(cross-posted at Daily Kos)
In October of 2004, a couple weeks before the election, I had the privilege of attending a rally for the Democratic challenger to Senator Arlen Specter, Joe Hoeffel, at which Barack Obama was present. Ostensibly a rally for the Kerry/Edwards ticket and Hoeffel, the then-candidate for the U.S. Senate in Illinois overshadowed the home state candidate with his inspirational life story and his recounting of the beginning of a campaign in Illinois that had been a long shot before he won the primary. After his speech finished, Obama lingered to sign autographs and to take pictures with students like myself who had skipped class to attend the rally.
A lot of the debate in the blogosphere has centered around various aspects of Obama as he ponders whether to run for president in 2008. But there seems to be one observation that a lot of people are missing in the blogosphere: his appeal to those in my generation.
One of the main tools that anyone in the blogosphere should use to evaluate youth sentiment are the social networking websites that have sprung up. There is MySpace, but it is a much more loosely structured website than its counterpart, Facebook. Facebook is now open to anyone in the public (it had previously been a website for college students only, and its main members are still predominantly in college), so feel free to sign up and verify any of the statistics I cite. The main way of evaluating a politician’s popularity in general is to search the groups that are present and see how many members are in each. If one does a search for Barack Obama, you will see that almost all of the groups that exist – most of which call for Obama to run for president – are highly positive. One group in particular, Barack Obama for President in 2008, has over 26,000 members – a huge number for any politically-related group on Facebook. The group has spawned its its own website, complete with a blog. For good comparison, the official Democratic Party group has just over 4,000 members. Take a look, on the other hand, for the results that turn up when one searches for groups related to Hillary Clinton. At an initial glance, the anti-Hillary groups far outnumber those who support her.
So why does there seem to be such an overwhelming contingency of support for Obama among younger Americans – those deemed to be not as interested in politics? Simply put, he represents a much different voice in politics than many of us are used to. I grew up during the Clinton years and have become involved in the political process during the Bush administration, and the memories I have of both are overwhelmingly negative. Granted, most of the negativity has come from the GOP and its right-wing minions, but as a 20 year-old, the rhetoric I have heard in the political arena has been near-devoid of positive thinking and optimism. Obama represents a change from the usual rhetoric, no matter how empty it may seem to those of us who wish to scrutinize his record. I recognize that much of the blogosphere has possibly had a chance to live in a time when political discourse wasn’t so hostile, but young adults like myself haven’t had a chance to experience that yet.
Another reason why many young people support Obama, aside from his relative youth to the rest of the field, is that we see, in him, the embodiment of the real America. The Senate consists 94 Caucasians and 6 minorities – Obama being one of the six. It’s obviously not reflective of the changing demographics of the country. Popular music, no matter how good or bad one thinks it may be, is populated by minority musicians. Younger Americans are the product of multiracial families. In a nation whose face is changing, Obama is the person who represents this change. Perhaps it’s a symptom of being what John Heilemann of New York Magazine calls a cipher, but in Obama, many do see the senator as someone who has the opportunity to reunite the country. But in a time where there’s a lot of despair in the country and around the world, Obama inspires hope because to people like myself, he relates much better to us than many existing politicians do.
This brings me to my next point, one I think Chris Bowers gets it right on when he looks at Obama in the context of the ‘culture wars’ stemming from the 1960s.
I have to admit a powerful, internal hunger to see the ground shift within the “culture wars” away from the long-standing paradigm of the 1960’s. As someone born in 1974, as is probably the case with everyone in Generation X and forward, I just can’t identify with all of that. As we have seen from 1992-2006, every single Baby Boomer based election will probably continue to be about Vietnam, the “counter-culture,” the south as a distinct region, single-issue advocacy, “electability,” and old, linear and single-issue based discussions of ideology. Enough already!
