• newsletters • best of austin • find a paper • submit an event • advertise with us • contact • jobs •
HOME: FEBRUARY 29, 2008: NEWS
text size

Point Austin: The Okey Doke

Obama slips punches, rope-a-dopes, and wins

BY MICHAEL KING

It's certainly invigorating for Austin to be at the center of the political swirl for a couple of weeks, although by next Tuesday, I suspect we'll all be glad for the Dem presidential wannabes to head on to the next rodeo. As I write, Wednesday afternoon, Bill Clinton is scheduled to hit the University of Texas Main Mall this evening, and Barack Obama HisOwnSelf is expected at the Convention Center in the morning. Various surrogates have been shaking the Texas underbrush all week, and the Big Democratic Endorsements have been tumbling in. This week the Hillary Clinton campaign teased a "big endorsement coming" and, a couple of press releases later, delivered Samwise Gamgee (Sean Astin), followed by former U.S. Rep. Ken Bentsen. (Bentsen was supposedly the big name, but tell me who you remember better.) Not to be outdone, the Obama campaign trotted out ... former Gov. Mark White (best remembered for shamelessly advertising how many people he'd executed in office).

So amidst all the earnestness, there was plenty of silliness to go around. The Democratic wind, however, was steadily blowing in Obama's direction, wincingly illustrated by an anecdote The New York Times borrowed from the online Rio Grande Guardian, which spotted Clinton endorser state Rep. Aaron Peña enjoying an Obama rally and then admitting: "I will maintain my commitment. But it appears to be increasingly evident who is going to win."


Rove Ain't Here

If that's what they're saying in the Valley, it's no wonder that Hillary is getting a little testy in the debates. Last week in Austin, she tried magnanimity. Her best moment was a closing response to a question about remembered "crises," which she first deflected with a smiling reference to her "personal challenges" and then turned into a simple, eloquent admission that "whatever happens" she and Barack will be fine but that the election is about the future of "the American people." That earned her a standing ovation in the hall – but the pundits and commentators immediately began interpreting her closing as a valedictory, virtually a concession that she then had to deny.

So she took up the cudgels this week, denouncing Obama for his attacks on her past support for NAFTA as "Karl Rove tactics" at which "all Democrats should be outraged." (I dunno about you, but on the Rove Scale, this seems to me very small beer indeed.) Then Tuesday night in Cleveland, she snapped at Tim Russert and Brian Williams for press favoritism, then cited a Saturday Night Live sketch that mocked the CNN love affair with Obama – and thereby blew any advantage the third-party satire had given her. SNL's Tina Fey had already mined that vein, joking pointedly that "it's the bitches" who get things done.

The problem for Clinton, of course, is that all these recent tactics, by herself and her supporters, are the telltale signs of a campaign that's losing ground and looking for a handhold. Demoted campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle plaintively told the Times, "Hillary is incredibly tough – she grew up with two brothers and a strong father in the Midwest, so she knows a challenge." I've spent a good bit of time in the northern wilds of Hillary's homeland, suburban Chicago. Even with (horrors!) male siblings, it ain't exactly terra incognita, and Doyle's feeble defense of her fading champion is just the sort of false note that keeps undermining Clinton's attempt to reverse her weeks-long slide.


Catching the Breeze

In all fairness, Obama has indeed enjoyed better press than Clinton, initially because a year ago nobody expected the newborn underdog to do this well and more recently because the reporters along with the Dem voters appear to have fallen hard for his combination of relaxed eloquence and youthful insouciance. The Clinton folks are understandably crying foul – one major Clinton campaign operative (who will remain nameless because I'm a charitable fellow) complained to me about the "blow job" the press has given Obama. It's an understandable complaint – but it's also an understandable press reaction, because for better or worse, Obama visibly and personally represents a "change" from the way things have been done in Washington for the last 15 years. Young voters, for deep reasons as well as shallow ones, have especially responded to Obama's inspirational campaign, and the press has, to an inevitable degree, caught the fever.

