The Political Wonder That Is Obama
Toyin Falola
The Political Wonder That Is Obama
Created 02/21/2008 - 03:22
To date, Senator Obama has won in 24 states (excluding the Virgin Islands) to Senator Clinton's 10, which translates into a lead of 1361 delegates over Senator Clinton's 1252 (2,025 are needed to win the nomination). The gap widens further when only pledged delegates are considered, excluding the so-called superdelegates comprised of Democratic Party leaders and officials-1199 for Obama and 1040 for Clinton. Even more extraordinary are the margins of victory for the young black male senator: he won by more than 55% in 20 states compared to 4 states for the older white female senator, by 65% and higher in 10 states as opposed to only one for Senator Clinton, and by over 75% in 3 states a feat the latter has not achieved anywhere. Thus the gap between the two in the popular vote is even wider than is apparent in the current allocation of delegates. For Senator Clinton to catch up with Senator Obama, let alone to win the nomination, she would have to beat her rival in the remaining contests by double digit margins that have eluded her so far. That is of course not impossible, but a desperately daunting task. And the superdelegates, whose support she banked on, are now anxiously looking over their political shoulders and recalculating their options. No wonder some pundits are busy writing obituaries of her presidential ambition as her campaign surrenders to faith in political miracles and sharpens its attacks against Senator Obama.
What accounts for Senator Obama's meteoric rise from an obscure community organizer in Chicago to the celebrated frontrunner in the Democratic Party's nomination for the 2008 presidential elections only three years after his election to the U.S. Senate? How has he been able to overwhelm the fabled Clinton electoral machine, forcing her once assumed inevitable candidacy into gasping for its political breath, a prospect that was unimaginable only a few weeks ago when upstart Obama's audacity of hope was expected to perish in a Clintonian tsunami on Super Tuesday. If Senator Obama prevails and wins the nomination, and in November the presidency, still big ifs given the unpredictable twists and turns of electoral politics and the historic improbability of his candidacy, his success, and even if he does not win either, his momentous appeal thus far, could be attributed to four sets of votes: against Bush and Billary and for him and the future.
Seven years of the disastrous Bush presidency-perhaps the worst in U.S. history according to some scholars-have left most Americans deeply despondent at home and widely distrusted, if not despised, abroad. They despair over the unending and horrendously costly wars in Afghanistan and Iraq which are draining an economy reeling from a housing crisis and staring at recession and sapping the nation's notorious self-assurance. They deplore bitter partisanship, opportunism, and callousness that have permeated and poisoned the political culture. The chickens of neo-liberalism and neo-conservatism, consummated during the Bush presidency, have come home to roost and the ugly results have been rather disquieting to many Americans leaving them yearning for new beginnings, for change. The huge and in some cases unprecedented turnouts at Democratic Party primaries and caucuses, easily eclipsing those of the Republican Party, are eloquent testimonies to America's desire to transcend the Bush years.
It is a vote against the republicanization of America that began with the contested civil rights settlement of the late 1960s and early 1970s and which has finally run its course. Conservative principles and posturing increasingly sound like an old broken record out of step with the tempestuous rhythms of the times. This is what the Obama phenomenon has tapped into, a deep emotional need for change, for hope, for escape from the mean, fearful post-9/11 era. Watching him at his exhilarating multiracial rallies is to witness a more hopeful America gesturing to the future, a different America from that of Senator McCain who is often surrounded by dour old white men, an embarrassing public portrait that history is desperately seeking to leave behind.
If many Americans see redemption in the Democratic Party, within the party itself many are increasingly recoiling from a Clinton coronation, from a dynastic restoration of a Billary presidency. As President Clinton aggressively and angrily campaigns for his wife, Senator Clinton claims experience from her husband's presidency, thereby both unwittingly suggesting that Hillary's presidency will be as much Bill's as the latter's was hers. It was perhaps in South Carolina that the electorate, beginning with African Americans, fully woke up to the insufferable conceit of the Clintons, their blatant sense of presidential entitlement when they sought to demean Senator Obama's candidacy and diminish the Rev. Martin Luther King's legacy. As Mr. Clinton was stripped of his honorary status as America's first black president bestowed upon him with poetic playfulness by Toni Morrison, who proceeded to endorse Mr. Obama, Mrs. Clinton began to lose the black vote by embarrassingly overwhelming margins.
