This past Monday evening, I drove up to my alma mater (UNH) for a town-meeting-style event featuring Barack Obama. This interested me for a number of reasons: one, because he had just announced his 2008 candidacy for president; and two, because at the present time he is the leading candidate (so far) to earn my vote. Deep down, I was hoping that he could be a politician that inspires me, one that I could actually support and not just in a lesser-of-two-evils sort of way.
During lunch on Monday, to get myself excited, I went on YouTube and watched his speech from the 2004 DNC. I had never actually seen it, but since I had heard so much about it, I felt compelled to check it out. It did not dissapoint. It was a great speech and I can see why it generated so much fanfare. It’s worth noting that it also probably raised my expectations to a fairly unreachable height.
In short, by the conclusion of Monday evening, I was not inspired…but I wasn’t disapointed either. Let me explain.
Barack Obama comes across as a very logical and incredibly reasonable individual. There is no doubt that he is intelligent and well spoken. However, he offsets that with an innumerable amount of political cliches and sweeping generalizations. One thing that struck me about 10 minutes into the evening was how incredibly early this is in the process. I mean really, really, early in the process - like 21 months early. This was a candidate who not only just announced (about 48 hours earlier) his candidacy, he was still an incredibly long way from knowing whether he even had a chance. Thus confirming that my expectations (created by him three years ago) were probably too high. That being said, he certainly did not dissapoint.
In some ways, I would have almost rather heard a prepared speech, something polished and pointed that would address key issues and give Obama the opportunity to really shine (like at the DNC). The problem, of course, with a town-meeting-style approach, is that it is wholly dependent on the quality of the questions. Many times the questions are convoluted and complex, causing answers that often ramble and miss the point. Other times, they are such softballs that it’s everything the speaker can do to not gush his response. Questions like “What makes you such a great candidate?” come to mind.
In this regard, UNH certainly did not dissapoint. If anything, I thought the questions were almost too pointed and direct. After a casual and easy-going introduction, Barack warmly opened up the floor to a young freshman female who hesitantly stood up, demurely introduced herself, and then dropped this “What are your plans for nuclear proliferation in North Korea?” To quote Howard Stern, “What-What-What WHAT!?!.”
(on a side note, the problem with these type of “hard” questions is that they come off as incredibly forced)
A bit taken aback, Obama smoothly answered the question and moved on. The content and tone of the questions remained consistent throughout the night: Iraq, climate change, health care, bang, bang, bang (not a single softball in the bunch). In an attempt to give himself a bit of a break, Barack called on a shy little 14-year-old boy, who stood up, quietly introduced himself, and dropped this “What are you going to do about our immigration problems?” Ha! Sorry Obama, nothing is coming easy tonight. Barack chuckled, admitted he was hoping for something along the lines of “What did you want to be when you were in seventh grade?,” and then proceeded to answer (indirectly) the question.
I say “indirectly,” because there Obama gave very few concrete answers on Monday night; it was more like concepts. One student finally pressed Obama to give some actual (policy) solutions, and I have to give Obama much credit, because he smoothly rolled off three distinct climate change bills that he has created (along with McCain and Lieberman) that he intends to make into law.
Throughout the evening, I was trying to think of an interesting question and I concluded that I would ask him to list some things that he felt Bush has done well over the years (as much as he stayed away from any negative comments regarding Bush, he did note a few times how poorly he thought the administration had performed over the last six years. Well, lo and behold, during his immigration answer (of which white seventh grade boys in New Hampshire lie awake at night worrying over), he came right out and said that he thought Bush’s feelings towards immigration were right on the money and that he wished more Republicans shared Bush’s thoughts on that issue. I have to say, I was impressed with that little nugget.
The toughest question that Barack faced all night was on the issue of gay marriage. He was asked rather bluntly what his stance was and he quickly opened by explaining that when his parents (one white, one black) were married in the 60’s, they had been technically breaking the law. I found that to be a great opening to the answer and I expected him to follow it up with something along the lines of “I believe in marriage between any two people who love each other,” or something to that effect.
What did happen, though, was a little strange (and offputting to me). He started rambling about civil unions and about how important it was for those rights to be upheld for any couple that chooses to spend their life together. He went on to explain how the he considers the concept of marriage to be a religious one, both within his own life and across the board. He believes that within the confines of the religious definition of marriage, gay marriage has no place. This confused me and incidentally became the major topic of our (me and friends’) post-event wrap up (held at the Uber-amazing new UNH dining hall).
