Senator Obama at the Center of New Hampshire

The election of 2006 was a revolution that was barely televised in New Hampshire. The State House, Senate and Executive Council all gained a Democratic majority, which neither the pundits nor the media had predicted. That the state also retired its two Republican Congressmen and sent Democratic replacements to Washington was icing on the cake.

So, when it came time for 1500 licket-holders to celebrate our victory in Manchester yesterday, a strong contingent of media keen on catching up with the news was to be expected. But, that doesn't seem to be why a dozen videographers, an equal number with still cameras and a host of people with note-pads were in attendance. And the morning-after coverage doesn't even suggest that all those media folk were there. So, what was going on?

Well, it seems that the invitation to Senator Obama to deliver a key-note speech set the script that this was the opening of yet another presidential campaign. And that's what the stories are all about.

I intend to make my report a little different.

In going over the Senator's presentation in my mind, I was left with the impression he'd come with a list of words and phrases that had tested well with audiences. Perhaps this perception was influenced by the fact that he frequently continued speaking before the audience applause was done, as if the response was expected and not particularly significant. (The Boston Globe reports numerous "standing ovations" but fails to mention that the audience had no choice, since the only people provided with chairs were the dignitaries on the stage).

The Senator's apparent lack of sensitivity to the audience's response contrasted with our two new Representatives, who preceded Obama at the lectern. Their appreciation of the crowd's enthusiasm for their achievements was plapable. Carol Shea-Porter in particular has learned the art of listening well and responds to interruptions with a smile and an appropriate pause.

In any case, after the pro-forma expressions of appreciation for having been invited and recognizing the electoral achievements of those present, on the stage and in the audience, the Senator launched into an address which included the following words and phrases:

We the people

public servants and public service

leaders and leadership

activists and agitators

audacity

symbol

citizen

American values

will and imagination

ideology

Not necessarily in that order. Though "ideology" seemed sort of an after-thought and not quite in keeping with the rest. Then I learned from David Sirota that this is the word of the week at the Democratic Leadership Council.

While I was personally gratified by the reference to politicians as public servants and appreciated his throw-away line that politics is not a game, Senator Obama seems to be suggesting that the country's leaders being (once again) out of step with what the American people want is to be corrected by changing the leadership, rather than recognizing that the people are in charge.

Strangely, although there was mention of the Declaration of Independence and the addition of various groups to the ranks of citizenship, individual rights went largely overlooked, even as social obligations seem to be restricted to providing for the welfare of the very young and the very old--those for whom "will and imagination" are not sufficient to get them what they need.

Also, although the audience responded with great enthusiasm to the topic of Iraq, whatever the Senator's position is was lost to me in the observation that "tough and smart" needs to take the place of "tough and dumb"--a laugh line designed to erase a thought?

Finally, from my perspective, the Senator's approach to the health care mess is perhaps most disappointing. Although he seems to have a good grasp of the waste and misadministration which sustains the most expensive system on the face of the earth, while leaving fully one sixth of the entire population out, his suggestion that we tinker with the record-keeping to reduce the cost boggles the mind. One can only hope that the role of the phramaceutical cartels and the insurance middle-men hasn't already been conceded.

Senator Obama is an effective speaker and, if political involvement is an acquired taste, adds a certain sparkle. But, one gets the sense that the hard work will have to be done by someone else.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click 'Save settings' to activate your changes.

Feedback on our favorite son

Thanks for blogging about the event - Nancy Tobi let me know about it. I want to encourage as many DFNH members, from as many of the DFA groups in the state as possible, to blog here also to let us know your take on the event and on our junior Senator. You can also cross post at democracyforillinois.org. Here in the Land of Lincoln we're going to be spectators for most of this again (every four years we wish we were in Iowa instead; I still have my orange hat).