While the race card divorced the Clintons from Black America, negative campaigning reminded the rest of the electorate of the unprincipled politics of the Clinton Administration, the emptiness of triangulation, the moral decrepitude of the impeached president, which paved way for the moralizing terror of the current Bush Administration. While some trumpted the good old days of the 1990s, others remembered that it was under President Clinton's watch that the Democratic Party lost both houses of congress, many governorships and state legislatures, and the rightwing agenda of dismantling the welfare state was pursued with vigor. As Cassandra R Veney stated on The Zeleza Post, Clinton was not a friend of black people whether in America or Africa contrary to the popular mythology. The fresh senator from Illinois benefited from the rising discontent with the Clintons, which overshadowed the historic importance, in gender terms, of Senator Clinton's own candidacy.
But Senator Obama did not simply ratchet up negative victories. He won because of the redemptive potential of his candidacy, the promise to redeem white America from the enduring guilt of slavery and segregation and Black America from the gutter of second class citizenship and limited expectations, to renew the seductive narrative of the American dream, restore hope to an eternally optimistic people, to rebrand the country's tattered image in the world. Not surprisingly, his mesmerized audiences at his rapturous rallies receive his soaring oratory with the ecstasy of converts at a religious revival and revelers at a rock or rap concert. Senator Obama possesses that most elusive and valuable of political attributes-charisma-that is often embodied in, and projected onto, a leader in times of national crisis when the population is yearning for civic salvation. And America desperately longs for racial reconcialiation at home and popular paternalism abroad.
However, Obama's astonishing electoral successes go beyond charisma, or the appeal of his blackness for a postracial America exemplified in his biography as a son of a Kenyan-Kansan couple who was raised in Hawaii and Indonesia and went to Ivy League colleges, or the eloquence of his speeches; it is also a tribute to the brilliance of his organizational skills. Senator Barack has skillfully built a remarkable electoral machine, a modern mass movement that combines old style community organization, hardball party politics, and digital mobilization. Through this he has been able to recruit volunteers, energize supporters, raise staggering amounts of money-$36 million in January alone-and establish a formidable campaign presence throughout the country.
Whereas the Clinton campaign concentrated on the large states, reminiscent of the farcical candidacy of former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani in the Republican primaries, and assumed the contest would be over on Super Tuesday and failed to plan for the day after, the Obama campaign prepared for a protracted campaign in every state, big and small, ignoring no community, rich and poor, men and women, democrats, independents and republicans, and all racial and ethnic groups in a methodical drive to win votes and delegates and, more grandly, to build a new democratic majority. No wonder he has increasingly extended his support across all demographic groups including those claimed to be bedrock Clintonites, putting the lie to one claim after another that Obama is only attractive to blacks, the young, men, and those earning more than $50,000 while Clinton has a lock on white women, the elderly, Hispanics, and blue color workers.
If he wins I suspect his organizational prowess will be studied more closely than the boisterous rhetoric of his speeches. Senator Obama has out-financed, out-organized, and out-maneuvered Senator Clinton at every turn except when it comes to launching negative attacks, which do not seem to have worked so far, not least because he has refused to be swift-boated. On this basis alone, he has proved a superior candidate to Senator Clinton who squandered an early lead, run out of money after raising nearly $120 million, and has managed a leaky operation that has been revamped several times, and has failed to find her voice despite the much-trumpeted 35 years of experience and her self-proclaimed readiness to govern from Day 1.