The fact that social issues always seem to be brought up in elections turns a lot of youth off. Why? Because young adults are overwhelmingly liberal when it comes to social issues. Taking a look at a CIRCLE fact sheet (PDF link) compiled 2 years ago, and it’s no wonder that young Americans my age wonder why the hell people seem so consumed about battling over supposed hot-button issues. Here’s a short summary of some of the findings:
- Over 80% support equal protection in housing and employment, and from hate crimes; 63% support civil unions; 56% support gay marriage; and 70% oppose job discrimination against homosexuals. These findings would seem to be supported by a cursory look at Facebook again, where a group, Legalize Same-Sex Marriage, has 100,000 members.
- Countering the xenophobia that seems to be latently present in discussions about immigration in the present, an overwhelming supermajority (76%) of young voters believe immigrants should be offered the same rights as everyone else.
In a Bloomberg/LA Times poll conducted this summer, the pollsters seem to agree that the issues that so-called ‘values’ voters care about are ones that are turning younger Americans away from the GOP:
Bush’s 2004 re-election strategy also may have damaged his party’s standing with younger voters by stressing things intended to drive religious voters concerned about social issues to the ballot box, such as opposition to gay marriage.
“The very cultural issues the president wants to use to rally his party’s base are exactly the issues that are alienating younger voters,” said Ross Baker, a political scientist at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, New Jersey. “Across a broad swath of social issues, younger Americans see the administration as being out of line with what they believe.”
Perhaps it’s wrong of young Americans to be turned off by the discourse, but there’s a very strong streak of social liberalism that exists today – and whenever these social issues are discussed in the public arena, it’s in the context of the past, particularly the 1960s, that many of us don’t have an understanding about. Therefore, there’s a strong inclination to tune out a discussion because it doesn’t make sense to the young adult who didn’t grow up under those circumstances.
Booman has his own take on Obama; he doesn’t associate with the senator for different reasons:
I am not really post-Vietnam. I don’t come from the 1990’s MTV multi-ethnic, major urban center, cosmopolitan, post-identity politics type of place that Chris comes from. And that might strike Chris as strange since I am highly educated and cosmopolitan and live in a major urban center. But, that is not how I experience politics. I see just as much appeal in John Edwards’s little mill town upbringing as I see in Obama’s eclectic experiences. And I don’t at all think that the majority of the voting public (which is older than me) is going to go all ga-ga over Obama’s multi-cultural post-identity politics identity.
The fact of the matter is that very few political pundits, bloggers, or any other observers of politics can understand the Obama phenomenon unless you are one of the youth in the present. Adam Conner, part-time guest blogger at MyDD, blogger at RunObama.com, and someone only a few years older than myself, had this to say about Obama’s appearance in New Hampshire:
First, the energy in the room today was absolutely incredible. I’ve really never seen anything like it, particularly when you consider that the New Hampshire primary is at least a full 388 days from now (the final date hasn’t been set yet).
[…]
Another word on today’s sizable audience of 1,500. If you’re an active Democrat in New Hampshire, you’re pretty much constantly inundated with opportunities to see Presidential candidates speak. And to pay $25 dollars to see someone…forget about it. So for an event to gather this much attention, it seemed consensus among folks from NH that I spoke to that this wasn’t just flavor of the month kind of attention. There’s definitely something there. And holy shit, I’ve never seen a political candidate be mobbed in a crowd like Obama was. Rock Star might be the most accurate description because I can’t think of anything I’ve ever seen that even comes close to comparing.
Bill Clinton also has a rock star persona, but when he was president when I was growing up, many of us didn’t get a chance to see it firsthand because he had to defend himself from rabid right-wing partisans. Al Gore and John Kerry, during their respective presidential campaigns, didn’t have it. But in Barack Obama, what you see is what you get – someone who is a riveting speaker from the stump, making a public park in downtown Philadelphia or a crowded hall in New Hampshire go silent when he speaks. Like many others, I’d like to hear a little more substance on the issues from him, but for many youth, this won’t be an issue. Take the matter of Darfur, for example – an issue that many young Americans care about (a Facebook group called 400,000 Faces, for the number of people who have died in the genocide there, has about 348,000 members). Obama has a grade of A+ on Darfur legislation.
