SHADOW SOULS: OBAMA AND PALIN

Play this song as you read this article. It will be the soundtrack for your journey.



“Just as we tend to assume that the world is as we see it, we naively suppose that people are as we imagine them to be. In this latter case, unfortunately, there is no scientific test that would prove the discrepancy between perception and reality. Although the possibility of gross deception is infinitely greater here than in our perception of the physical world, we still go on naively projecting our own psychology into our fellow human beings. In this way everyone creates for himself a series of more or less imaginary relationships based essentially on projection.”

-- Carl Jung


THE SHADOW SOULS


The psychologist Carl Jung developed a theory of something he called the “Shadow Aspect.” It’s an unconscious aspect of the self that we repress and then project onto someone else as a criticism of their differences from us. Usually it is some dark aspect of humanity and we use it to justify our hatred of another person or group. In a sense, it’s like a photographic negative of who we are, something that we despise, but that is actually a part of our being. Our mirror opposite.

Jung felt that when we repress this dark aspect of ourselves it manifests itself in the world at large, coming to life, so to speak, in the form of some enemy or rival.

I couldn’t help but be struck by this notion in noting the response of many “progressives” to the candidacy of Sarah Palin. For months I watched people indulge in cult-like devotion to Senator Barack Obama. This was not a devotion to his policies, particularly given that those policies were not terribly different from those of his democratic rivals. It was a devotion to some image or concept of what Obama represents.

Many people are justifiably angry about the last eight years of the “W” administration. These people feel we’ve lost our way both politically and morally. I wholly agree with such criticism.

However, many critics go much further. They see the behavior of the conservatives in America as a dark and dangerous “other” that needs to be vanquished. They see conservatives as ideologues who will accept any activity from their leader as long as he’s their leader and follows an right-wing ideological framework.

Yet, in many ways, this is a mirror reflection of their own behavior, their own blind hero-worship and ideological devotion, but rather from the left rather than the right.

To fight off their own demons and to hopefully slay their enemy, they have projected an image onto someone that seems to know what they want and what they have been looking for. He is someone who is “handsome,” “charming,” and “charismatic.” He is Senator Barack Obama.

At times when people speak of Obama, it sounds as if they’re talking about a lover of theirs or even a messiah. Though many perceive of him that way, they are loathe to admit it (certainly not to themselves).

Some, however, are willing to be open:

“Barack Obama is inspiring us like a desert lover, a Washington Valentino… We're talking about it; we're getting involved, we're tuning in and turning out in numbers we haven't seen in ages. My musician friends and I are writing songs to inspire people and couples all over America are making love again and shouting "yes we can" as they climax!”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lili-haydn/why-obama-is-like-a-deser_b_89285.html

Okay. Now, if you’re at a point in your life where you shout political slogans during sex, there’s something deeply wrong with you. You don’t need a political leader, you need a psychologist. Still, this is far from the only example hat Obama is a representational image rather than a flesh-and-blood candidate of issues and policies.

For some he is a “Lightworker”:

“Many spiritually advanced people I know… identify Obama as a Lightworker, that rare kind of attuned being who has the ability to lead us not merely to new foreign policies or health care plans or whatnot, but who can actually help usher in a new way of being on the planet.”
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2008/06/06/notes060608.DTL?

For still others, he is “God-like”:

“I’m taking a special look at Barack Obama because he’s a lot closer to a Jesus-type than the other candidates, by quite a bit. What if God decided to incarnate as men preaching “hope and change.” And what if we didn’t recognize them, because we are so dull, and let them slip away, not availing ourselves of the opportunity to be led by God!”
http://www.jg-tc.com/articles/2008/03/31/opinion/letters/doc47f0586a2ff1b441328510.txt

And, finally, yet for many, he is “The One”:

“`I do believe I do today we have the answer to Miss Pittman's question – it's a question that the entire nation is asking – is he the one?’ Winfrey said. `South Carolina – I do believe he's the one.’
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1207/7281.html

This is only a very small sample of these types of things that have been written and said about him. The above quotes and articles are not anomalies.

To be sure, Obama has been skilled at manipulating these sorts of feelings. Those who argue that he has no complicity in these projections are dead wrong:

"We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek."

“Generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that… this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.”

Beautiful words, though no less calculated.

With such hunger on the part of voters and such skilled and mellifluous speeches on the part of Obama, he became something larger than a politician in the eyes of many of his supporters.

Barack Obama is a brilliant man and a brilliant politician, but I think any sane person knows (I hope) that he is not a God-like Lightworker, a desert lover or “The One.” However, the fact that he has engendered these types of responses is reflective of, I think, the subconscious of those who feel (and write) these things.

It reflects a need on the part of his followers to find someone to lead them out of the wilderness. It reflects their need to vanquish the demons of the last eight years. It is also indicative of an angry mass consciousness which has created a Manichean narrative which requires characters of evil to parallel it’s characters of good.

If you have a hero, if you have “The One,” then you must have a villain— “The Other.” Initially, that villain was Senator Hillary Clinton. She became characterized as something of a cross between “the other woman” and Medusa.

She was excoriated as all that is wrong with politics from “triangulating” political strategy to deranged narcissism. She was pilloried with every historical prejudice towards dangerous women. She was likened to Glenn Close in Fatal Attraction and the Wicked Witch of the West in the Wizard of Oz. It was said that her campaign was racist and cynical. It was written that she didn’t concede properly and that she didn’t properly “embrace” him at the Democratic Convention.