The votes for Senator Obama of course also represent a vote for the future as seen most poignantly in the way his candidacy has fired up the imaginations of the youth. In a way this is a generational contest, between the post baby-boomer and post-civil rights generations and the depression era and baby boom generations. Senator McCain, 71, the presumptive Republican nominee and Senator Clinton, 60, the fading Democratic aspirant represent the latter, respectively, whereas Senator Obama, 47, was born a year after John F. Kennedy, another inter-generational icon whose mantle Obama relishes, was elected in 1960. For older and establishment politicians including African Americans some of whom are anguishing over and even recanting their earlier support for Senator Clinton, the Obama juggernaut has been quite bewildering.
It shows that there might be a new postcivil rights generation-in terms of both age and sensibility-that does not find the idea of a black president such an improbable proposition. This hip hop and multiculturalist generation has grown up seeing blacks occupying high political offices in unprecedented numbers from mayors to governors to senators to judges to cabinet secretaries, and as professionals, not simply as idols of popular culture in sports and entertainment. This is to suggest there may be a cultural shift taking place in American society, a new social imaginary of citizenship might be emerging, underpinned by the very limited dispensations of the civil rights settlement the Republicans have worked so hard to overturn, as well as by new productions and consumptions of popular culture, and transformations in domestic and global racial geographies as articulated in demographic shifts and the circuits of globalization.
What are the implications of the Obama candidacy for the Pan-African world? He will be a fascinating footnote if he fails to win the nomination. But if he does he will generate enormous pride among people of African descent everywhere, and should he proceed to capture the presidency he will write a new chapter in the history of the African diaspora in the Americas. He will not of course be the first diasporan African to assume a position of national leadership. Rulers of African descent are known in the histories of India and Andalusian Spain, for example. Even in the racially checkered history of the Americas several leaders of African descent emerged as presidents. Examples include from Mexico, Jose Maria Morelos (1765-1815), the revolutionary leader of the Mexican War of Independence and Vicente Guerrero (1732-1831), the second president of Mexico; and from Venezuela there is Jose Antonio Paez (1790-1873) who served as president three times, 1830-1835, 1839-1842, and 1861-1863. Thus, the United States is more than a century behind Latin America on this score.
However, as inspiring as his ascent would be, the import of his achievement would be more symbolic than substantive. In other words, a President Obama would not fundamentally alter the structural and social impediments that have long faced African Americans, nor would it significantly temper the imperialist impulses of the United States in Africa and other regions in the global South. This is because as important as the presidency is, it is only one center of power in the American hegemon dominated by the military, prison, corporate, and media industrial complexes. And Senator Obama is not, in any meaningful way, a radical, let alone a revolutionary figure; if he was he would not have gone this far in the deeply conservative American political system and culture. He is as ensconced in the American mainstream as are all the white men and the white woman who have sought the presidency during this presidential election cycle. That does not mean I will not welcome, or even celebrate his victory. After all, I have made a small contribution to his campaign, my first in an American election, and his victory would be a welcome return on that investment. More importantly of course it would offer us all some respite from the unrelenting terror and mediocrity of the Bush years.
First Written February 20, 2008.
Source URL:
--
Toyin Falola
Department of History
The University of Texas at Austin
1 University Station
Austin, TX 78712-0220
USA
512 475 7224
512 475 7222 (fax)
http://www.toyinfalola.com/
www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa
http://groups.google.com/group/yorubaaffairs
http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
Biko Agozino
Hilary is not Ready
By Biko Agozino
The debate in Texas between Hilary Clinton and Barack
Obama revealed what Clinton has been doing wrong,
revealing that she is not ready to perform even with
all her claim to being more experienced. The simple
rule that you should address your opponent in a debate
was ignored by Senator Clinton while Senator Obama
focused almost all his attention on either his
opponent or on the interviewers.
The difference is a performance strategic blunder for
Clinton who spoke as if addressing the camera, making
the viewer to see her as possibly overbearing, making
Obama to appear more agreeable and more focused. This
is a basic rule of the motion picture camera, you are
told to ignore it and speak directly to people
especially if you are going to be on screen for a long
time. Obama was ready for the task, Clinton was not.
