Moving into the New Hampshire and South Carolina primaries, Barack Obama has Hillary Clinton's campaign reeling from his historic win in the Iowa caucus where masses voted for the man they see representing “change” for the nation.
Obama stunning nine-point victory over the former First Lady highlights that many Americans are fed-up with the “business as usual” approach exhibited by Washington politicians. Last year, in the 2006 Elections, the American people wrestled control of the Congress away from Republicans. Democrats were given power because the voters believed their promises that they would stop the war in Iraq. That hasn't happened.
Hillary Clinton likes to blame Republicans and the Administration for the “failures” in Iraq. Isn't she just as culpable? She voted for the war. She claims she wouldn't have voted for war if she knew how faulty the intelligence was. It's clear the intelligence was “cooked.” But why didn't she see through the Administration's lies, when others with less “experience” on foreign policy regarding Iraq did?
Several experts warned early on that the White House's claim of Iraq having weapons of mass destruction wasn't credible. In fact, former Secretary of State Colin Powell, on February 24, 2001, in Cairo Egypt, said this about Saddam Hussein he “hasn't developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction.” Why didn't an inconsistency like that give Mrs. Clinton pause before she voted for war?
I submit that many ordinary people saw through this lie. Why didn't the “experienced” senator from New York? Or, was this another cold political calculation to show voters she can be hawkish and “patriotic” like those occupying the White House she yearns to sleep in again?
Senator Clinton has attacked Obama claiming we need someone with “experience” as the next president. The assumption is that “experience” equals competence. But as far as Washington politics goes, all it means is that you have been there for years. Americans understand that most politicians have accomplished very little, for average Americans, in their many years in office.
Moreover, isn't sound judgment more critical that experience? The judgment of all those politicians who told us that the war would be a cakewalk and American soldiers would be greeted with roses as “liberators” has turned out to be an increasingly deadly miscalculation. Senator Clinton is equally guilty of this costly calamity. Shouldn't her judgment be weighed as we decide who is best suited to lead the country out of this quagmire?
Obama's appeal-that he is an agent of “change”-won over many independents and undecided voters in Iowa. That message is extremely alluring for Americas after five years of war, tax breaks for the wealthy and stagnant wages in a floundering economy. Clinton in her tone and demeanor reflects what she is: a status quo establishment candidate.
Without question, Mr. Obama is as smart and articulate as anyone in Washington. Why was this even a topic of discussion? It hints of those still harboring stereotypes of the supposed inferior ability of blacks. Obama's Iowa win may signal a change of that attitude. Also, the influence of high profile black Administration members like Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and her predecessor Colin Powell; on making America think seriously of appointing a competent black person for president cannot be minimized. After all, many wanted Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice, to run for the White House.
Personally, I have reservations about Mr. Obama. I am not convinced (call me a pessimistic optimist) that an Obama presidency will bring an end to the toxic problems that plague this nation, including those that affect the African American community. Will he be able to implement policies to combat the employment, housing and financial issues destroying the equal opportunities of blacks? What about his views on police brutality and the prison industrial complex?
Blacks should be proud of Obama's success, yet the real question is how does this translate into substantive change for blacks, or, everyday blue collar whites who represents America's majority? Assuming he wins the democratic nomination and becomes the first black president, can he realistically be a force to implement real “change” in the lives of all Americans?
NAFTA for example-which was signed into law by President Clinton-has helped to swing open the floodgates of immigrants coming from Mexico. What would President Obama do about NAFTA and CAFTA which exacerbate the pandemic poverty in Latin America?
To be fair, given the polluting influence of money in America's party politics, no one should be expected to solve these problems alone. Ultimately, the structural imbalances built into America's political system that limit the democratic power of the American people for the benefit of the monetary elites, must inevitably be changed by the people.
The Iowa upset was an example of people power. If the rest of America follows suit, “change” maybe around the corner. Perhaps, New Hampshire and South Carolina hold part of the answer.