Again, if you doubt the extent of this characterization, please see:

http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2008/02/hillary-sexism-watch.html

In short, she was the dark and dangerous female “other” who threatened the ascendancy of “The One.” As Joseph Campbell wrote in The Hero With A Thousand Faces:

“The testings of the hero, which were preliminary to his ultimate experience and deed, were symbolical of those crises of realization by means of which his consciousness came to be amplified and made capable of enduring the full possession of the mother-destroyer.”

Well, The One prevailed. But then something happened. The Shadow had not been destroyed, only sublimated. The extremes of idolization and the depths of misogyny which combined to lead Obama to victory produced its mirror image in a new rival— Governor Sarah Palin.

Who is this woman? Who is this cipher from the Alaskan tundra? She is Obama’s mirror. She is Obama’s Shadow Self. She is the very embodiment of those superficial aspects which make Obama popular, while at the same time representing the opposite of the that for which he stands politically and the very demons which his supports hungered for him to slay.

The Cult of Obama engendered the Shadow of Palin.

Let’s be clear. I do not believe that Palin possesses the intellectual depth of Obama. (In contrast to Hillary Clinton, who is brilliant in her own right.) What she possesses are telegenic, biographical and ideological attributes for the right similar to those which excited the left about Obama.

The similarities are striking.

Her youth is the counterpoint to Obama’s. She’s 44. He’s 47.

She’s a former beauty queen and TV sports reporter. Obama is routinely complimented on his movie star good looks.

She is a former high school basketball star who led her team to the state championship while playing with a stress fracture. Obama played on a high school basketball team that won the state championship and was known for his tenacious playing style.

Palin had been governor of Alaska for less than two years before being nominated as the Republican vice presidential candidate. Obama had been in the Senate barely two years before he began his candidacy for president.

Her biography as an Alaskan outdoorswoman and mother of five have captivated her Republican base. Obama’s biography as the son of a Kenyan immigrant and a white woman from Kansas transfixed his supporters.

She is a hard right-wing ideologue. Obama is seen as a champion of liberal/progressive causes.

And let us not forget, she is a “she.” As a woman, she represents that for which so many of Obama’s supporters (both male and female) have reacted to so strangely and stridently— the female interloper in a political world dominated by men.

What is most tragic to me about the Palin ascendancy is that it exposes that aspect of the “Obama Nation” for which I have been critical— It’s cult-like nature. So crazed and invested in destruction, demonizing and idolization have many of his supporters been that, to me, in some strange and cosmic way, they sowed the seeds of a true progressive’s potential undoing.

In this year when there is the real and tantalizing possibility that a progressive agenda led by Obama will take hold of the White House, it would be a crime if the extreme nature of many of his supporters turns out to be the political and cosmic undoing of much-needed change in the political agenda.

The Cult of Obama. The Shadow of Palin.

Let us not be shocked that the one has engendered the other.

THE END GAME

"Genuine tragedies in the world are not conflicts between right and wrong. They are conflicts between two virtues."

-- Christian Friedrich Hebbel

In politics, truth is perception and perception is everything.

Call this a post-mortem and a prognostication.

The altering currents of history rarely flow as we expect and their directions are often guided as much by forces unseen as by the laws of change themselves. So it is that we American travelers find ourselves on this historic political journey where conceptions of race and gender are shifting and competing before our eyes. A woman and an African-American vied for the Democratic Party’s presidential candidacy and, so we are told, this represents a dramatic change in the fortunes of those who have been marginalize for centuries in this country.

Yes and no. Let's hold on a minute.

While, indeed the sensibilities of the average American have changed with respect to gender and race, and the level of tolerance, respect and acceptance of differences that we now see is something of which all Americans should be proud, power is not given up easily and it can be argued that this historic moment is being exploited by those for whom such changes are not always advantageous.

So what exactly has happened and is happening? If we look back and look forward we will find, I believe, that the answer lies in the “End Game.”

POLITICAL CHESS

"All warfare is based on deception."

--Sun Tzu

The Art of War

Good politicians treat the game of politics like a game of chess. In both arenas, the ability to think several moves ahead (or “deep”) is vital to victory. It isn’t enough to attack or counterattack your opponent, you must be able to anticipate his/her response, and his/her response to your response, ad infinitum.

No matter how noble the words, beneath the message is the action that must guide victory: brutal, merciless strategy. Yet action alone is not enough. Luck must be in the favor of a party or its kingmakers. When both strategy and luck are present, the desired result will always occur.

The Republican party has always played the political chess game like a grandmaster for they understand precisely that it is a game. Power is their idealism. The Democrats and liberals, by contrast, have always served as the eager, well-intentioned amateur. They always mistake idealism for power and play the game poorly because of it.

Such is what we have seen before us this year. The Republicans have played the public (and Democrat) hopefulness of an end to gender and racial barriers to power in such a way as to potentially further their own ends and retain power.

THE OPENING GAME

“Divide et impera.”

[“To divide is to conquer.”]

-- Julius Caesar

I. The Obama Gambit

The Republicans know that the best way to defeat the Democrats is to let them defeat themselves, and this is what they set out to do. When your enemy is numerous, what better than to divide them and set them against each other? This is what has occurred.

There is nothing more tragic than to watch two of the Democratic Party's core constituencies turn against each other: African-Americans and women.

And nothing could be better for Republicans.

A Hillary Clinton candidacy represented a strong threat in the general election because she would be strong with the women’s vote and in doing so give a group (women) who have been historically marginalized and discriminated against a chance to achieve a parity of political power with men.

Women represent the majority of voters in America. If they vote as a bloc, they are nearly impossible to defeat in any election. Women make up the largest portion of the electorate (53% of total US voters in the 2004 election). [ See http://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/p20-556.pdf for more detail. ]

Should Hillary Clinton have been able to harness a large majority of women voters with her historical candidacy it would have been formidable in the general election against the Republicans. Even with her reputation as a polarizing force, Clinton still would have been likely to inspire even a large number of women who had been cool to her during her career simply due to the fact that she would represent the first viable female candidate for the nation's highest office.

