Achtung! Obama in the Deutschland
(Where's Obama?)
From Obama’s prepared remarks:
I come to Berlin as so many of my countrymen have come before. Tonight, I speak to you not as a candidate for President, but as a citizen — a proud citizen of the United States, and a fellow citizen of the world.
And, presumably, the next president-elect.
Obama spoke today in Berlin to an ecstatic audience. The message was clear: its time for a new American era. His demeanor and rhetoric was strikingly similar to that of John F. Kennedy’s back in the 1960s. His youthful vigor and inspiring aura seemingly mirrors that of JFKs. Set aside from the perspective differences made by modern technology,* there existed that same sense of hope and confidence in change. Obama spoke of a North American “reintegration” to fight the proliferation of global terrorism, a remark reminscent of the golden days of NATO (whenever that was). Obama, it seems, is out to reknit the web of European friends and allies. If his reception is in anyway suggestive of how Europe will view an president-elect Obama, then his chances of success are relatively high.
It seems like all of Europe, especially Germany today, are drinking down the Obama juice. The support extends beyond Europe though. A co-worker of mine told me today that her South African friend took part in massive street celebrations after Obama was declared the presumptive Democratic candidate. Obamania knows no boundaries. Obama message resonates not just with Americans, but with Germans, Britains, and even the Dutch. A very interesting global-social phenomenon to observe.
In my opinion, Obama’s tour-de-world works well for his campaign and the American image at-large. The immense support that Obama garners over seas will help him domestically. Many people feel betrayed by the American government for portraying them so negatively abroad. Obama seems to reverse this trend by carrying the message of change and redemption. As people notice that the world endorses Obama, it will help counter the claims made against Obama of his inexperience and lack of political exposure in addition to increase in already high levels of media coverge.
As to his presidential-like demeanor (and reception) abroad, all I have to say is, good for Obama. It bodes well for the campaign and it really backs McCain into a corner. And from what I can tell, McCain isn’t really responding (what happened to announcing the Veep choice?). Obama seems to be on the full offensive, a campaigning blitzkrieg (pun intended). Besides, how do you go overseas as a Presidential candidate without looking somewhat like a president; the venures can’t realistically differ that much. Regardless, things are going well for Obama. The longer this election season goes on, the more convinced I become of seeing a president-elect Barack Obama.
* The article linked to was written by Brett Keller over at his new location, the Oxford International Review. Brett was a former Harding student and a good friend. He is currently working in D.C. at the Oxford Internatinoal Reivew as a planner/editor/writer/do-whatever-he’s-asked. Give his spot over at the OIR a visit.
The crowd is obviously staggering. The speech was good (but not great). Obama’s popularity abroad is obviously a substantively positive thing for American foreign policy. But…
I’m tempted to worry that the whole affair makes Obama look a little too “other” and not American enough (a problem he already has). It’s clearly a substantivel stupid charge, but tarring liberal internationalist candidates as too European is a proven winner in campaigns. Reason would suggest that the Bush era would have cured out body politic of this little bug, but my faith in the wisdom of the American voter is about as strong as my faith in god. I hope I’m wrong, but I think Obama’s alleged arrogance and Messianism (some bad folk might call him uppity) is his biggest weakness. This might not help.
The rebuttal is easy though:
“My fellow Americans, for the last 8 years our reputation and image has been tarnished by rampant unilateralism, a marginalization of some of our longest standing allies, and complete disregard for international laws and norms. We must re-build the bridges burned during the last 8 years. We must reach out and engage our allies across the Atlantic and elsewhere. It is not a time to coil-up and isolate ourselves. We face a new challenge today, a global threat to liberty and freedom to all civilized nations: global terrorism. In order to fight to global menace we must engaged our friends and allies abroad. We must build strong relationships and cooperate together to ensure safety and security abounds at home and abroad. It’s time for a new strategy, one of multi-lateral cooperation and global engagement. We must shake the shackles that the last 8 years have bound us to. We must restore America’s prestige amongst the world’s nations. We must work with, not against, our friends across the globe. Together we can make real, lasting change. Together we can move forward out of the darkness and into the light.” (that last part is intentionally cheesy; I had to throw some Messianic innuendo in there!)
This isn’t perfect — I wrote it on a whim. But I think you get the picture. The argument that a liberal internationalist is bad for America is easily turned.
It’s still a legitimate concern; however, I don’t hear McCain bringing it up. In fact, wasn’t he just criticizing Obama for not having been abroad? Oh yeah, he was.
McCain’s campaign sucks. Thus far, he deserves to lose — bad.
Disclaimer: Mr. Obama, you can use my speech. Just make sure if you do to get me some good contacts. Thanks!
If we elect GWB (aka John McCain) to a third term, my generation owes you a big apology.
ME, do this: lead a huge political apathy movement. That way none of your generation will vote, the AARP will lose its straggle hold on Washington, and there will be no way McCain will win.
Sound good? I think it does. Make it happen!