I watched the phenomenon in action in front of the Capitol Friday night. The Clinton distinction has been "speeches versus solutions," but Obama deflected that attack as easily as Muhammad Ali sidestepping a George Foreman right hand. "We need both," he responded, "because without the speeches, we cannot create the working majority to support the solutions that we need." Obama seemed already to be turning to the campaign against John McCain, as he acknowledged McCain's heroism but argued, "He's tied himself completely to the policies of the Bush administration, and he can't get away from that."

Obama's references to "the okey doke" seemed to baffle some commentators, although it's an old American (especially African-American) term for a feint, a juke, a balletic sidestep that dodges the direct attacks of an opponent and instead turns his own arguments and momentum against him. That's been Obama's genius thus far – as when he turns "fiscal responsibility" or "patriotism" back on the Republicans and dares them to try to run on rhetorical and ideological principles they have long since abandoned in practice.

Novelist Ishmael Reed, in his great comic reimagining of the Civil War, Flight to Canada, describes Abe Lincoln using the "yokel-dokel" on his enemies, lulling them into believing that Lincoln was too green, too unsophisticated, just too country to outsmart them. Obama's "okey doke" has been a brilliantly effective variation on the Lincoln model, much to the consternation of the veteran Clinton political machine. My best guess is that if he can beat the Clintons with this kind of footwork and speed – and at the moment, the signs very much say yes – he will have even less trouble defeating a divided and thoroughly demoralized GOP, behind a standard-bearer trying desperately to pick up the pieces of a republic broken and betrayed by his feckless predecessor.

Share Digg Twitter Facebook Del.icio.us LinkedLn Email Print article
COMMENTS
11
 
guest Mar 02, 2008 - 05:52 pm
Michael King writes: "In all fairness, Obama has indeed enjoyed better press than Clinton, initially because a year ago nobody expected the newborn underdog to do this well and more recently because the reporters along with the Dem voters appear to have fallen hard for his combination of relaxed eloquence and youthful insouciance."

Nobody just "enjoys" better press than another unless their handlers are better connected. The press is a corporated-owned biased group that not only toes the line drawn for them, but also reaps the benefits that come with their morally bankrupt yellow journalism.

The press is no friend to the people. For our sakes and that of our children, we must turn off the television sets and cancel our newspaper subscriptions, and if possible, find our news from clean, objective sources.



VOTE HILLARY 08 guest Mar 03, 2008 - 01:58 am
Hillary Clinton is the BEST candidate for the job. She's proven time and again she has what it takes to lead our country. She can unite this country. She will bring about change through action. She's got 35 years of experience; she won't be spending the first 2 years or her presidency meeting foreign leaders when she already knows them all! She's been a great senator for NY and has done a lot for her state, which means given the chance she will bring prosperity to America. She will rebuild our economy and clean up the mess Bush has made because she knows the ins and outs of government and policy. VOTE HILLARY 08!! VOTE STRONG!!


guest Mar 03, 2008 - 02:24 pm
Obama didn't have to even romance the media, since Clinton's press operation basically tried the opposite. They threatened access to control the media narratives, having watched the tactic win so well in the hands of Bush.

Problem is, you can only keep the natives in line as long as the empire is unstoppable. Unfortunately for Clinton and her kneecapping team, there was this other legitimate groundswell to cover and be excited about.

So sad.



Vote for the Right Person mbi Mar 03, 2008 - 04:55 pm
I am voting for Hillary Clinton for the following reasons:

She is smart, capable and proven. She will be a steady and courageous leader. She has the political experience to make change in Washington. She has proven her ability to reach consensus with republicans. She has faced public and personal defeats in her life and has proven herself resilient and responsive to those trials. I know she is ready to be the president of the United States of America.

I believe Barack Obama's supporters vote for him for the following reasons:

He inspires certain feelings in them that invoke such admirable emotions as hope, faith, enthusiasm, etc. They want to believe that those feelings will transfer into reality.