How do you fight that? One way would be to divide women from each other and/or divide them from another core Democratic group. As luck as much as strategy is key to victory, luck would have it for the Republicans that a candidate arose who could help them do just that.

Senator Barrack Obama is arguably the most brilliant and charismatic politician we’ve seen in America in the last 40 years. No candidate in my lifetime has shown a greater ability to inspire and transcend than Senator Obama has. He is a singular personality.

He also happens to be black.

Perhaps no group in American history has suffered under the yoke of discrimination as blacks have. There is no need to catalogue the sins perpetrated against people of African ancestry in this country-- from slavery to Jim Crow, we know them all.

If one wishes to neutralize the power of an historical candidacy of one oppressed group, what better way then to advocate on behalf of the candidacy of another oppressed group.

Fate dropped just such an opportunity in the lap of the Republicans.

Pitting blacks against women serves a second benefit. The Clinton’s have had long and strong support from African-Americans. By turning blacks against Hillary Clinton, it takes away a core voting group and a group that has been one of her bases. Should she prevail against Obama, it would weaken her in the general election.

Similarly, an Obama candidacy could also potentially divide Obama from some demographics of women come general election should he be the Democratic nominee.

Both results have occurred.

Strategically, a candidate who can attract the latter (women) is more dangerous in the general election than a candidate who can attract the African-American vote. Let’s be clear, both groups are needed in order to win, but sheer numbers favor a campaign that captures the excitement of a large number of female voters. African-Americans make up a relatively small portion of the national electorate (11% of total US voters in 2004), while women make up a far larger number as noted above. [ Again, please see http://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/p20-556.pdf for more detail. ]

Interestingly, and by contrast, a candidate more attractive to the former (African-Americans) can be more dangerous in the Democratic primaries, especially the early ones, as blacks make up a large portion of Democratic voters in places like South Carolina, Georgia and Louisiana.

If Obama could make a strong showing in the earliest states like Iowa which have a very small black population, he would be positioned to wreak havoc on a Hillary Clinton candidacy early on in states with larger African American populations---potentially being able to eliminate her. That is exactly what happened.

Once Obama won Iowa, it showed that he could carry the white vote and thereby be a legitimate threat to Clinton. Moreover, the black vote, which had once strongly been behind Clinton, deserted her after the Iowa caucuses. While she had strong support of black voters 2 to 1 over Senator Obama before Iowa, the percentage more than reversed with Obama capture 80% of the black vote on average afterward.

Certainly the statements of Senator Clinton’s husband, President Clinton, didn’t help, but this was an unintended bonus that only served to harden black support for Obama and against Clinton. Remember, the percentages flipped before President Clinton’s remarks, not afterward. President Clinton unhinged behavior became a Republican gift that kept on giving.

Now the divide is there, and that divide is beginning to harden. Make no mistake about it. According to the most recent polls, there is a hardening of support on both sides. Many African-Americans have now cooled to Hillary (and Bill) Clinton, while some of Clinton’s female supporters are threatening to not support Obama in the general election.

Hillary Clinton’s favorability ratings among blacks have plummeted by 36% over the last year. Her favorability among blacks now stands at under 40%:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/03/opinion/03blow.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Though it should be said that Senator Clinton has continued to reach out to blacks, the wounds caused by what were perceived as racial slights and playing the race card will not be easily healed.

Similarly, many women feel that Clinton has not been treated well because of her gender during the election and have become angered to the point of turning against Senator Obama. Most of the fury has been caused by what is perceived as misogynistic media bias against Senator Clinton, but some have felt that some of Senator Obama’s comments have been condescending towards women. As a result, there is a large groundswell developing directed at getting women to not vote for Senator Obama in the general election:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/05/women-threaten.html#comments

Though many have said that these wounds will be healed in time for the general election, it remains to be seen. It certainly points to a potential problem for the Democrats.

If the Republican strategy was to foment division, it worked like a charm.

So how did Obama manage to be strong enough to survive in the early primaries and become a viable threat to a once inevitable Clinton candidacy?

First, once it was clear that he could win over white voters, African-Americans were more willing to support his candidacy since it would no longer be something that was simply symbolic, but actually viable. With the legitimacy of his candidacy in hand, Obama was poised to attract black voters in droves.

Second, Senator Obama, as was mentioned above, Senator Obama is an extraordinary politician. Aside from his personal gifts, he’s also run an incredible campaign. Unlike Senator Clinton, who initial ran her campaign as an inevitable coronation, Senator Obama contested strongly in all 50 states, focusing on caucuses as well as primaries. He benefited from incredible enthusiasm from his supporters, particularly younger ones, who responded amazingly to his call for change. Though Senator Clinton has improved her campaign organization as of late and has shown herself to be an incredible candidate, it may be too little too late.

Still, when it comes to African-American candidates, no matter the brilliance or charisma, historically it has been difficult to break the barrier of race. For a party such as the Republican party, whose bread and butter has been exploiting ethnic tensions, a black candidate would have to find cross that historic divide-- or get unexpected help.

Something very strange began happening in 2007. Prominent Republicans began stating their support for Senator Obama or openly expressing their approval of him. Why strange? Because, first, the partisan divide of the last decade or so have rendered people on either side incapable of expressions of admiration for each other. Second, in particular, for the reasons stated above, the Republican Party is not the most likely ally of distinguished liberal black Democratic senator.