The difference appears to be in the semantics. While Obama believes that any two people that are in love should be able to share their life and all the legal benefits that come with a marriage, he does not believe in “calling” it a marriage or really in recognizing it as such. He believes in the differentiation between being “married” and having a “civil union.”
That really annoyed me (especially given his opening line). I think I am especially annoyed because my own wedding is coming and I personally am not having a religious ceremony. I am being married outdoors, facilitated by a friend, with vows that I will have written myself. Basically, I’m creating a civil union, but because I’m joining my life with a woman, the government (and society) is willing to recognize and refer to it as a marriage. However, if two gay people who are quite religious decide to join their lives in love, they would not be recognized as married, but rather as part of a civil union. I understand it’s semantics and I recognize that the differentiation is being made in an effort to attract as much of the religious vote as possible, but it’s annoying.
So, to wrap up, Barack Obama is most definitely an eloquent speaker who comes across at all times as ethical, reasonable, and affable. While he speaks in a vast array of political cliches, he answers questions deftly and when pressed, specifically. Did I find myself inspired and uplifted on Monday evening? Not really. Was that too much to ask almost two years prior to the presidential election ? Maybe. Is he still the leading candidate to win my vote in 2008? I would say yes.
Tony Dungy, er, Barack Obama, appears that he will make a fine presidential candidate.
Let the games begin.
24 Comments
Good post. I agree with you that it is still perhaps too early to “get hype” for any particular candidate, especially when none of them is going to let him- or herself be nailed down to concrete statements this early in the game. Yet another way in which our instant-media culture is mutating the democratic process, the fact that primaries begin 20+ months in advance seems pretty circus-like.
I mean, don’t these people have jobs they should be doing in the mean time? Shouldn’t they be senating, or something?
Adam and I already spoke a little about this, and I had said that, while I thought gay couples should be allowed to marry, I also understood the argument that “marriage” is a religious issue and “civil unions” is a secular one. I also said that, personally, I’d rather have a “civil union” than a “marriage,” because I don’t fully respect the origins of marriage and it’s direct tie to the concept of property (cf. “The Origins of the Family, Private Property, and the State,” by Frederick Engles). I know a certain radical feminist who does not want to get “married” because of the tradition’s connection to the patriarchy (which itself retains its power through the concept of property).
But the more I think of it, the more I agree with Adam that the “marriage is a religious issue” argument is a complete dodge of the question. “Marriage as a religious issue” seems to imply that marriage is a covenant taken before the eyes of the one, true God, where two individuals pledge their souls to each other and promise to do all that is right for and right by the other. It is a sacred event, a blessed union of wills.
The next step of the argument — that homosexuals should not be allowed to participate in this sacred event — asserts the judgement of God. For Christians, this is the same God who spoke, “Judge not, lest ye be judged.” By what authority do Christians make this assertion? Those who would say the Bible turn a blind eye to the human editors of that work of art, human editors who — living in their own shallow horizon of space and time — could not help but insert their own personal ignorance into the text (Yes, I am denying the inspiration of the Holy Spirit here).
My question for Obama and any other “gay-friendly” individuals who would agree with him on this issue is why they believe two individuals who love one another and who are prepared to submit to one another and who desire to declare their union sacred before the eyes of God should be denied the opportunity?
So the next logical step is to fully understand what a civil union is (currently) and how that differs from what some people are calling a civil marriage - this two pager should help.
so kyle, when you say that you’d rather have a “civil union” I think what you mean is a “civil marriage”
http://glad.org/rights/OP7-marriagevcu.PDF
It might also be worthwhile to discuss a.) What Obama personally believes vs. b.) What Obama thinks is best politically. I’m not particularly educated on the gay marriage issue, but I think it’s possible that he might be trying to posture for votes here…maybe his stance on this is simply what he thinks is most achievable right now?
I’d be a lot more impressed if Barack or any candidate came out said something like:
“The fact that we are discussing religions place in a Government that was founded on the separation of Religion and Government is confusing to me and a waste of all of our time.
There may or may not be any higher powers/beings/gods/aliens etc. All the current knowledge that I and anyone else without a deep religous bias has shows no evidence of this ‘god’ that less than half of you pray regularly too.
So until we get a burning on bush on video or something that offers any proof for these remarkable claims let us stick to the business of governing this country and creating a just society.