For example, the interviewers, the experienced media
specialists that they were, never gazed into the
camera whereas Clinton could hardly get away from that
gaze the way amateurs do in front of the camera. Obama
came across as the seasoned professional ready to be
President from day one, but to even suggest that any
of the candidates would not be ready for the job from
day one is just another sign of a silly season for any
of them, in fact anyone would be ready from day one,
there was never anyone who was not ready from day one
as US President, and so the difference lies in who has
the better strategy and better policies for the people
with the yes we can American pragmatism of Obama to
implement the envisioned change.
The reluctance of Clinton to look at Obama as
attentively as he looked at her when addressing her or
answering the question that she apparently asked the
camera, reveals a suspected feeling of inferiority and
if you do not feel inferior to a guy who beat you in
eleven straight contests, then you must be living in a
fairytale world. However, she does not do this only
with her opponents, she does it with her supporters at
rallies by gazing into the cameras more than necessary
for a professional performer, perhaps because Kennedy
may have gazed into the camera to tell Americans not
to ask what their country could do for them, she may
have been advised, but then that was in the olden days
of television.
Today, such a staring gaze does not only make her look
more amateurish, it makes her also seem phoney or
scripted and choreographed for in the real world you
do not look into the camera while speaking to someone
sitting or standing next to you. That is actually why
actors are instructed from day one to ignore cameras,
to appear more real, to get real as it were. She did
not seem to know why the chairs were swivel chairs,
she sat rigidly staring straight ahead in a spooky way
while Obama swiveled round and took notes attentively
as she addressed him without looking at him.
The failure of Clinton to look people in the eyes when
talking to them reflects also a cavalier approach to
questions that would not be trustworthy in a leader
who is ready from day one. When she was asked in New
Hampshire who was her hair stylist for her hair looked
good all the time, she was said to have teared up
instead of giving credit to the hardworking stylist
whereas most women would respond with a smile and say
thanks or return the compliment and say that you do
not look bad either.
I am almost certain that if you asked Obama who his
barber was, he would tell you straight up so that you
know where to get you hair cut when next you are in
this city or that, or he could say that his wife was
his best barber for it is a simple low cut that he
wears, anyone could cut his hair the way most men and
women get by in America without the privilege of
personal barbers or stylists.
That inability to focus on questions showed up again
in the Texas debate when asked what the candidates
would consider to be the moment that most tested them.
Obama said that they were many but reminded the
audience that he was part of the American Dream which
said that even if you were raised by a single mother
(and your grandparents as he always adds), you could
rise to aspire to the white house, from a log cab in
to the white house. That same question to Clinton
produced what could be best interpreted as her
concession speech, a valedictory speech.
Refusing to answer the question, she seemed to have
been asked more questions especially by Mr Ramos than
Obama who got many more follow up questions instead
and perhaps prepared his thoughts better, she said
that everyone knew that she had gone through trials
and then she went on to talk, not about her own trials
but about the trials of others. She ended by saying
how proud she was to be sitting beside Obama, then she
xeroxed the words of John Edwards almost verbatim but
without acknowledgement, the same ‘silly season’
challenge she had posed to Obama earlier as political
plagiarism or photocopy type of change, and to which
Obama rebutted directly by saying that the allegedly
plagiarized words were given to him by a member of his
team who asked him to use it, but she did not
apologize for the misleading false charge of
dishonesty.
She was booed then by a largely university audience
which knew perfectly well that saying ‘We hold these
truths to be self-evident’ and asking if those were
just words but without citing the source is not really
plagiarism or academic dishonesty. At the end, she
tried to score points by echoing John Edwards when she
said that no matter the outcome of the election, she
and people like her would be all right (of course they
would be, they are millionaires), but how about the
people, she asked.
She could still help to serve the people by working in
a capacity other than Commander in Chief as she has
done in all her touted past experiences. Perhaps it is
time for her to throw in the towel and be a good
sport, accept that Obama is the better candidate for
her party. He is attentive to the fact that the
citizens must be united across party lines to make
their country greater for the benefit of all but she
seemed willing to allow the so called Superdelegates
to ‘sort things out’ in the end even though she knows
perfectly well that that would wound her party in the
coming election. She could improve the chances of her
party by conceding now openly and falling behind Obama
to give him all her support like many of his very
realistic supporters, including all the major
newspapers in Texas.