The first indicator was the “Republicans for Obama” website which went up in 2007:

http://www.republicansforobama.org/?q=homepage

To be sure, this site has a relatively small number of members, but it was an early, interesting harbinger.

Soon, various prominent Republicans were either announcing their support for Obama or openly showing their approval of him. Tom Bernstein, who co-owned the Texas Rangers with George W. Bush, announced his support in 2007. John Canning, a Chicago financier, is openly supporting Obama. Canning was a “Bush pioneer” donor (meaning he raised at least $100,000 for President George W. Bush in 2004). Susan Eisenhower, granddaughter of President announced her support in 2008. Douglas Kmiec, a former senior Justice Department official under President Reagan supports him.

Robert Kagan, a neoconservative and cofounder of the Project for the New American Century, which was the blueprint for Bush’s foreign policy and the war in Iraq, stated his approval of Obama in 2007 as well. Peggy Noonan, a Ronald Reagan speechwriter, speaks glowingly of him (as she almost never does of most Democrats), and Michelle Bernard, a leading conservative (and some say “anti-feminist” voice) routinely gushes over him on MSNBC.

It makes quite a fascinating snapshot.

In almost every primary, the majority of Republicans who have participated on the Democratic side have supported Obama. In Iowa, against six other opponents in the Democratic primary, Obama won 44% of the Republican vote in an open caucus. Virginia Republicans who voted Democrat voted for Obama 72%-23%. Similarly, Missouri Republicans voting in the Democratic primary voted for Obama 75%-21%, while 72% of Republicans voting Democrat in Wisconsin supported him.

Much has been made in the press about Rush Limbaugh’s call for Republicans to vote for Hillary in the Texas primary in order to cause chaos in the Democratic primary. This was, as always, a brilliant Republican red herring. In point of fact, in Texas, a large number of Republicans pledged their support for Obama before the March 4 primary:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23394070/

In the final vote, according to exit polls only 9 percent of Texas Democratic primary voters identified themselves as Republican, and of that group, Obama won 53%-46% percent.

There are two ways to look at this. One is that Obama has achieved broad support across party lines, attracting people with his messages of unity, hope and change. Sen. Obama himself would say that. In fact he would challenge any contradictory notion as “cynicism.” In his recent powerful speech on race, which he gave this past March 18, he said this:

“For we have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism… we can speculate on whether white men will all flock to John McCain in the general election regardless of his policies.”

Much has been made about "Obamacans," or disenchanted Republicans who support Obama. It may very well be the case that a new political alignment is occurring in America with Senator Obama at its center. To be sure, there is some of this happening. If it is truly the case overall, then we are experiencing one of the greatest ideological changes in American history.

But I would argue that the more "cynical" perspective may be the correct one-- and the proof of that will remain to be seen in the general election. Should Republicans support Senator Obama and help him to victory, his take on the matter will have proven right. However should they abandon him and give the election to Senator McCain, then we would have to question what was at play with respect to all the open support he received from the Democrats opposition.

The final result will depend on how the middle and end game of this possible strategy play out.

THE MIDDLE GAME

“The right man is the one who seizes the moment.”

--Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

If your opening gambit has gone well in chess, winning requires that you exploit your advantage during the middle game and take tactical control of the middle of the board, methodically cut down your opponent's pieces.

In politics, the middle game represents those long months after the primaries and before the convention. The center of the board in this case is both the political and geographic center of the country, that part of our nation where the populace is presumed to be of moderate or "middle ground" ideology-- neither too liberal nor too conservative.

This is what is called the “Heartland” or “Mid America.”

To control this part of the political game, the usual tactic is for the more liberal Democratic candidate to moderate to his/her right in order to seem more centrist. For the Republican, it's the mirror image-- moderate left for the same effect. Simultaneously, you will want to paint your opponent as an extremist of one ilk or the other. For the Democrats, the goal is to show that your Republican counterpart is far right ideologically. For the Republicans, the reverse is again true; Make clear to voters that the Democrat as an "ultra liberal" or radical.

We are at the precipice of the middle game now. With all appearances pointing towards Obama as the Democratic candidate, the painting of Obama as leftist, radical or extremist has begun. In this part of the game, the portrayal will not be subtle. There will be a strong push to frame the nature of the debate about Obama. However, the Republicans will still try to hold back on what they think would be a knockout punch until the end game, where it will do the most damage.

The first step will be to portray Obama as an “out of touch” elitist. Much has been made about Obama’s comments with respect to “bitterness” in small town America:

“And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

Much will continue to be made. The remarks will be repeated again and again in attempt to show Obama as unable to relate to the cultural realities of blue-collar America. This elitist picture will be tied to the same portrayal of the Democratic Party as controlled by liberal elites who are far removed from the everyday lives of the average American.

Raised by a single mother and by his grandparents, Obama is hardly to the manor born, so it would seem absurd to call him elitist, but he’s Ivy League educated and his blessed with a suave patrician style that will be used against him. Somehow we’ve reached a point in American history where having a quality education makes one suspect of all sorts of things. As ridiculous as that is, it appears to be true. (This entire line of attack by the Republicans will also conveniently overlook the fact that McCain is a Naval Academy grad, the son and grandson of an admiral in the U.S. Navy, and also the husband of an extremely wealthy heiress.)

The second tactic will be for the Republicans to play the race card and paint Obama as a race radical due to his personal associations.

Even though Senator Obama has left the Trinity United Church of Christ, the 20-year relationship he had with his church will be used in any way that the Republicans can in order to discredit the notion of him as a man that transcends race. The many videos of Rev. Wright's inflammatory comments and Rev. Wright's own associations are now part of the public record. The recent video of Father Pfleger's comments as a guest pastor at Trinity in which he attacks Hillary Clinton with respect to race (as well as the fact that Pfleger was a spiritual advisor to the Obama campaign) do not help.