To that end I support the right of any two people to legally marry each other, go nuts, have at it hoss. Get married with a priest, get married with a minister, rabbi, friend, government official, whatever as long as they are licensed, the state has collected its tax and they agree to marry you. Note that government officials are ordered to marry you, and if you’re friends won’t do it, they might be trying to tell you something.
Marry away.”
I also want to mention one other bit from Obama’s UNH appearance…an issue he briefly touched on (and I hope he makes this a bigger talking point) is the notion of “trivial politics”. He was saying that he wants to reach out to the people who feel politics have become completely disconnected from real life and the demands of the public (by being co-opted by special interests). I think this is a very important point, and if Obama really is able to address this (through specific policies, not just talking about it), I’d definitely consider voting for him.
I thought the founding fathers (puritans, right) were EXTREMELY religious - just read anything written by them during that time. They wanted religious (and financial) seperation from the British, but not the seperation of religion and government - I’m not a history major, but that seems like an untruism Josh.
Another thing he said which I thought was interesting was he he would like to eliminate the cynicism of young people with regards to politics….to me it was a shot at things like the Daily Show …..
now as a fairly avid watcher of the daily show, I think I’ve got as much or more cynicism than anyone….and I wish that wasn’t the case….
Josh I think it is a government issue becuase of the legal issues that come with being married.(taxes, healthcare and such)
Adam I am not sure how many of the founding fathers were puratain. If i remember right there were were Quakers, Episcopalians,Deists; agnostics. I think one who was an atheist I can’t remember wich one though.
Adam, like any other group of people the founders had an array of religious beliefs, but don’t forget the people of this country at that time passed the first amendment to the Constitution.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
This *IS* the separation of church and state.
Good point Adam, although I think the benefits of Daily Show/Colbert Report outweigh the negatives, in regards to making people more cynical about politics (keep in mind that I’m saying this as someone on the FAR left).
My point is that if people are more cynical as a result of being more aware of what’s going on, I’ll take it. Each year, it seems the U.S. public gets a little less connected to the issues, or even aware of what’s happening to them. Case in point: a Time poll last week showed that 22% of people had never even HEARD of Barack Obama (http://www.srbi.com/time_poll.html) How is that possible???
I am not sure the daily show benefits anything besides making poeple laugh. People should not be getting the bulk of their information on there on what is or is not happening in the world of politics.
I agree that we have mostly seperated church and state, and that it is the result of the first amendment (among other things) but I don’t think that was what our government was founded on…..I think there is more than enough proof that even today, we haven’t fully accomplished that seperation. There is still a lot of work to be done.
Hence the “debate” but I supposed a logical answer is to say that this is a silly debate, because our country was founded on the answer.
I mean, the founding fathers also said that all men were created equal, so why do we even talk about racism, its obvious that our entire country was founded on equality. It’s not an issue.
They said that and had slaves, that is why I don’t like when people quote what they said like it has any bearing on what is going on today. You can not separate the two completely because for a lot of people their morals come from their religion. Now a simplistic way to look at government (legislators) and their job to make laws (statutes) is they are supposed to take the groups morals and turn that into laws. But some people’s morals come from their personal ethics and some from their religious beliefs. Marriage is not mentioned in the constitution so that leaves that issue up to each state.
The problem we run into with marriage and the constitution is in the big C it says that each state has to abide by other states laws. For instance if it is legal for a person to get married at 15 in Alabama and the legal age is 18 in Texas, if the couple gets married in Alabama then moves to Texas, Texas has to recognize their marriage.
Wow. A ton of comments since I came by here last. So, as I read through, if I have anything to say, I’m just gonna scroll down here to the comment form and insert it. This may come off a little willy-nilly:
* Adam, good link on the Civil Union/Civil Marriage thing. It helped me changed my mind. I’ll take a civil marriage, thank you very much.
* Dovev, in Adam’s post, he said something about how Obama’s stance is posturing for votes, but I don’t think that’s fair. At most, it’s cynical. I know people who feel exactly as Obama does. They believe homosexuals should have all the rights and benefits and responsibilities that come with marriage, but they don’t want homosexuals to use the word marriage. None of the people I know are trying to win votes.