If she would not concede and is waiting for help from
party bosses, then those registered to vote in the
party primaries should continue to hand Obama
resounding victories that no Superdelegate would
ignore with a clear conscience. He came across as the
one who is more ready to be President from day one.
Biko Agozino is Professor of Sociology at the
University of the West Indies, St. Augustine, Trinidad
and Tobago: bago...@yahoo.com
____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
Rita Kiki Edozie
As usual, I found that in that debate as she has done with others to show that Clinton is the stronger, more effective leader A poll shows that again. But this is niether here nor there. In a longer essay when I have time, I'll express why I admire her leadership qualities. It should be noted however that I continue to support Clinton, but that doesn't mean that I'm anti-Obama, as many Obama supporters seem to be regarding Clinton.
If Clinton loses, as a Democrat, I will support Obama as I think that he has strong qualities too- and several Americans believe so too. I just don't want McCain!
Rita Kiki Edozie (Ph.D.)
Assistant Professor of International Politics
International Relations (James Madison)
Michigan State University, East Lansing
Office Location: 364 North Case Hall
Office phone: 517-432-5291
Website: http://www.msu.edu/~rkedozie/
Nkolika Ebele
Thank heavens that many of us in this part of the
world were also opportuned to watch this debate.You
guys should stop looking for fault where there is
none. This woman has done nothing wrong in the way she
conducted herself through out the debate. Why must
she do as Obama has done. You 're free to choose any
candidate of your choice but pls for goodness sake
stop demonizing the woman for no just cause.I have
listened to Obama say many times that Hilary is a
divider,Why is he not antagonized for that statement?
Is that remark a compliment?I just understand it that
under the pressure of campaign the candidates are
bound to make some statements that will try to
convince the electors why they are better
candididates.The two candidates were just gorgeous
yesterday in the way they conducted themselves.Either
way there must be a loser and a winner. If Obama has
been losing, many would have attributed it to racial
politics, now it is the lady losing, you still
demonize her for losing. If you believe in Obama try
to rise above this kind of politics which according to
Obama is no longer fashionable.
Nkolika,
Nigeria.
=== message truncated ===
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
Biko Agozino
My message does not demonize Clinton at all. I gave
her free media consultancy advice that would cost her
millions of dollars to buy. It is too late for her to
apply my advice now and so I called on her to support
the better candidate. Would I call on the devil to
support anyone? No.
My comments were on her leadership skills in front of
the camera and in response to questions. I found her
lacking in the technical details that I identified. It
was a constructive criticism for the benefit of those
who might find themselves in front of a camera
tomorrow without knowing how to take charge of the
situation and respond to questions adequately. If you
are not ready for such a simple task, my view remains
that you are not yet ready for the challenges of
leadership in the present multimedia world.
Her idea of taking boxing gloves to office as
President to fight her enemies was correctly
identified by Obama as old divisive politics. Why?
Because the job of the President comes with a job
description which says that you will be president for
the USA as Obama never tires to remind us, you will
not be a President for only your friends and family.
Obama is right in seeking to unite all the people
across party lines because you will find liberals in
the Republican Party and you will find conservatives
in the Democratic Party. Obama is the best candidate
out there but you are entitled to support any other
candidate of your choice without accusing those who
see flaws in your candidate as demonizers. As Obama
says repeatedly, Mrs Clinton is his friend and they
share a lot of policy positions but negative
campaigning and divisive politics would not succeed in
implementing those good policies.
Obama's strategy of mobilising the young and the
old,white and black, men and women to oppose
lobbyists, bring back the troops from Iraq within a
year, give more than four thousand dollars to every
university student, stop tax cuts for the super rich
who do not need it but give the tax cuts to the poor,
provide healthcare for all, and speak to friends and
enemies alike to find ways of normalising relations,
making the world safer, more democratic and more
affluent are policies that should be supported by all
Americans and by those of us in other parts of the
world who love America.