Obama's associations with his pastor, Reverend Wright, and his church, Trinity United Church of Christ, have been known for months, if not years, by the media. He mentions his relationships with them in both his books, Dreams of My Father (1995) and The Audacity of Hope (2005). In fact, the title of Audacity of Hope comes from a sermon delivered by Reverend Wright.

The ideologies and teachings of Rev. Wright, therefore, have been public knowledge for years. Obama's ascendancy in 2004 should have called attention to them, yet they did not. Running for the most powerful job in the world, president of the United States, should have made his religious affiliation inescapable, but somehow the press-- and, most glaringly, the right-wing pundits-- were silent for months.

That is until Obama had secured a mathematical certainty of a popular delegate lead in the month of February. Suddenly, with control of the primaries seemingly in hand, this candidate who had been universally praised for his political moderation was "suddenly" discovered to have "radical" skeletons in his closet. Skeletons that had been in plain view for years.

Now Sen. Obama was being tainted by the brush of his associations. While no one in the media will contend that Sen. Obama shares his pastors extremist views, by making those views public, they raise questions in voters minds which naturally begin to cloud Sen. Obama's image to centrist voters in the country's heartland.

Their final move during this middle phase will be to paint Obama's political positions as "liberal" or "leftist" (which are good things to me) in order to continue to shade his image as an extremist. He'll be attacked for his positions on gay marriage, abortion, social programs and withdrawal from Iraq.

Nothing spectacular, but that's not the point in this part of the game. The point is to gain position, not capture the king... yet.

THE END GAME

“If an injury has to be done to a man, it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared.”

-- Niccolo Machiavelli

Finally, in the end game, you must be merciless. You must eliminate any obstacles to your capture of the opponent’s king. This is the heated time between the convention and the general election when, in the end, you hope to finish as the last king standing.

The most brutal attacks come at this point because the public typically has a short memory. Should you use your toughest assault too early in the election cycle and the controversy may be forgotten or your opponent may have time to repair the damage or counter. Waiting till the end has the strongest effect.

Toward the November election, these are the hard attacks that Obama will face:

1. The Extremist: Middle East Connections.

a. Rezko: Exploiting Anti-Arab Bias—Sen. Obama had a long-time relationship with Chicago political operative Tony Rezko. Mr. Rezko has just been convicted on charges of corruption. While this alone will taint Sen. Obama due to his association with him, Rezko has connections with somewhat shady characters from the Middle East. Nadhmi Auchi, is an Iraqi billionaire who provided Rezko with $3.5 million as a loan, which ultimately caused Rezko to lose his bail bond for the fraud charges. The key aspect of this relationship is that Auchi was also the beneficiary of a lucrative power plant deal in postwar Iraq. Questions have arisen as to how he obtained that deal. Those questions may ensnare Sen. Obama even though there is no reason to believe he has that much of a connection to Mr. Auchi. Given scare tactics and whisper campaigns about Sen. Obama being a Muslin, this connection is bound to be used against him eventually.

b. Israel-- Though Sen. Obama's recent statements have made clear his support of Israel, look for questions about his ties to advisors who have not been considered steadfast in their support of Israel. Such names to keep in mind are Robert Malley, a Middle East scholar who is of Syrian ancestry and who is considered pro-Palestinian; the ubiquitous Rev. Wright, whose church web site contained some views considered anti-Israel; and George Soros, the multibillionaire investor whom some have painted as anti-Israeli.

c. Osama/Obama-- This oldie-but-goodie is bound to return if Obama is the Democratic candidate for president. Mind you, it will never be stated overtly. Oh, no. There will just be an unusual number of "slips of the tongue" that begin to be made in order to subtly remind people of the similarity in names.

Also, Osama is always good for a well-timed video of some sort. Considering it's been nearly seven years since 9-11 and President Bush still hasn't been able to find him for some reason, I imagine Osama has had enough time to build a whole video studio. It wouldn't be a surprise if we see some "supportive" video about Obama released by Osama. Something about how good it would be to have a "Muslim" in the White House, or nonsense of that sort.

2. National Security: An "October Surprise"-- If all else fails, we can always look forward to some "October Surprise" threat to our national security in the form of an Osama video, al-Qaeda warning, conflict in Iraq or with Iran-- you know, the usual scare to remind us how we need a "strong, macho" man like McCain.

3. The Black Militant: Skeletons in the Closet— The specter of Rev. Wright, Father Pfleger and Trinity Church will be resurrected again and again. More whisper campaigns will be started about other extremist writings or speeches by those connected with Sen. Obama, perhaps even something about his wife Michelle.

EPILOGUE

Just because the Republicans will attack, does not mean it will be successful. One thing we've seen is that Barack Obama is possessed of singular political gifts and has shown the tenacity and willingness to fight back.

Obama has charm and oratorical gifts that are powerful weapons. He can disarm even the most potent attacks with an easy-going response or an extraordinary speech. He also has developed a reputation as a straightforward operator whom the public takes at his word. In addition he has assembled an amazing campaign team that responds quickly to potential problems. Lastly, he is blessed with supporters that can only be described as "devoted" and who have made clear that they will make their voices heard in response to any attack on their candidate.

He has the tools to fight back, for no matter how great the strategy, there's always a counter.

CALIFORNIA DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY 2008

THE LINES OF THE NATION

California Presidential Primary 2008

I'll begin at the place where it ended.

