undecided people will give up on him. Returns in fund-raising will drop considerably. The third quarter fund-raising shows Hillary beating Obama for the first time in the fund-raising contest. If the last quarter becomes consistent with the third quarter in favor of Ms Clinton, that could spell disaster to Obama.

Many has argued that in politics, anything can still happen and that January is very far. Moreover, Obama has millions of dollars to be competitive all the way down the wire. That may be true but against a candidate named Hillary Clinton; to catch up with her and beat her would be a Herculean task. She has been in that road many times before, so the experience of grueling campaign in no new thing to her.

As shown from the history of U.S. politics, women voters had consistently determined who won the past three elections. This time, evidence shows that women are very enthusiastic about a history in the making. They are thrilled by the fact that a woman is poised to win the presidency for the first time. Despite the fact that U.S. claims to be the bastion of democracy, a woman has never been president despite the fact that lesser democracies and even dictatorial countries like India, Pakistan, and Liberia. Research shows that currently, women are not only actively participating in this political cycle, but they are also donating money in large numbers. This has never happened in the history of American politics.

Also, according to polls, women that are less educated are more likely to vote for Hillary than Obama. Obama is only leading her among a more educated women or women with college degrees. Above all, Hillary has a master strategist and democrats' icon behind her named Bill Clinton.
The greatest asset for Obama, ironically is his set backs. Obama's campaign is touting "HOPE" as its mantra. He denounced the politics of the past, dirty politics of bringing people down. He is for the politics of lifting people up and not beat them down; politics of bringing people together not divide them. On the day he declared for president, he said:

"It was here, in Springfield, where North, South, East and West come together that I was reminded of the essential decency of the American people -- where I came to believe that through this decency, we can build a more hopeful America."

Having fashioned his campaign on 'hope' and uplifting people, he cannot go back to the 'politics as usual' and politics of mudslinging he worked hard to condemn. It was his politics of uplifting people, and changing the tone in Washington that brought him so much admirers and donors, a different kind of politician. His brand of politics endeared him to democrat and republicans, young and old, men and women. Many are now believing that politics can be played without name-calling and bickering.

However, the fortunes at the polls have not bettered. Hillary Clinton is still leading him in most national polls by double-digit. His attack on Hillary will cause more problems for him than solve his current poor showings in polls. If he changes gear and starts attacking Hillary:

  * people will say 'so much for his politics of hope'. His admirers will see him as hypocritical and opportunistic.

  * He would be seen as being desperate and this will spell doom for his campaign.

  * Also it would be out of character for him to do so and people will see him as not a gentleman after all. The independents voters that are sick and tired of the dirty politics would be put off.

  * Again, if Obama starts now to attack her, he would be accused of being desperate to score at the opinion polls.

Also, it is difficult to campaign against a lady and attack her without being accused of being too macho. The republican senatorial candidate for New York, Rick Lazio, learned the hard lesson of contesting against her. After his debate with Hillary, many saw Lazio as too aggressive against her when he left his own podium to cross over hers. Also the moderator's question to her about Bill Clinton's affairs with Monica Lewinsky and the way she handled herself, brought her credit instead of bringing her down. From that point on, it was Hillary all the way to victory.

Also Hillary is feisty and runs aggressive campaign. She is not known to turn the other cheek when attacked. She understands that politics is a blood spot. She has passed that threshold of women being able to excel in the world of men. That doubt about her being able to handle the job of president in a time of war is now a thing of the past. She has also shown that she can work together with the other side to achieve results for his state of New York. She is not John Kerry, John McCain or Mark Cleland all of who has suffered the aggressive smear campaign by Karl Rove and his lieutenants. She has been in the public eye for many years so there is nothing about her that is now out there already. Obama on the other hand had not run for any national except her almost unopposed senate seat. So when the push comes to shove, no one knows whether there are skeletons in his cupboard that have not been ventilated in the public.

During their first debate, I was driving home from work to listen to their debate; however, I was in a hold up when their debate started so I was listening to C-SPAN Radio. The question was what each candidate would do in an even two U.S. cities are attacked. Obama was asked first, I was praying that he comes strong and say that he would seek out and retaliate against the country that attacked the United States. However, to my chagrin, Obama started talking about first responders and evacuation preparation! I was yelling at him in my car. But when same question was asked Hillary, she immediately jumped at it and said that she will first of all find out who did it, she would proceed will caution and that if there is an actionable intelligence that a particular country did it, she would immediately retaliate. Immediately I heard her say it, I said "bingo, she can be the next president"

In America world today, there is no equivocation in the case an American city is attacked. Any candidate that hesitated in using force against a terrorist attack against a U.S. city is considered not tough enough to be president. Obama had a chance to meet that threshold but blew the opportunity.

Again last month, in another debate they were asked about if Iran has a nuclear weapon and Israel bombed it and took it out, would you support Israel? It was a chance for Obama to show some teeth. It was his chance to show that given the mandate, he would use force when reasonable and that Israel being a natural ally of the United States, he would support Israel. Again he bungled the question. Hillary was evasive and when prodded by Tim Russert, the moderator, she bluntly refused to answer the question. She can afford to do so, since she has already proved that she is feisty and showed some hawkish tendencies.

However, since Obama has not shown that he has spine behind those rhetorical and nuanced speeches, the onus was on him to show that he is not all talks and no action. At least he had to show that even if he is not a hawk that he at least is an eagle and not a dove. Pandering to the anti-war movement alone cannot win him the primary. History has shown that no anti-war candidate has been a president of the United States. No candidate who is single issue and ran under an anti-war platform has been elected before; it is not going to happen, because independents and swing voters that help determine the outcome of elections do not support anti-war candidates.

He is also arguing that he is the only candidate with a better judgment since he is the only senator among the candidates that opposed the Iraq war and spoke against it from the beginning. That is true, but he was not in the senate when the issue came up. The question then is: if faced with the same dilemma that other candidates faced during the period, which was after about a year after 911, would he have voted against the war? It is easier to be against the war when you are an outsider and your political feet are not put in the fire. Former Senator John Edwards now repudiates his vote to authorize the Iraqi war and now attacks Hillary for not doing the same. But why hadn't him done the same thing while he was still in the senate. Why has he taken him four years to regret his vote?

After all said and done, it would come down to: Who among the democratic contenders is able to win at the general election? Who is better equipped to withstand the republican attack machine? Who is capable of going pound for pound and toe to toe with the Karl Rove gangs? Can the democrats trust Obama or any other candidate to return fire when the chips are down?

All these favor Hillary Clinton. Democrats just like republicans are eager to win. Republicans are ready to throw the core conservative values overboard in order to win. They are ready to field a candidate that has a chance to win. So even though Rudi Guilliani with his pro-abortion, pro-gay, pro-gun laws, personal family issues and metropolitan baggage, they are ready to give him a shot. Democrats are ready to do the same.
I fear for Obama because he represents the best for a person of color to be president. He has to start now to do something about the sagging number at the polls. Time is too short! He has to hit the airwaves immediately.

*Chukwudi Nwokoye, an attorney and political consultant, is a former United States Marine

Robot  # 1 | 16.10.2007 16:15

As the race for the Democratic Party nomination heats up; it is becoming clearer w...Read the full article.