I agree with you that both candidates are good but I
maintain that Obama is the better candidate.
Biko
=== message truncated ===
____________________________________________________________________________________
Folu Ogundimu
Regardless of your candidate preference, your so-called 'expert' analysis of
the debate performance of Senator Clinton in respect of her disposition to
the camera and Senator Obama at last night's debate was clearly off base and
inaccurate. Clearly, both candidates had moments of brilliance and the
overall quality of the debate was civil, intense, passionate, and at-times
quite jocular.
As one who teaches classes on broadcast journalism; and press and politics,
I am writing however to take issue with your sociological analysis of the
visual grammar of television in relation to Mrs Clinton's presentation at
the debate. At the risk of tedium, I will not recount the many fallacies in
your posting about political communication and performance television. But
here is an example of what you wrote:
"The difference is a performance strategic blunder for Clinton who spoke
as if addressing the camera, making the viewer to see her as possibly
overbearing, making Obama to appear more agreeable and more focused.
This is a basic rule of the motion picture camera, you are told to
ignore it and speak directly to people especially if you are going to be
on screen for a long time. Obama was ready for the task, Clinton was
not." [Biko Agozino].
Well, you are quite wrong with this conception. An elementary rule of
political communication here is that candidates in a televised debate
setting - as we saw last night with both Senator Clinton and Senator Obama -
were servicing multiple constituencies with their political speech. Thus
they were there to make connections not just with the audience in the
auditorium, their opponent, the panel of interviewers, but more importantly
the broadcast audience (the viewer). And you speak to the broadcast audience
by making eye contact with the camera or looking into the general direction
of the camera - which is the horizon of the audience in the auditorium!
In fact, it is quite possible for the debaters not to be aware of the
placement of the camera because there are typically multiple cameras
covering an event of this nature. As speech performers it is highly unlikely
that they will be in a position to know which camera was on them at any one
time because the technical coordination and directing of what shots get on
air lie in the hands of a technical director who is in a production truck
out of visual range. Any attempt by a speech performer to game the camera by
guessing which one was selecting a particular frame or shot was more than
likely therefore to be severely disorienting. Doing so would most certainly
result in a speech disaster. Clearly, this was not the case at yesterday's
debate in the case of Mrs Clinton, contrary to Biko's assertion. Indeed her
most brilliant moment of the night took place in her closing remarks when
she answered the question about the crises of her life. The warmth of
response of the audience to that answer, underscored by a standing ovation,
turned what was otherwise an already strong performance into perhaps a
humanistic valedictory and concession of her defeat in the quest for the
Oval Office.
From this brief illustration, it is clear to me that our esteemed brother,
Biko, allowed his infatuation and fascination with Senator Obama to corrupt
his sociological analysis of the debate. As far as the visual grammar of
television is concerned, he clearly doesn't know much about television. And
for the record, let me just say briefly that there is a reason why the panel
of interviewers are shot in profile, not frontally, but we do not have time
to go into that here.
PS: By the way, I too support the candidacy of Mr. Obama over Mrs. Clinton.
Thank you.
Folu F. Ogundimu, Ph.D.
Emeagwali, Gloria (History)
Thanks for a great piece. You should also include in your analysis the contributions
of anti-war movements such as' Move on.org.'About 900,000 members of that organization have contributed
to the Obama campaign. I dare say more members /contributions are needed. The target is 1 million.
Post-racial America? Not so fast, because, as you so elegantly put it, 'the presidency is only one center of power in the American hegemon dominated by the military, prison, corporate, and media industrial complexes,' - some of which have not been truly cured from the virus of institutionalized racism.
Worst case scenario, racism may even intensify and polarization increase between the Southern Right and the rest- and a more intense nervousnes against' the Other' develop elsewhere. The attainment of some measure of political power is no guarantee for fundamental and lasting transformation in race relations. Vigilance is key. On the optimistic front, though, there is the possibility that a a new chapter in American history will begin, and the spirit of hope accompanied by structural reform in intergroup relations.
