Yes, Obama’s positions are more than just talk

2/29/2008

Last month U.S. Sen. Barack Obama was ridiculed by U.S. Senator Hillary Clinton for having inspiring rhetoric -- but no concrete plans or experience – that would qualify him to become president.

What a difference seasonal change makes in a long-distance presidential run. Last summer when the Obama campaign looked earnest, but unlikely to succeed, other candidates criticized Obama for giving supporters too many details and wonky policy proposals. Sometimes on the stump he still sounded like the University of Chicago law professor he’d been.

Wayne Dawkins/Commentary 

Back then, Obama said that if voters elected him he’d meet with foreign leaders the United States found repugnant, including Iran’s head of state, without preconditions. www.maynardije.org/columns/dickprince/070813_prince/  His idea was criticized as naïve, but the senator did not back down. Then, Obama was part of a crowded Democratic presidential field. Now, he’s the last man standing, toe to toe with Clinton.

Obama must have adjusted his game plan, because his speeches in January and February have been less specific, yet soaring. He has connected with many voters, like one college student in Houston who, during an NPR interview, scoffed at Clinton and pundits’ claims that Obama was “all hat and no cattle” as a number of Texans like to say. www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=86994288

He was supposed to be history after the 22-state Super Tuesday primaries that included mega states California, New York and Illinois. The so-called experts assumed that then frontrunner Clinton would deliver the knockout punch to Obama and cruise to the Democratic convention in August. Instead, Clinton and the senator from Illinois battled to a draw. Then Obama had the audacity of hope to inch ahead of the senator from New York during the Virginia, Maryland and District of Columbia primaries Feb. 12.

Lately, Clinton looks punch drunk after watching Obama win Wisconsin a week later and pick off a lot of her presumed support among white women and organized labor.

Clinton’s claim that unlike Obama “she can take a punch” from presumed GOP opponent U.S. Sen. John McCain of Arizona, does not seem so credible any more.

Obama will have to prepare for a more desperate fight on March 4, when he and Clinton compete for delegate-rich Texas, plus Ohio.

Clinton may have expected Obama to be competitive, but not to beat her up and take her lunch money.

She has no choice but to come out swinging, or blazing, since her biggest battleground is the Lone Star state. Unless she wins in a 60/40 landslide, which appears less likely with each passing day, Clinton will not gain ground on Obama in the hunt for delegates.

At this writing, Obama is acting and sounding presidential – and rising – while Clinton is flailing and sinking.

TRAIL MIX: Kudos to J-’86 grad Marjorie Valbrun for her Feb. 27 commentary, “To Denounce and Reject: Why the Farrakhan litmus test must go,” on “The Root” Web site. www.theroot.com/id/45012/page/1

Does the campaign refrain “change” have meaning?

Consider this: Has anyone noticed that we’ve had a near monarchy in the Oval Office for the last 20 years? First George H. W. Bush occupied the White House from 1989-93, then the Clintons – Bill plus Hillary – took over from 1993-2001. Son George W. Bush sublet his parents’ former place in 2001, and his lease expires in January 2009.

If Hillary Clinton wins in November, she and her husband the former president could stay through 2017. For two decades, the only executive branch change Americans have experienced is Bushes and Clintons changing places at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

Dawkins is editor of the Black Alumni Network newsletter[Columbia University journalism], and he is a member of the Trotter Group www.trottergroup.org