Well, now that’s all over except the cheering, it’s time to take stock of why Barack Obama won the Democratic nomination in the U.S. and to ask the question whether he can win the American Presidency.
The Democratic nomination “election” was unique in a number of ways: first both candidates were minorities – Clinton, a woman, and Obama an African-American man. Secondly, Obama is a first-term senator, while Clinton is experienced in the halls of power. More importantly, however, the Democratic nomination race brought hope back into American political life. First time voters were inspired to participate and most ordinary Americans seemed to exhibit more of a sense of ownership in the process, a view that Canadians would be wise to follow.
The regeneration of hope in the American electoral process was very noticeable in Americans of every stripe and was crucial to Obama’s win. Many African-Americans said that perhaps the vision Martin Luther King Jr. spoke of in his 1963 speech “I Have a Dream” may be on the verge of being realized. Other Americans responded to Obama’s promise of change, his “electrifying” oratory, and his opposition to the war in Iraq.
Winning the Presidency is far from a foregone conclusion, however. Americans tend to mix religion with politics, and internet comments have been made concerning his religious faith and his loyalty to the American flag. In a Canwest News article written by Washington Correspondent Sheldon Alberts, Obama condemned “the use of patriotism as a political sword or a political shield. It is worth considering the meaning of patriotism because the question of who is-or is not-a patriot all too often poisons our political debates.” The whole debate erupted because Obama criticized the wearing of American flag pins as a “substitute for true patriotism.”
Semantics aside, there is some very determined opposition to Obama’s bid for office. The National Rifle Associate, one of the most powerful lobbying groups in the U.S., has begun an extensive, and expensive, advertising crusade designed to stop his campaign. Democrats have always feared the NRA’s lobbying power, but with the Supreme Court’s decision to throw out a ban on handguns in Washington, D.C., the whole question of the right to bear arms has become a focal point of the election. Intensive lobbying on the issue could be very detrimental.
Another problem that has arisen since the beginning of July has been the candidate’s apparent “shift” in his promise to remove all U.S. combat forces in Iraq within sixteen months of his taking office as president. On July 5th, Obama stated that he might “redefine” his withdrawal plans after visiting the Middle East this summer. During a campaign run through western states, strong Republican territory, Obama promised a “thorough assessment” of the plan to withdraw a combat brigade each month. Both Democratic and Republican supporters are claiming that this supposed “shift” is important because, as a quote from the ‘New York Times’ stated: “We are not shocked when a candidate moves to the centre for the general election. But Obama’s shifts are striking because he was the candidate who proposed to change the face of politics.” Republican John McCain’s supporters, who are calling for a continued American military presence in Iraq, now claim that Obama’s position is the same as their own.
Obama’s reply to these accusations was almost immediate. Four hours after making the speech in Fargo, North Dakota, he called a press conference. His statement was recorded by Suzanne Goldenberg of ‘The Guardian.’“I have said throughout this campaign that this war was ill-conceived, that it was a strategic blunder and that it needs to come to an end. I have also said I would be deliberate and careful about how we get out. That position has not changed.”
There is a great deal of potential for Obama to bring real change to the American political scene over the next few months, as well as to revolutionize American foreign policy, if he is elected. What could ruin his chances is the fear amongst the electorate that he will shift his stance on important political issues, if he feels that it is to his advantage. Indeed, he has given evidence of this already. He has supported compromise legislation on wire-tapping, said nothing about the Supreme Court’s striking down of Washington, D.C.’s hand-gun legislation, and criticized a Supreme Court decision banning the death penalty for child rapists. Even if these actions point to a shift to the centre, what Obama must do is convince Americans that his position on the Iraq war is unaltered and solid. Americans want an end to the war, and if he does not support the statements he has made that he will withdraw American troops after taking office, then he could easily lose due to perceived policy shifts.