I covered the 2008 California presidential primary from a unique vantage point, interviewing voters at three separate polling places in Los Angeles and speaking with dozens of people from a variety of backgrounds moments after they'd cast their vote. I was gathering my notes at a diner in Burbank that specializes in Creole and Cajun cooking. Its New Orleans theme made me think back to Hurricane Katrina.

That terrible act of nature and its devastation still reverberates in the national subconscious. Its effect exposed lines of disunity in this great land of "E Pluribus Unum"; black/white and rich/poor. They are lines that have been cut bloody and deep into our nation's soul over countless decades. They are not the only lines that separate us.

What I saw on Election Day 2008 during the California primary made it clear to me that the identity matrix of American life had become even more muddled, if no less stark.

The campaigns of Obama and Clinton both tout the unifying aspect of their historic candidacies. The Obama candidacy, we are told, represents the notion of going beyond the American racial divide that has been painful, hateful and intractable. We are told that he represents something "post-racial"-- a new way of looking at and beyond ourselves. Electing Hillary Clinton, it is said, will break the "glass ceiling" of sexism that has existed for centuries in both overt and subtle forms in this country and around the world.

I believe that Americans wish to embrace both kinds of historical changes. I believe in the genuineness and openness of the American spirit. Yet, I also believe that are elements working beneath this embrace of inclusion that are uncomfortable for people to admit or accept.

For all the talk of "unity" and for all the pretty words that people voting said with respect to going past divides, looking beyond their own DNA, they were still hunkering down into old demographic lines and choosing, by and large, as much based on who they are as what they said.

ELECTION DAY

I had started out early on Tuesday afternoon. The hour of choice was at hand. A sense of transition and transcendence was clear, and everyone with whom I spoke felt it. Whatever happened, this year, this time, they believed something would be different. Whether that would be true remained to be seen, but there was no doubt that the birth pains of political change were resounding in the womb of the republic.

No one voting seemed to be going indifferently through the motions. They were excited. They were energized. I had never seen anything like it.

It was less like a political primary than an athletic contest-- a prizefight or baseball playoffs. People weren't picking a candidate, they were choosing a champion, a person who would represent their personal hopes and beliefs against an unknown adversary in the big political championship in November.

I wanted to interview a wide variety of the Los Angeles demographic in order to make a range of voices heard, so I visited polling locations in Valley Village, Sherman Oaks and Los Feliz. Each location had a different neighborhood feel and, within each, people of different backgrounds would be represented.

It should be noted that what follows is really only about the Democratic primary. It is about the choice between Obama and Clinton. Though I spoke to numerous people, I only met one Republican voter. Clearly, in Los Angeles, the "Red-breasted GOP" was as rare a sighting as a California Condor at a shooting range.

THREE LOCATIONS

Sherman Oaks is one of the more affluent areas of Los Angeles and, judging by the cars they drove and how they were dressed, most people I met fit that profile. There was a steady stream of voters going in and out of the polling place. They were mostly white and the majority were women. This gender pattern would hold true throughout the day at each location.

A house in Sherman Oaks.

The voting took place at the Sherman Oaks Women's Club on Kester Ave, a somewhat small '60s-style meeting place tucked off a corner near a freeway. The area was bucolic, despite its proximity to traffic, like a sparsely traveled side street passed over by suburban sprawl. The verdant surroundings, bright sunlight and cookie-cutter building from the days of the Brady Bunch made me feel as if I were off to a PTA meeting.

The Valley Village area.

At the Chandler Convalescent Hospital in Valley Village on Laurel Canyon Boulevard the scene was different. It was not nearly as active as the Sherman Oaks location and most of the people that I met were Latino or working class. Inside the convalescent facility, the elderly sat listlessly in wheelchairs outside a mostly empty room where voting was held. Their eyes were blank. I tried to imagine the vibrancy and life that had once been there and wondered if they were aware at all about today's primary and the historical changes at hand.

Los Feliz.

The final location was in Los Feliz, the polling location where I voted. It was Fire Station #35 on Hillhurst Ave., an unpretentious building on a somewhat pretentious block. Los Feliz is a trendy neighborhood and I expected the voters to skew young, which they did. There was a greater variety of voters of different ethnic backgrounds than at the other locations. Here, too, the majority of voters were female.

THE VOTERS -- THEIR CHOICES

Contrasting Symbols

People were surprisingly eager to talk about whom they voted for and why. I was amazed at how open most people were and how willing they were to go into detail about what motivated them to cast their ballot.

Obama and Clinton supporters expressed their preferences in different ways. The Obama supporters were more euphoric or ecstatic about their candidate. There was an idealism about what they liked, and their support for him was always spoken of in terms "hope," "change," and "newness." They talked more about the possibilities he represented as a person, rather than his positions as a candidate. The Clinton supporters were almost angrily defiant about their support for her. Though they emphasized her background and experience and the stances she had made on various issues, they did this in such a way that it felt as if they had something to prove. And to some, she too, was the candidate of "change."

If the Obama supporters were more buoyant in their support of their candidate, they were far less charitable to his opponent than Clinton supporters were to hers. Many were downright disdainful of Clinton. A strong "Stop Clinton" or "Anti-Hillary" component existed for many. Clinton supporters, by contrast, often offered that they would support Obama if Clinton were not the nominee. I found only one Obama supporter who said the same about Clinton.

The most poignant and positive examples from each side were expressed by two women at different locations.

I spoke to a young African-American woman in her early 20s in Los Feliz. She was on crutches and had paid for a cab to come to the polling place. I felt almost guilty for stopping her as she made her way back to her ride. The beauty of her words captured the spirit of ecstatic conviction that many supporters have for Obama's message. She repeated the word "hope" over and over. "Hope, hope, hope," she said and continued, "Even if things get botched, with Obama there will still be hope." It was this sense that Obama could make a difference, not just politically, but socially and culturally, that resonated so deeply with many of his supporters. In these uncertain times, he appears as a light of hope to many.

