e-mail article |  print | post comments | digg | Mixx! | NEWSLETTER

Now that Sen. Barack Obama has announced his intentions to create a presidential exploratory committee, which Sen. Hillary Clinton is shortly expected to do, the battle of the "firsts" is on.

He's a rock star; she's arguably the most influential first lady since Eleanor Roosevelt. He's a first-term senator; she spent eight years in the White House. He always opposed the Iraq war; she changed her mind after initially approving it. He's a black man; she's a white woman—but that seems to matter less than what they're saying, and even more importantly, how the public perceives them.

As one blogger writes, "Race is not the issue with Obama. Colin Powell would make an excellent presidential candidate because of his enormous amount of executive experience, and if he were running against Obama he would win in a landslide."

Indeed. Obama's relative inexperience has rekindled the  debate about "qualified versus capable", which traditionally has been used to exclude anyone other than white men from high-level positions in government and in corporate America.  For more on this issue, read the upcoming April 2007 issue of DiversityInc magazine.

As one Obama critic writes, "You say you will vote for Obama because he is 'capable to lead us in the time of trouble.' My question is simply this, how do you know? Where is there any evidence that he is capable? This man has just two years of experience in national politics. I urge anyone to tell me—what has he ever done to make you think he can lead?"

What Is 'Experience?'

Where does one draw the line? People doubt Obama's leadership capacity as a first-term senator, but would it make a difference if this were his second term? What about if he had never been elected at all? According to Democratic pollster Mark Mellman, neither Obama's inexperience nor admitted drug use, which some have said may negatively impact his chances, will make a difference.

"People want something new and different, and there is nobody in this contest who can better lay claim to being new and different than Barack Obama," he told the Los Angeles Times.

As a public desperate for respite from electoral frustration seeks to divorce itself from a legacy of divisive politics, Obama's "inexperience" may be his greatest asset. His announcement yesterday, for example, includes no mention of the word "Republican," nor mention of the word "Democrat," which exempts him from the partisan techniques candidates traditionally have used to differentiate themselves from their competitors. Obama, on the other hand, isn't trying to separate himself from anyone—quite the opposite, in fact.

As one insightful blogger puts it, "Obama isn't running against Republicans; he's running against partisanship itself."

On his web site, Obama calls attention to national concerns such as rising healthcare costs, economic instability, oil dependence and national security. "America's faced big problems before," he notes. "But ... politics has become so bitter and partisan, so gummed up by money and influence, that we can't tackle the big problems that demand solutions. And that's what we have to change first."

Is the public ready for the kind of change Obama's talking about? Neither Obama nor Clinton has clinched the nomination by any means, although Clinton maintains a steady lead in the polls. USAToday/Gallup's latest national poll of 518 Democrats shows Clinton ahead 29 percent, followed by Obama (18 percent) and Edwards (13 percent) for the democratic presidential nomination.

What Does It All Mean?

If Clinton shortly announces her intent to form a presidential exploratory committee as expected, it would make raising the funds necessary to support a presidential campaign all the more difficult and the race all the more competitive. Obama's been scooping up major donors in California, a state Clinton may have been counting on, but the New York senator has a head start, thanks in part to her husband's fundraising network. Clinton already has amassed $14.4 million in campaign dollars to Obama's $756,000.

Clinton appeared on NBC's "Today Show" this morning after returning from a recent visit to Afghanistan and Iraq. When asked by host Matt Lauer whether she thought Obama was "qualified" to be president, she deferred to the voters. Howard Wolfson, a senior Clinton adviser, also dodged the "Obama question," telling the Los Angeles Times, "Sen. Clinton has a strong case to make for her own candidacy, and is going to have to make the best case for herself."

Some bloggers are making the case for her. One writes, "Obama's road to the White House is through Hillary. I like Obama. I want him to run. But Hillary had the advantage of being in the White House for eight years and looking over her husband's shoulder—almost like an apprentice. If you don't think Bill talked to his very smart wife about all the goings on and even relied on her heavily to talk things out then you're just not thinking right. That kind of experience you can't buy."

Ultimately, the public is demanding accountability for change. The candidate who can deliver that to them most effectively, or at least convince voters he or she will, will be likely to get the votes.

Other candidates for the Democratic nomination include North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, John Kerry's vice-presidential running mate in the 2004 election; Connecticut's Sen. Christopher Dodd; Ohio's Rep. Dennis Kucinich; and former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack.

More from Today's Diversity News
<< PREVIOUS ITEM

e-mail article |  print | post comments | digg | Mixx! | NEWSLETTER

Send Your Comments About This Article Now