I am a realist and a scientist. I need proof. Hillary Clinton has proven herself a strong leader. Barack Obama has not.

I think that Mr. Obama's "handlers" pushed him (willingly) into a campaign for a job for which he is not prepared. I can imagine the long meetings about his readiness and experience. I can imagine them telling him ... "if you wait 4 or 8 years you will have 100's of Senate votes you have to defend ... some of them controversial." "Now you are an empty slate and there is nothing much to criticize". "Now is the time".

This is not the person I want leading our country. An untried, unproven entity who has an easy time criticizing a vote that Hillary Clinton and 28 of the 49 democratic Senators made in 2002. A vote he cannot be criticized on because he was not and has not been put in a position where he had to make a critical vote.

After one of the recent debates, one of the female news commentators said in a disparaging way, “she just comes off as the smart girl in the class”. God forbid we elect a “smart girl” to lead this country. It’s much better to go with the popular boy following the ignorant boy who sits in the White House now. Popular boys usually get the smart girls to do their work for them anyway. Please, let the smart girl in the room - lead.

Come on Tuesday’s voters, give us the right person.



Vote for the Right Person guest Mar 03, 2008 - 05:30 pm
I am voting for Barack Obama for the following reasons:

He is smart, capable and proven. He will be a steady and courageous leader. He has the political experience to make change in Washington. He has proven her ability to reach consensus with Republicans. He has not faced public and personal defeats in his life and therefore has no reason to be jaded. I know he is ready to be the president of the United States of America.

I believe Hillary Clinton's supporters vote for him for the following reasons:

She inspires certain feelings in them that invoke such dishonorable emotions such as greed, hatred, and anger. They know they can transfer those feelings into money in their pockets.

I am a realist and a secretary. I need hope. Barack Obama not only inspires hope, he has proven himself a strong leader. Hillary Clinton has not.

I think that Mrs. Clinton's "handlers" pushed her (willingly) into a campaign for a job for which she is not prepared. I can imagine the long meetings about her readiness and inexperience. I can imagine them telling her ... "if you wait 4 or 8 years you will have 100's of Senate votes you have to defend ... some of them controversial." "Now you are an empty slate and there is nothing much to criticize". "Now is the time".

Clinton (the old guard watchdog) is not the person I want leading our country. An untried, unproven entity who has an easy time criticizing policies she had a hand in creating and who takes credit for things she had but a tiny role in as first lady. And quite frankly, I'd rather have a president that said at several public meetings that he opposed this war than a president who was too self absorbed to even question whether her vote FOR the war was a right one.

Come on Tuesday’s voters, give us the right person.

VOTE OBAMA.



Rogues Gallery guest Mar 03, 2008 - 07:20 pm
Obama, whatever his platform might be, (still not sure? Join the club!), has announced that, if elected, he intends to meet with an assortment of fiendish characters.

So now, the only thing that's clear is that Obama is willing to meet with, but without preconditions, the leaders of rogue nations such as Iran, Syria, Cuba, Venezuela, and North Korea during his first year in office. Obama with a Who's Who of the UnderWorld! Bet he'll be right at home! Clinton slammed that position as irresponsible and naive. Even Dubya had the sense to Just Say No to the Scoundrel Squads. Responding to Bush's criticism, Obama said he would meet with these leaders because, "It is important for the next president to go above and beyond the call because there is enormous suspicion about America right now". Bush (yes, Bush!) warned that, "A president meeting with rogue dictators would send 'Chilling signals' to the world and sow 'Confusion about our foreign policy'. It'll send the wrong message. It'll send a discouraging message to those who wonder whether America will continue to work for the freedom of prisoners. It will give great status to those who have suppressed human rights and human dignity."

It took a while, but at last Bush said something right!



His platform. guest Mar 03, 2008 - 07:35 pm
You can read all about his platform on http://www.barackobama.com/. I especially like his plan for the economy.