I think that for many youth, it won’t necessarily be the definitive record of the past 2-4 years of legislation under Obama’s belt (2 of which were in the Senate minority). Instead, it will be the potential that the senator brings to the table that will inspire many. When RFK ran for president, he had only been a senator for 4 years. But it was the possibility of what could be done, the hope that he brought out in Americans back in 1968 – it was that passion that drove his campaign. For many of my peers, it’s the same passion that exists now for Barack Obama. To us, he represents the best of the next generation of America.
I hope you are right about his ability to galvanize the youth vote. He could swamp the Republicans if he can drive up turnout significantly.
An Obama candidacy would truly give meaning to the ‘Rock The Vote’ campaign.
he’ll be a hard man to demonize.
I’d run against Bush. I’d say that we just tried giving the job to a neophyte and it didn’t work out.
Um, this is the video game generation. Um, if it wasn’t for their ex-hippie and 70’s parents, these young adults wouldn’t know how to spell the word “p-o-l-i-t-i-c-s” if they had guns to their heads.
Barack Obama is a lot of hot empty air. He’s just a DLC shill like Bush Jr. has been a neocon shill. Ok, sure, he’s smarter than Chimpy, but what does that take? Chimpy’s IQ is estimated to be 93 — that’s BELOW AVERAGE.
When will people wake up and stop being glamoured by the sparkly lights and sound effects? The country is sure able to handle a mixed-race man or woman as president, but please, at least let’s not elect a DLC’er. I could never support Clinton or Obama or Vilsack or Biden or Kerry. I’ll hold my nose and put on a diaper on election day 2008 when I pull the lever of my mechanical voting machine from the 1950’s just to accumulate votes against the likes of McCain or Jeb. Can’t we hope for more? Some substance over bloviation?
Piss me off. Too much attention to crappy lawyers like Obama and Clinton.
Give me a real candidate like Kucinich or Feingold to read and gossip about.
First, you insult myself and a lot in my generation when you say that we don’t know anything about politics. So when it comes that, piss off. You obviously aren’t around the right kids.
Secondly, Obama is not part of the DLC. To call him so, whether or not you like his policies, is dishonest.
And to call Kucinich a real candidate? You’re just being delusional.
This is at least the second diary about Obama and the youth vote. I wish you and Isis were communicating less acrimoniously, but I do find this trend to try to divide the left by generation destructive. If a progressive wins in 08 it is going to take the youth vote AND the geezer vote.
I personally don’t think that getting seniors all worked up about a candidate’s persona would take us very far. I feel the same about the charisma and youth thing.
Also, as you point out, you don’t represent all “youth”. You have thought and worked on politics in a way that is exemplary. I don’t always agree with your conclusions, but I can’t question your commitment.
Most of us here are not typical when it comes to politics. We tend to know a little more, care a little more, and be more involved than many of our fellow citizens.
In this day and age a candidate will need charisma. That’s reality. (Honest Abe would never pass the telegenic test.)But I think we need to look at candidates’ words, actions, effectiveness, competency, ideology, integrity, etc. At this point I believe Obama gets high marks for charisma and intelligence. Beyond that I think the jury is still out.
Obama was very political when he was in Illinois, for example missing votes about women’s reproductive rights rather than to go on record. I disagree with his vote to confirm Rice. And for liability caps. I don’t like the way that religion is coming up regularly with him. I worked for him in Illinois, but I would have a long way to go to before I would support him now. He won his primary due to the efforts of the grassroots. The Republicans ran a sham candidate against him in the general, after their first choice self-destructed in a sex scandal. Obama’s actions in Illinois have not been supportive of grassroots since his election. I don’t trust him.
The presidential primaries are going to cause a lot of spats and rifts in the progressive community. I hope we can handle the differences with grace as well as with passion.