To some who support Clinton, she represents the same kind of possibility and engenders the same kind of faith. A woman I spoke to at the Laurel Canyon polling place conveyed this sort of idealism. She was in her 30s, white, dressed in jogging suit. She wore dark glasses and her blonde hair was pulled back. She told me that she had never voted before. When I asked her why, she said that she had felt "disenfranchised" as a woman because of the scarcity of viable female candidates for major offices. She said that a woman running for president made her "want to vote." She felt that Clinton's policies would be, "Beneficial to women, children, mothers, and especially single mothers." Her voice trembled as she spoke. Her passion and faith were clear.

This contrasting passion of both supporters was clearest during an encounter at the Los Feliz location.

I was speaking to a young African-American man who was almost serene as he talked about Obama's messages of hope and change. Out of nowhere, a woman ran up to me. She was in her 30s, her dark hair cascading around her face, and she was insistent on stating her support for Clinton to someone, anyone. She probably assumed I was a reporter and wanted to make sure that, whomever I was, her opinion would be on the record.

She was fiery about her standard-bearer. She told me that she was supporting Clinton because Clinton "had incredible experience, traveled to dozens of countries and is passionate about the issues." Then, quickly, she disappeared into the night.

Later, a woman in her 30s, Latina, stated that she had voted for Clinton because she wanted to see "a strong woman get elected." Shortly after she walked away, two other women, both Latina, one in her 40s, the other in her 20s, told me that they had both voted for Clinton because "She represents change."

A young man that I spoke to at the Sherman Oaks location was clear and eloquent about what drew him to Obama. He was in his early 20s, white, and he was sitting next to a car covered with Obama signs. His demeanor made it seem as if he were protecting a shrine. When I approached him, he told me that it was important that young people were "excited" by Obama and that this excitement was a component of his choice. He said he liked the fact that Obama was "younger" and "post-racial." "He represents change, not only for America, but for America's image to the world," he told me. He felt that an Obama presidency would alter positively how both friend and foe viewed the U.S. He was "change, something different," he said earnestly.

When talk turned to Clinton, his tone altered. I could see in his face that he could barely hide his distaste for her. The Manichaean duality of fervor for Obama and dislike of Clinton among Obama supporters was almost always evident.

He said she was too "polished and politicized" and that "McCain would represent more of a change than Hillary would." He called her the "establishment candidate" in comparison to the senator from Arizona. It was a pretty astounding statement given the historic nature of a woman running for the highest office in the land which, till now, has been the exclusive domain of men. It was also odd given the fact that McCain has been on the national political scene even longer than Clinton.

At the Los Feliz location, a young man in his 20s, originally from Canada, didn't mince words about his feelings towards Clinton and why he chose Obama. He said that he "liked Obama's message," but he was voting for him mainly because he wanted to "stop Hillary."

Most Clinton partisans, by contrast, expressed support for Obama as well. At the Sherman Oaks location, one woman, a Clinton supporter, said that she liked both candidates and that choosing between the two was like "Sophie's Choice." At the same location, another woman told me that she hoped that the two candidates would combine forces in November. She said that the combination of the two of them would make "a powerful ticket" in the general election.

EPILOGUE

By the time I had finished interviewing people, it had gotten dark and there was a bit of a chill in the air. It felt like November already.

What I took away from all this was that something deeper than competing political philosophies is at play. For all intents and purposes, the positions of the two candidates on the issues are mostly the same. Moreover, in terms of history, either a black or a woman president would break barriers, were that the chief concern.

What really separated supporters were the categories of race and gender. The manner in which they manifested themselves were subtle but salient. I doubt that any of the people with whom I spoke would agree with that-- and they certainly wouldn't admit to it-- but when the pattern plays out obviously before one's eyes (and is borne out in exit polls throughout the nation), it's hard to come to any other conclusion about what, at least in part, affected a voter's choice.

It cannot be overlooked that the bulk of Clinton's support was female. Women, particularly white women, supported Clinton strongly, as did most Latinos. Men, with the exception of Latino males, were entirely for Obama, as were African-Americans.

The men who supported Obama consistently stated that they considered Clinton to be the past, the establishment, or polarizing. They never overtly made gender an issue, but when lines break in such a way, it's hard to ignore whether that was a component for them or not. To call a woman running for president the "past" is, quite simply, astounding, irrespective of what her surname is. It seemed too easy an out for them. Certainly the Clintons had had their time in the '90s, but to brush off so easily the historic component of gender in Hillary Clinton's candidacy was telling.

The women supporting Clinton gave the impression that they felt that Clinton's qualities and abilities were being overlooked or overshadowed because of her gender and were angry because of it. For them, her femaleness as well as her background, were both important and motivating.

Race was rarely mentioned, and only in terms of being past the notion of it. This was also astounding and, in my honest opinion, either disingenuous or willfully obfuscating. Over the past decade we've witnessed a stark racial divide over everything from Barry Bonds to Don Imus, from to Jena 6 to hip-hop. The Internet, television, talk radio and newspapers have been ablaze with opinion about the depth and nature of racism in the country. Over the past few months, it has seemed that there is always someone being accused of racism on one side or playing "the race card" on the other. To say that, suddenly, on January 4, 2008, the date of the Iowa Caucuses, everyone woke up "post-racial" seems a bit of a stretch.

More likely, politics makes strange bedfellows, and I would suspect that some of this "post-racialism" is an ideology of convenience in the service of political positioning or gender.