No matter what, it is true that we are witnessing one of the most historic periods in American history. I will celebrate Obama's victory if it should happen but we should not rule out an Obama - Clinton ticket, to make sure that the respite sought becomes a reality.
Gloria Emeagwali
________________________________
From: USAAfric...@googlegroups.com on behalf of Toyin Falola
Sent: Thu 2/21/2008 6:35 PM
To: USAAfric...@googlegroups.com
Nkolika Ebele
I can only leave you with one message,things are not
always what they seem.A people deserves what ever
leadership they get at any point in time. Whether
Obama or Clinton wins, Americans will only get
somebody who represent the collection of their overt
and covert aspirations and volitions at any point in
time. There is no accident in History. All the
candidates stand a good chance of becoming the best
president,circumstances and events will determine
that.
But before you venture into lectures on tele
communications next time ,try and see Folu for some
education in this area.I agree with the person who
wrote that debate you watched must have been a
different one from the one the rest of us watched.
Best Wishes,
Nkolika'
Nigeria.
Biko Agozino
Thanks for your lecture on television language. Sorry
to butt into your turf but my point is not academic in
terms of how you teach journalism in the classroom. I
was writing as a political strategist who knows that
something is going wrong with Mrs. Clinton's campaign
but few people seem to know why. I identified the flaw
in her inattentiveness to questions posed to her
compared to the concentration of her opponent, Mr.
Obama.
For your students in journalism, you could give the
kind of lecture you presented below but for
politicians, you will need to be more practical. In
your journalism classes, for example, you may ask
students to read textbooks without asking them to read
television performances to guide politicians in the
heat of a contest the way that I have done with the
eyes of a practitioner who has television credits as a
performer, researcher, producer, director, editor,
writer, presenter and reviewer, besides also being a
sociologist. For you to assert that I do not know
'anything' about television or that I am 'infatuated'
with Mr. Obama is to display your delusional
imagination to which I will not respond.
What I would like to do briefly is to point out where
you seem to agree with me. The interviewers were not
staring into the cameras and you say that you know why
they were given profile shots; neither was Mr. Obama
staring, but Mrs. Clinton was staring even though you
said that it was difficult for her to know which
camera was focusing on her, and that trying to find
the camera to stare into would be disorienting (my
point exactly) but you did not say why this was the
bulk of her presentation strategy.
We also agree that both candidates are good but I
insist that one is better, the one you claim to also
support, Mr. Obama.
How can 'one who teaches courses on broadcast
journalism' like you interpret the closing standing
ovation as an applause for Mrs. Clinton even after Ms
Brown, one of the interviewers, correctly announced
that it was a standing ovation for both candidates? At
the same time you agreed with me that her closing
remarks sounded like a concession speech. Since when
did anyone get a standing ovation for conceding defeat
or is the standing ovation not more for the winning
candidate?
It is all right for us to interpret an event like the
debate differently without engaging in personal
attacks and turf warfare. We all saw the same debate
but we are entitled to interpret it differently
without being swayed by powerful spin doctors.
Biko
=== message truncated ===
____________________________________________________________________________________
Abubakar Momoh
I find your response and those of a few others to
Biko's opinion, quite harsh and immodest. Its ok to
make your point, however you do not need to roll your
vitae about the you teach a class in broadcast
journalism before we can appreciate your contribution.
Neither does your expertise in broadcast journalism
make your position correct. Social Sciences is not
Medical Science, the former is value-laden and highly
subjective.
One Simon Aderibigbe i an earlier contribution on the
same subject, stated that Biko may perhaps have
watched another debate, other than that between
Obama and Clinton. How are we sure that it is Simon,
rather than Biko, who watched another debate? This is
clear insensitivity and lack of civility. I guess a
few of the things Biko said were just to spice the
entire presentation while making some crucial and
pungent points. That he undertakes a sociological
critique rather than mainstream journalistic analysis
does not necessarily make his assertions trite. Though
I agree that they must be subjected to scrutiny and
engagement.