Of course there is an easy rebuttal, but you can’t reason people out of something they weren’t reasoned into. Its not about what actually makes sense. Its about what appeals to people’s cultural sensibilities (which, for the average American, are decidedly retrograde). Nothing would make me happier than to see American politics take a step toward adulthood, but I still think this all remains to be seen.
Europe and the rest of the world want a US President they can push around. No wonder there was such a big turn out for Obama’s visit.
SC: “We face a new challenge today, a global threat to liberty and freedom to all civilized nations: global terrorism.” In previous posts, you said…
“But just because terrorist hit our nation doesn’t make Islamic fundamentalism a dominant idea. It is indeed a security threat, but it doesn’t resemble anything close to the threat posed by National Socialism (Nazism) or Marxist-Socialism (Communism) in the 20th century… I don’t fear the fall of the West to Islamic fundamentalism.” So does terrorism threaten liberty and freedom to the civilized world or is it just a security threat? Who gets included under the global terrorism umbrella?
Your draft is vague on the specifics with obvious exaggerations and inconsistencies and a dash of sermonizing. It’s perfect for an Obama speech! You just need to add, “Now let us stand and sing.”
Why do Democrats feel compelled to keep mining the JFK mystique? It didn’t work with Kerry in 2004. Clinton had the charisma of JKF, but lacked the sophistication to choose mistresses that were discreet, which cost the Gore the election. Luckily, Obama’s inexperience is a clean slate, since Dem’s can’t seem to find a qualified candidate that can keep it in his pants. Edward’s would have been an asset with southern voters (voters the Dems must win over), but he too apparently can’t manage fidelity. If Obama’s trip overseas went so well, why is McCain gaining ground? He can’t shut-out a 71 year old man, when he should be dominating considering how unpopular Bush is. Not only is he carrying Kennedy’s torch, he’s also expected to embody the next generation of black activists, hoping to revitalize a movement that practically collapsed with the assassination of MLKJr. Obama talks about changing things in DC, but has padded his staff with policy wonks that have been haunting Washington for decades. People who actually might have something to contribute like Samantha Powers is jettisoned, because she actually admitted O’s policy was impractical. Obama wants to end the divisiveness, but some of his most vocal supporters spew venomous hate speech. In Germany, Obama entertained Germans while people who actually have a vote and who risk their lives serving the US are ignored. Why do Dems put so much hope on one man? He’s only going to disappoint, because he’ll never be able to live up to hype, not too mention he becomes a popular target for every gun-toting loon out there. If Obama gets elected it will most likely be a thin margin, and after about 6 months the American people will have a wicked case of buyer’s remorse. By the following Congressional election cycle, the GOP will most likely win back both houses, and then nothing will get done. Drop the JFK thing and pick a candidate that can win. There have been other Democratic presidents whose tenure was much more successful than JFK’s. What about Johnson? Find a good ole boy, rural Texas a**hole. Wait, the GOP beat you to that one. Can Democrats not find one Southern candidate with a decent resume, leadership experience and some personality that can be faithful to his/her spouse?
It was intentionally exaggerated, not to be made commensurate with my own beliefs. You must understand that I was hypothesizing something an Obama speech writer would compose. The “speech” isn’t necessarily what I believe. Sorry if I misled you there.
As for the rest of the comments. It’s just politics as usual. It seems that you think I put more faith into Obama than I actually do. I mean, sure, I like the guy. I’m going to vote for him over a candidate like McCain. He has potential to do well. Slightly to the contrary, I don’t think he’s a political messiah — or anything related. Your absolutely right in saying that he probably won’t be able to live up to the hype that’s generated around him.
Let me make this clear: I am not in bed with the “Democratic Base.” Sure, I’m relatively left-of-center, but not by far. And I’m certainly not naive enough to believe that Obama is the answer to all of our prayers. He’s just a decent candidate with decent ideas and a far better prospect for president-elect than McCain.
And I certainly wouldn’t want to start sermonizing. ha!
SC, not to pester, but if they did use your speech, you would sign your name to something that contradicted what you believe? Now, that’s politics as usual. What did I say that wasn’t true? If you’re trying to convince readers to choose Obama over McCain, then why not address voters’ concerns? It’s perfectly fine for you and other posters to expose inconsistencies in McCain’s policy, but when I raise doubts about Obama it’s politics as usual? $50 million to address absent fathers in the US is a decent idea? Giving lifetime healthcare to all veterans is a good idea? The VA can’t manage the service-connected injured from Iraq and Afghanistan. A tire gauge for an energy policy is a good idea? Not to sermonize myself, (but I’m a PK, I can’t help it) but what has eroded confidence in our federal gov’t and crippled its effectiveness is the practice of telling people what they want to hear. Lobbyists, spin-doctors and special interests group have wedged their way between elected officials and their constituents. I’m not saying this is a new development, power corrupts, duh. I think every elected official around here can’t be trusted, Ted Stevens the most recent example, so I believe in giving them as little responsibility, power and money as possible. It isn’t about “opportunity, perception, and convenience.” It’s about fulfilling the will of the people. Perhaps I’m too idealistic to hope for a candidate that will do what is right over what is politically convenient.