You ain’t no “youth.” You’re a full-fledged adult at age 18, sorry to say. Our culture wants to infantilize us all to believe only the grey-haired corporate daddies like Dickie Cheney are the adults around the nation. But look what those 60-yr old second-graders did in their play yard — they pooped their pants and gave us Iraq!
Take your rightful mantle as an adult, Psi, don’t make yourself a “youth,” you are old enough to make a baby, you are an adult.
ENOUGH!
I am part of the American youth when it comes to voting. We only get the right to vote when we’re 18.
You’d be better served if your argument had anything worthwhile in it.
I think it is important, though, to take note of Mr. Obama’s rather hawk like stances, and that of the rest of the so-called “progressive” side of the democratic party, including Howard Dean:
“But the Bush administration may not have to worry about the opposition for round two. After all, the Democrats have long agreed that Iran must be dealt with militarily.
Recently, the Democratic Party’s rising “progressive” star Barack Obama said he would favor “surgical” missile strikes against Iran.
As Obama told the Chicago Tribune on September 26, 2004, “[T]he big question is going to be, if Iran is resistant to these pressures [to stop its nuclear program], including economic sanctions, which I hope will be imposed if they do not cooperate, at what point … if any, are we going to take military action?”
He added, “[L]aunching some missile strikes into Iran is not the optimal position for us to be in” given the ongoing war in Iraq. “On the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse.” Obama went on to argue that military strikes on Pakistan should not be ruled out if “violent Islamic extremists” were to “take over.”
You may like the guy, but I don’t think it does anybody any good to ignore the very hawk like beliefs and actions of the republican and democratic parties.
No offense, but you are referencing an article that is more than 2 years old. A lot has changed since then.
Please point out to me what has changed since then.
You need to go read this diary over at Daily Kos. Remember that the reason that we are involved in two wars at this time is because both parties continue to vote to fund those wars.
Hilary Pres + Obama VP:
Mainstream Dem vote (Unions, regular blue states, urban areas), crossover “liberal” disgusted Ratpub vote, female vote, HUGE minority vote, youth vote.
Win in ’08.
Against ANY Ratpub candidate.
Obama math as Pres:
Minority vote, youth vote, mainstream Dem vote minus the real bigots.
Lose in ’08.
He’s running for VP on the Clinton ticket.
He’s got a lot of proving to do before he can run for Pres.
Gotta prove that he can handle the heat.
Gotta prove to the REAL power brokers (Big Money, Big Business…national AND multi-national…Big Military.Big Intel) that he will not rock the boat…something that he has been assiduously trying to prove w/every backpedaling, middle of the road word he has spoken since he first started his run for the Senate.
In 2016 he will be in his prime…mid-50s…and will have had 8 years of high level executive position and experience.
THEN he runs for Pres.
Here are the numbers as they stand in one poll.
Like I said…
And that Giuliani thing?
Naaaaahhhhh…
His cheap mug will so turn off the voters once it starts to REALLY get broadcast that I doubt he could even win the Ratpub nomination.
C’mon…
Him ‘n Bernie, down by the schoolyard scamming nickels offa kindergarten kids.
I mean…America is low, but it ain’t THAT low.
Not yet it ain’t, if ever.
Clinton/Obama in ’08.
Watch.
Deal’s already been cut.
Bet on it.
AG
that she is missing.
He’s got “it”…jes’ like ol’ Bill.
Watch.
She’s no dummy.
AG
This has been my sense for the last few weeks too, Arthur – the deal has been struck.
Notice that when the “media” now talks about the Dem presidential candidates, they only mention Clinton and Obama. The twosome has managed to suck all the oxygen out of the field for any other candidates.
I think the Clinton machine examined the field, knew that the only real challenges would come from Obama and Edwards. They knew they couldn’t pull the “Dean Scream” kind of thing on Edwards to get rid of him – so they knock him out by teaming with Obama. They also knew that Edwards wouldn’t accept the VP spot again – but Obama would be smart to do so.
Notice how much similarity there is in the positions both Clinton and Obama talk about. The “talking points” have been scripted.