One important point though is that Hillary loves
facing the audience, whether at debates or political
rallies, and she likes nodding her head after a good
talk in expectation of a resounding applause- a times
it comes at other times it does not. You may be
correct that she did not know the camera that was
facing her. But in some cases, interviewees are told
where their camera is located. But the University of
Texas, Austin debate unlike previous debates was an
uphill task for Hillary not so much because she did
not speak well ( I believe she did), but because the
expectation was higher. She is a debate freak, and
Obama. Not because Obama cannot debate but because he
finds it distractive and a tactical maneuver by a long
standing front runner to slow down his momentum. Some
how many Hillary fans and supporters had expected that
she was going to come out of that debate thorouging
trashing Obama, but in the end she was sober and
humbled, if not traumatised. The "human side of
Hillary", a reinvention of the New Hampshire narrative
which had worked then as a campaign strategy was
merely acknowledge in Austin without any persuasive
meaning. Did it sing her nunc dimitis because it
sounded valedictory? No. But it meant that for the
first time, Hillary was reading the political
barometer, and that is highly suggestive. She knew as
well as did the listening audience that the
groundswell and balance of forces was not in her
favour. But they empathy towards her, hence the
standing and resounding ovation she received. Does she
think the game is up? Like Mike Huckebee she is also
betting on miracles, just like any other good
believer; while simultaneously preparing for an
honourable exit and safe/soft landing.
But the Obama/Hillary debacle point to wider issues in
politics which space and time would not permit me to
discuss: about how not to take opponents and
electorate for granted; how not to talk down to people
(Americans call it "how not to run your mouth"); how
to be humble and comported; how not to over-exagerate
your capacity; how not to reinvent your credentials of
service, how not to flip-flop while on the attacking
line against an opponent; and how to be civil even
when you attack and how to get the right message and
the correct resonance with the electorate.
This is not the time and place to do a postmortem on
Hillary neither am I giving a funereal dirge. But
Tiyambe Zeleza, has put the entire Obama/Hillary
debacle in contest and has also cautioned us about
what to expect if Obama were to win. I urge we all
re-read his excellent piece which appeared on this
listserve 3 days ago.
Finally, following from a Socratic epistemological
genre, which emphasises the doxa (opinion), there can
only be multiple opinions in the quest/search for
truth. An opinion is not necessarily and/or cannot be
a substitute for truth. I cannot disqualify anybody's
viewpoint on this listserve by claiming that mine is
the truth. All that I can say is that I have expressed
a viewpoint, an opinion. I guess that when we
internalise this mode of exchange we will be more
tolerant of each other's point of view. Perhaps, that
is why Hillary ended her remarks by stating how
"honoured" she was to have shared a common platform
with Obama, because it was both a "War of words, and a
war of Position".
My position, at the risk of misrepresentation, is that
we can well make our point without being judgmental.
And I find this in the position of my very good friend
and professional colleague, Nkolika, yourself and
Simon. Additionally, you did not need to remind us
that you are Obama supporter. There is nothing wrong
in being Clinton's supporter and I do not believe it
is fair to demonise her, as Nkolika rightly stated.
However, I recall that very early on this listserve
when I was pushing the position that Obama's
candidacy was very strong and different in its message
and organisational approach, many wrote me off as an
arm-chair theorist, and that what I said was a hearsay
and amounted to noonday hallucination. They were
fixated to the point that racism will NEVER make
America vote for a Black candidate. And I made one
important point then viz, that I will not be one of
those Black folks who will wait until Obama fails to
get the nomination before turning round to
uncritically blame it on his race.Rather that I will
seek to explain or analyse why white folks are voting
form him and why he is having a rising profile
nationally. I said this soon after Iowa Caucuses and
before New Hampshire primary. My core point then was
that I was inspired by Lenin's instruction
thus:"concrete analysis of concrete situation"!!!
Let the conversation continue.
Abu
--- Folu Ogundimu <ogun...@msu.edu> wrote:
=== message truncated ===
____________________________________________________________________________________