Having first met Barack in the late 80s (my wife worked for a summer with Michelle and him and then I got to know him politically) I can't confess to any objectivity whatsoever. What I can tell this crowd that may be of interest is that:

A) Barack was one of the first two State elected officials here to publicly endorse Gov. Dean for President in 2003. The other was my own State Senator, Don Harmon.

B) Those two were also the first two State officials here to publicly oppose the Iraq war - before the invasion.

As for healthcare, for me personally the fact that he's for universal healthcare in this country - without qualification; no "access to" or "goal of" or other equivocation - is also important. But again, I'm completely biased and of course even with that relative clarity such things can get wobbly at times.

And I am sympathetic to the need for Barack to be more obviously cognizant when he speaks publicly that the power he holds - or wishes to hold - is always and ever on loan. That King George II never acknowledged this, from the get-go, was the first of now innumerable errors. I suspect you'll hear more in that direction from Barack in the year ahead.

All I can tell you is - he's trying. He knows where he stands in historical terms, he gets the expectations, and that alone would be daunting, almost disfiguring, to a less-real person in politics. I mean seriously, can you imagine?

What he needs is to hear from you more. A LOT more. Be patient - you'll see him a lot - because he feeds on that; I've seen him gather and build with that. I can tell you in less papparrazi-esque settings he does listen. We're trying to engineer multiple meetings with DFNH groups soon so he can start a conversation with more bandwidth. In the meantime I think if you browse through his podcasts you'll get a fuller picture.

You can (should) remind him that DFA was the first national group to endorse him in the 2004 primary cycle - BEFORE Blair Hull flamed out and Dan Hynes faded. I spoke with Jim Dean about this earlier today. Sen. Obama could stand to be reminded, through a fast-growing echo chamber around him, that he needs to dance with the one that brung him. He is a class act, though; he is as he seems when interviewed - so I expect he will.

Thanks again, Monica!

Eric Davis
Founder, Democracy for Illinois

Access

Well, unfortunately, the word "access" along with "quality" has crept into his vocabulary as his postcard indicates.

About "leadership" and the "People"

"...Senator Obama seems to be suggesting that the country's leaders being (once again) out of step with what the American people want is to be corrected by changing the leadership, rather than recognizing that the people are in charge."

Monica, help me understand this observation. Are you saying that the people can directly govern? No need for leaders, politicians? Do you think that Obama would dispute this fact. Changing the political leadership to reflect the changes, and hopefully the wisdom, of the people is what a working democratic system makes possible.

Bill

No, too many cooks in the kitchen obviously spoil the broth

However, although Senator Obama spoke of public service, there was little evidence that the public is actually in charge.
Oddly enough, the person who has most influenced my thinking lately is Justice Anthony Kennedy. In talking about the rule of law, he not only pointed out that the Constitution is a LIMITING document, limiting what government and its agents can and are bound to do, but that each person (not citizen) is entitled to enforce the law.
The people's involvement in government when the laws they have agreed to are not being followed is a principle that doesn't seem particularly appealing to public officials at any level.
Republicans, in particular, seem to be under the impression that being selected at the ballot box gives them carte blanche. Some Democrats seem inclined to believe that by delivering certain "benefits" they can enjoy the same perquisites. In other words, they get the power in exchange for throwing us the crumbs.
That's not my idea of how government ought to be run.

You hit it, Monica, as always

I did not attend the Obama event, and I have no opinions one way or another on the good Senator from Illinois. I am pleased he came to visit, and welcome him as an honored guest among the others passing through the Granite State these days.

Monica, you always seem able to zero in on important details, and what I liked about what you wrote here is the following:

(the suggestion that) the country's leaders being (once again) out of step with what the American people want is to be corrected by changing the leadership, rather than recognizing that the people are in charge.

This is the biggest challenge facing American democracy. That our elected, or not elected, depending on where you live and which voting system you are subjected to, representatives seem to forget that this country belongs to the American people, that the government belongs to the American people, and that the leaders are public servants.