Just my sense of it – we’ll see.
Count me in with NL and Ag, (as per my dream last week) about the Clinton/Obama ticket. It’s too mutually beneficial to them both, and to the party, in terms of electibility,to pass up. But in terms of feeling comfortable personally, I’d rather see Edwards/Gore in the Oval office.
I’ll tell you something, scribe.
A Hillary/WHOEVER presidency will be very interesting.
Number one…she has a very long view of things. Like that of a chess grandmaster. She set this situation up 8 years ago, a hundred moves ahead of everybody else. And then she executed it. Flawlessly. I have no doubt that she has the same sort of vision for the United States. Is it the “right” vision? We shall see.
Number two…her antipathy to the right is both genetic and personal.Look you at her quotes previous to her time at or near the top if you doubt this.
Like this one:
In Hillary’s opinion, Nixon was “evil.” [An office-mate during her time on the Watergate Committee] says that she believed that Nixon should be prosecuted or impeached not just over Watergate but over his conduct during the Vietnam War, specifically his order for the secret bombing in Cambodia, which she saw as immoral and even criminal.
Source: Hillary’s Choice by Gail Sheehy, p. 90 Dec 9, 1999
That is the genetic Hillary speaking.
And then it got personal.
I have to confess that it’s crossed my mind that you could not be a Republican and a Christian.-Richmond Times-Dispatch, 1997
The mud through which they dragged her does not easily wash off of one’s mind and soul, and if there is anybody in American politics today who is more likely to go after the architects of the criminal empire we laughingly refer to as BushCo, it is Ms. Clinton.
If she can do so and still maintain her position, of course.
(I refer you you back to the grandmaster idea.)
I would not be in the least surprised…should she win the Presidency by a solid margin AND carry the Senate and House as well…if she went after the entire system that has been in place starting with the JFK coup d’état/coup de tête.
I see NO ONE ELSE hard enough and smart enough to try and do so.
Gore? Edwards? Give me a BREAK!!!
Gore has no real stomach for politics, and Edwards is a blown-up minor leaguer compared to Hillary Clinton.
No, she’ll go for the gold.
Obama.
Political gold.
Now do I “trust” Obama? Or even Hillary Clinton for that matter?
I trust her politically. She’d sell HERSELF down the river in order to get into power. Probably has already.
Obama? He’s studying at the feet of the masters.
The survivors.
Political survivors.
I personally think that Hillary Clinton, if she does win, will be seriously hamstrung by the multiple promises and alliances that she had to make to GET into power. For a number of years.
But not totally hamstrung. She will have to do some serious political triage.
However, as the horse racing people say…class tells.
And she is the class of the field right now.
We shall see…
Have fun watching.
“AND THEY’RE OFF!!!”
Later…
AG
Yup.
There it is.
Signed, sealed and delivered.
He’s hers.
We’re theirs.
It’s done.
Politics as usual.
Just as it always was.
Just as it always was.
AG
Zero to national contender in a very short time. I have to agree with Kahli’s post above, the jury is still out. My sense is that the jury will not necessarily have good things to report when it returns, but I’ll wait and see. Damn that Feingold for not running.
AG is probably right, VP. And maybe Powell gets the same slot on the other side.
Powell.
Now THERE’S an interesting idea.
With whom, though?
McCain?
My sense is that McCain is fading.
He looks worse and worse physically.
I saw a clip of him walking into an office building while I was stuck in some CNN-infestred airport this weekend, and he isn’t even walking well. He looked all bound up at the hips and legs and he had a classic “Bear The Pain” face on. Part of being in the Information Age is that you can run (for office) but you can’t hide. People are going to read McCain’s physical problems the more he is in the national spotlight, and personally I don’t think that dog will even survive the primary hunt.
Giuliani? I doubt that Powell would make THAT mistake. Besides, Kerik has that scene all sewed up. Kerik or someone like him. Playing second banana to a second banana calls for a real buffoon.
Gingrich?
Doubtful.
Who else?
AG