Farm Team

Written by: Monica Smith on Jul 19, 2008 9:31 AM EDT

Linked to groups: Rockingham/Strafford DFA, Blog For America

Linked to campaigns: Obama for America

The National Journal is on the web, but access is by subscription only, although it's possible to sign up for a trial subscription.  I did, a couple of years ago, and then decided to indulge myself and pay the rather hefty sum to subscribe (if you're not a corporation or group, you can get an individual rate).  I think it's worth it.  Although, to get full value, I find that the weekly issue needs to be read when it arrives, since the information doesn't age very well.  The political arena and all those who are active in it seem to change on a daily basis.

The July 12, 2008 issue featured Barack Obama on the cover and a cover story about the Democrats' ability to govern If He Wins--a title that accurately reflects the speculative ambivalence of the contents.  But what caught my attention was a "report" by Jerry Hagstrom about the import of his visit to North Dakota, which prompted me to pen the following response.

If you'll permit, Mr. Hagstrom, I'd like to make a few comments about your essay on Senator Obama's trip to North Dakota.
The opening sentence

FARGO, N.D.--Barack Obama's campaign stop here on July 3 raises the question of whether the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee really expects to win rural states in the Plains, the Mountain West, and the South

makes no sense.
First of all, a campaign stop cannot raise a question. Then, "raising a question" means that there's a doubt (in this case about someone else's expectations?) for which there is no logical predicate. I mean, if Obama had NOT visited North Dakota, it might raise a question about the sincerity of his 50 state strategy. And, then again it might not (he might be planning to visit later). In any case, what anyone expects at this point in the process is probably not something worth writing about. Besides, since elections are a voter action, what Barack Obama expects now or later is largely irrelevant, even if that's what the pundits want to
write about from now until election day.

Secondly, the "winning" meme is really annoying. Candidates for public office are applying for a job; they are being interviewed by the people who will do the hiring (and some who won't). It's clear that the public relations industry is convinced that candidates can be sold like soap flakes and candidates would like to believe that they control the process. But, the reality is that it's a voter action and, to the extent that the voters are dismissed in the public discussion, they'll either be disaffected (putting democracy in jeopardy) or, at a minimum, continue to discount the sources of public information (which also puts our democracy in jeopardy).

Finally, your assertion that "Obama did not mention his African father or his biracial heritage" is both gratuitous and irrelevant. Humans are one race and there is no significant genetic difference associated with either place of birth or skin color. Moreover, if I were so bold, I would guess that no-one whose father voluntarily abandoned his family responsibilities before his son was two years old would waste time on that issue when time
is at a premium.  Ask yourself the next time you look in the mirror whether you notice your
skin color as an indicator of race. If the answer is no, then ask yourself why Barack Obama should be different. Classifying people by the color of their skin is a social artifact which, since skin color has no connection to significant behavior (dark skinned people do often suffer from excessively dry skin and need to use emollients to keep it from cracking--an important but insignificant behavior), is practically useless. When it fuels prejudicial antagonisms, it's socially destructive and your bringing it up is not helpful.

Oddly enough, although the height of candidates does seem to have been significant in prior elections, I have yet to see a routine reference to the fact that the Obamas are both exceptionally tall. Perhaps pundits are reluctant to bring it up because they perceive height to be a source of intimidation. I would suggest that because very tall persons are often
constrained to bend down in order to listen to their interlocutors, they actually come across as more deferential to the interests of other people.  And that makes them more attractive.
M/H

Tags:

Discuss