Please read up about Barack Obama before you vote so that you can make an informed decision at the polls. While it's true that he does share some of his vision with Clinton, I think he has the ability to move people to a middle ground to make change happen.

Clinton will never be accepted by Republicans. If you want to fix our problems with health care, with education and the military, we need someone in charge who is not afraid to reach across the aisle and appeal to people's common sense.

Please, just read what you're interested in on his site before voting. Don't go to the polls ill-informed about both candidates.



Time to vote mking Mar 03, 2008 - 10:40 pm
Folks:

I appreciate all the feedback, and the passion expressed in this string and many others on the site these last couple of weeks. We've enjoyed being part of your conversation.

I do have one small but persistent thought for Democratic voters: Just because you support your candidate strongly, it doesn't necessarily mean that his or her opponent is therefore unspeakable, unacceptable, and corrupt.

Just a thought.

Good luck tomorrow.

MK



Handy64 Mar 04, 2008 - 12:12 am
Obama on Iraq:

However, his opposition to the war flipped when he was running for Congress. In fact, he went on record saying, "There's not that much difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage. The difference, in my mind, is who's in a position to execute," according to the July 27, 2004 edition of the Chicago Tribune.



Second verse, same as the first... guest Mar 04, 2008 - 12:58 pm
This is getting old. It seems like if you could read that that it wouldn't kill you to read his response to that, which he has defended, in every. single. debate. (at least the last two).

He did not have a choice as to whether we would invade Iraq, but once we were in Iraq (thanks, Hills!) he didn't have a choice as to whether we should continue to fund the war.

He did not EVER flip on opposing the war.



okay guest Mar 04, 2008 - 01:01 pm
That was poorly written and why I am not a journalist. But this man is and maybe he can enlighten you...

http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2008/01/6786_desperate_in_nh_1.html





POST A COMMENT

(optional):
:

Permission to Print. Letter to the editor.
 
See our
Elections
page

for more
coverage.

FURTHER READING
More about
Democratic primary
Dukes and Money February 29, 2008
Questions persist about Rep. Dukes' finances

The Constable Races, Part 2 February 29, 2008
The relatively tame contests at play in precincts 1,3, and 4

Keywords
for this story
Barack Obama
Hillary Clinton
John McCain
Election

Empty Bowl Project

BLOGS
The Totally Awesome AusChron Newscast is Playing With Fire
Perry Clears Way for Executioner
Doing 25 to Life

Bill Narum: We Call That Art
Global Warming Is a Global Fraud
UT Has Bad Attitude Toward Mental Illness

ARCHIVES
More from
February 29, 2008
News
Arts
Books
Food
Screens
Music
Columns
Sports

Browse the
Archives by
Issue
Author
Column
Review
Section

Recently In
Point Austin
Once More Into the MUD November 20, 2009
What we get when we annex unplanned development: plenty of entertainment

Not About the Cameras November 13, 2009
The Sanders shooting has not been justified

Abandoning Illusions November 6, 2009
Chris Hedges on the inevitable consequences of empire

Point Austin
archive

More by
Michael King
City, Firefighters Shake Hands on Tentative Contract November 6, 2009
Both sides say they're satisfied with the deal

CodePink Red After Albright's Planned Parenthood Soiree November 6, 2009
Peace activists unwelcome at speech by former secretary of state

Contract Kumbaya: The City and the Firefighters October 16, 2009
Last November, when the Austin Firefighters Association voted overwhelmingly to reject the labor contract negotiated between its union team...

The Latest Proposal: Banning Panhandling Downtown October 9, 2009
Downtown businesses and orgs form an alliance

all stories by
Michael King


Short Story Contest
Online Contests
Chrontourage
Chronicle Merch

 
Arts & Entertainment (108)
Services (108)
Civic (20)
Retail (48)
Food & Drink (67)
Coupons (8)
Jobs (9)

Ads of the Day