* Josh, in the second-to-last season of West Wing, there’s an episode (episode 20: In God We Trust) where it’s revealed the Republican candidate for President, played by Alan Alda, doesn’t go to church and hasn’t believed in God since his wife died of cancer. At the end of the episode, the press asks him if he believes in God, and he says, “I don’t see how we can a separation of Church and state in this government if we have to pass a religious test to get into this government. And I want to warn all the press and all the voters out there, if you demand expressions of religious faith from politicians, you are just begging to be lied to. They won’t all lie to you, but a lot of them will. And it’ll be the easiest lie they ever had to tell to get your votes. So from this day to the end of this campaign, I’ll answer any question anyone has on government, but if you have have a question on religion, please, go to Church.” Of course, it should be said, that the writers of West Wing — mostly liberals — tried to create a Republican candidate they would vote for.
* Dovev, I second that on getting rid of “trivial politics.” But it’d be interesting to see what kind of policies this could actually motivate.
* Adam, the founding fathers are traditionally considered the group of men who helped write the U.S. Constitution, and not so much the Puritans who landed on Plymouth Rock. Within the founding fathers, you have pantheists, deists, and all sorts of varieties of Christians.
* Adam again, re: The Daily Show; I don’t think it is filled with cynicism. If you watch it, you’ll see how earnestly Jon Stewart wants to believe in government again.
* Justin & Josh: Oops, you corrected Adam already.
* Justin, re: the use of the Daily Show: while I think the ultimate goal of the Daily Show is to make us laugh — Jon Stewart made that clear when he appeared on Crossfire (an appearance that led to the cancellation of Crossfire)–but I also think that it’s as good a show as any to get “the news.” With that being said, I think anyone that depends on television news as their primary source of information is woefully uninformed. In the same way that one you should use Wikipedia, one should use the TV news (including the Daily Show); that is, use it a spur to find out more, and not as a final source all its own. With the Daily Show, you can at least know what motivates their selection of what to air and what not to air (the chance for a laugh), whereas with the regular news, who knows what ulterior motive lies behind each segment and news crawl.
* Justin: I second the idea of taking the words of the founding fathers for what their worth — they were not gods, nor did they want to be.
Now, just to try to bring it all back to Obama for a moment, we know that, at this moment anyway, Obama has Adam’s vote. Where do the rest of you stand?
Again, just a straw poll here. We won’t hunt you down and kill you if you change your mind tomorrow.
To early for me, I need to see at least a billion dollars spent on commercials, the daily shows count downs and snipits of the candidates speeches taken out of contex to make them look dumb, and other good sources of information.
That would be if I voted.
Kyle, getting the “political news” from the daily show is the same as getting it from the political comics in the newspaper.
i’ll tell you this… - it won’t be a republican… - no matter how many times mccain goes on saturday night live… - he’s still a pile of goo that blinks seven times every three seconds… - that’s what he reminds me of… - a stinking pile of blinking goo… - in a suit…
I’m excited about Obama, so he’s probably got my vote at the moment, but over the next–what? 21 months?–there’s a chance that Edwards could step things up. It seems as if he’s been speaking his mind for the last 10 months or so, and if he keeps it up and doesn’t get all smarmy, he’s got a chance in my eyes (not to win per se, but to win my vote). Of course, if Gore actually does step into the race, all bets are off. Because Gore has impressed the hell out of me for the last four years.
In that case, if Gore, Edwards, and Obama are all in it, and all still impressive in their ways, then I don’t know who I’d vote for.
I’ll tell you who I won’t vote for, though, and that’s Hillary Clinton. She ain’t ever getting my vote. Not even in the general. I don’t like Guiliani or McCain, and I’m pretty sure I don’t like Romney, but I REALLY don’t like Clinton. If she makes it to the general, I’ll probably find a third-party candidate to vote for.
We will see how advanced this country is. I just do not see this country electingsomeone who is not male or pasty white. Shit people won’t vote for Romney because he is mormon.
I am all set with Gore.
Why would you vote for Romney? He’s a douche.
I am not saying to vote for him or he is or is not a douche, my point is that the only reason some people will not vite for him is because he is a mormon.
That’s because Mormons believe in some crazy shit. And if you’re gullible enough to believe in Mormonism, then I really don’t want you running my country. The same could be said of pretty much any religion, of course, but I don’t think this theocratic country is going to elect an atheist anytime soon.
I agree Mormonism is pretty fucked but I have no problem with that or any other religion. What you said is the main reason he will not elected and there are people out there who say things like “I will not vote for a woman because or “I will not vote for Obama because
And yes I am saying that not voting for a mormon because he is a mormon is as insane as not voting for a woman or person that is not pasty white.