Some would like to pretend that the categories of race and gender no longer exist. That if we ignore them, then the attendant discrimination that has followed throughout this nation's history will just go away. Yet those categories do exist and they will continue to exist, no matter what we might wish. For the bigotry associated with them to disappear, covering our eyes to our differences may not be the best answer as blindness has never been known to cure most maladies.

The two candidacies are clearly symbolic. Symbols are valuable and symbols inspire, but how we manifest their meaning in our lives is more important. We can refer to Obama as "post-racial," but if we only apply that term to a brilliant, eloquent and telegenic presidential candidate and forget to apply that to the man or woman of color we meet on the street or in an elevator, the "Everyday Joe" or "Everyday Jane," we won't have achieved much from his candidacy. Voting for him should not be considered absolution from guilt or a "Get Out Of Bigotry Free" pass.

Similarly, when we find that some pay more than subtle attention to gender while making choices, while others pretend that it does not matter, there is bound to be an imbalance of representation and an inaccuracy in our outlook and sensibilities on the issue. If women play "gender neutral" while men play "gender specific," it's going to be a long time before we see extensive representation in the highest offices in the land.

For some, sexism feels more "innocuous" than racism. It's the old "men are from Mars, women are from Venus" canard. Yet, we have to be honest about how politics and economics-- everything from abortion to crime to poverty-- are looked at very differently by many men and women. When there isn't balanced representation, a balance of voices are not heard on the issues. Some may think of our country as being at the forefront of equality of the sexes, but a recent study by the World Economic Forum ranks the U.S. 31st in terms of gender equity-- and 69th in terms of political representation for women. These are not numbers of which we can be proud.

People are still voting based on their particular demographic allegiances. What's different about this election is that the demographic alliances are different.

It is a sad fact about human beings that our rivals inspire us to act, at times, more often than our allies. Anyone who reads blog postings on various political sites on the Internet can see an example of that. It was no different in earlier eras. The Confederacy was defined as much by not being Northerners as it was by being Southern. During the Cold War, the favorite slogan was "Better Dead Than Red," not "Capitalism is Freedom." On a (somewhat) lighter level, there's an old saying that the New Englander's two favorite teams are the Red Sox and anyone who plays the Yankees-- but not in that order-- a sure case of being driven by what you hate more than by what you love. It's not cynicism, it's history.

But to be human is to hope and to believe that the arrow of history can move upward, forward. I see this hope in younger voters, voters under 30. I see it in their enthusiasm and idealism. For those under 30, some of those particular identities appear to be less restrictive. Many young people seem more open to ally themselves with those of different backgrounds. They seem more ready to accept differences, note them and move past them. I saw that during election day-- not completely or fully, but often enough to let one feel optimistic.

There is a lot of voting left to be done. Perhaps these exclusionary patterns, which were evidenced not only in California, but throughout the nation, will break down. It remains to be seen. Yet if we wish to live up to our motto of "From many come one," then we need to give careful thought to why and how we choose and to how our brother and sister citizens have chosen as well.

I know this, at any rate: "A house divided against itself cannot stand." If we are to make this country stronger and better, we must continue to search deeply within our minds and souls as we pull the lever, press the button or dip the pen in a voting booth this election day, we must not turn a blind eye to reality, no matter how unpleasant.

GLAMOUR AND GRAVITAS: DEMOCRATIC DEBATE, LOS ANGELES, '08

I drove in from Syren Sea to Hollywood, to the Kodak Theatre, where the Democratic Presidential debate was being held. I did not have a ticket, but I wanted to be part of the experience of what has become the most exciting example of democracy in action that I have seen in my lifetime. The Democratic party offers two candidates who break the old patterns of leadership and offer America something new.

Young and old were in the streets by the thousands supporting their candidates, protesting the war, dancing to music being played. Celebrities whisked by: Stevie Wonder, Quentin Tarantino. The neon lights glimmered and the spotlights shone. Everyone was as excited by the debate as they would have been for a rock concert or a prizefight.

And indeed one had the sense of anticipation of a heavyweight fight, with two strong champions and grand venue and a star-studded crowd. The radio announcers even treat the opening as such, describing the two candidates dress as they step onto the stage, almost as if they are ready to take their corners before entering the ring.

The candidates conducted themselves with the highest level of statesmanship and governmental understanding. They were strong and they were cordial. They played to their strengths: Hillary the close-in slugger, working hard shots of knowledge and experience, Obama the boxer, bobbing and weaving his vision and inspiration. They never landed a knockout blow on the other-- really it was the Republicans who got decked in this one. What people saw was that the democrats had two champion professional fighters ready to duke it out with Republican lightweights still celebrating their Golden Gloves victories.

But beyond the mastery displayed by Hillary and Barack in the glittering Hollywood square circle of the Kodak Theatre, it was the Sweet Science called "Democracy" that was most impressive in its display outside the theater. Average Americans of all ages and races, both women and men, exercised their blessed birthright as citizens of this great republic and showed what has always made us a shining example of freedom and equality to the world. (Even in this era, when some have sought to tarnish the luster of that shine with creeping crypto-fascism.) These citizens showed not just enthusiasm, not just excitement, but flat-out joy in their participation in the democratic dialogue. Really it was a coming home party for the great American ideals of grassroots involvement and expression of political ideals and beliefs. People seemed to be saying, "We still have the power. We still determine the direction of this land. `We the People,' not the corporate despots or the media manipulators, but average Janes and Joes who make their voices heard and their votes count."

For all the glamour and spectacle inside, for all the celebrity both on the stage and in the audience, the real stars of this debate were the anonymous citizens who raised their voices all along the streets of Hollywood.