Will they kill hope again?

For a few weeks I thought maybe I was wrong.

For a few weeks I thought my original belief that Hillary Clinton was the establishment candidate - and would be assured the nomination because of their support - was going to be disproven by the power of the popular movement surrounding Barack Obama.

For a few weeks I thought maybe hope would win, maybe the people would prevail, maybe we were heading to an epic change in America that would signal a real return to democracy.

For a few weeks I contemplated that this might actually be a tranformational election, one in which the country would finally be baptized in the waters of civil rights and inclusiveness and equality and at last atone for the original sins of slavery and inequality that have so infected this country until this very day.

For a few weeks I rejoiced that the ugly politics of Bush-Clinton, of Rove and Attwater, of Hannity and Limbaugh, might finally be over and the people would not be fooled again.

For a few weeks I imagined a country united by a Christian, half black, half white, young and brilliant orator who preached hope and unity and change.

For a few weeks I held what now seems to be a delusional hope.

Prior to Barack Obama's entrance into the race I held the cynical view that the establishment (corporations and the political elite) choose the nominees of each party. It isn't hard to see how they do it – they provide the money, manipulate the news, determine the story lines, and focus on what takes down one candidate and what elevates another.

They did it in 2000 – focusing on stupid and false story lines like the one about Gore insisting he "invented the internet" and ignoring the stories that might have taken down Bush – like his avoidance of military service, his arrests, his total ignorance of domestic and foreign policy, and his mythical religious conversion. Then they failed to report that the "ordinary citizens" demanding a stop of the recount in Florida were actually Bush staffers sent in to create a false outrage. When long after the Supreme Court unconstitutionally anointed Bush president, they buried on the back pages of newspapers the reality that a recount would have given the state and the presidency to Gore.

They did it in 2004 – broadcasting the Swift Boat lies as if they were truth, allowing the false stories surrounding Kerry's military service in Vietnam to grow like a cancer until no treatment could make them go away. They did not look into the multiple false red terror alerts that happened almost weekly prior to the election, and magically disappeared once the vote was held. They then ignored the stories of the manipulation of the vote in Ohio which once again gave the presidency to the worst candidate in the history of the country.

And now they have chosen their favored candidates: McCain and Clinton. The press loves McCain and boosted him into the nomination with their favorable, hero-worshipping coverage. And while the press really doesn't like Clinton, their bosses do, and so the ugly racist stories about Obama are now coming forward.

So the airways and the blogosphere are full of stories about Obama's pastor, stories that indicate he is a black separatist, an angry black man, a man who does not love his country. The earlier stories, the ones about Obama being a Muslim, couldn't stop him, so now the story has changed. Obama is no longer rumored to be a Muslim, now he is said to embrace a view of America that is hateful and critical and unpatriotic. He may be a Christian, but he is a black Christian, a Christian whose views threaten white Christians, making him a dangerous black man.

Never mind that what Obama's pastor said is literally true, that Hillary Clinton, for instance, doesn't know what it is to be a black man, and that 9/11 happened because of the violent foreign policy American has perpetrated on the world. He said politically incorrect things you are not allowed to say if you are connected in any way to a presidential candidate.

Well, that's not actually true. You are allowed to say politically incorrect things if you are connected to a favored Republican political candidate. McCain's minister supporters are allowed to say 9/11 was God's punishment for abortionists, gays, lesbians, feminists, and the ACLU. They are allowed to say Katrina was God's punishment because of the gay pride parades and the gay lifestyle in New Orleans. They are allowed to say that the Catholic Church is "The Great Whore."

McCain is allowed to publicly and enthusiastically accept the endorsements of men whose views are outrageous, while Obama must be attacked and shamed because he has connections ranging from none (with Farrakhan) to close (with Wright) with men who have also expressed unacceptable views. What's the difference? There can only be two answers: that Obama is black, and that Obama is not the establishment candidate.

Obama is not the "dangerous black man" that some of Clinton's commercials and viral emails imply. He has no criminal past, though one Clinton staffer said people will wonder if he has ever "dealt drugs." He does not fit any of the racist stereotypes of blacks created by bigots and white supremacists. He does not even appeal to race to secure votes. In fact, Obama's campaign has consistently transcended race.

But Obama is dangerous for another reason. He is a different kind of politician. He doesn't play games with lobbyists and with the rich. He goes directly to the people and the people are responding. He wants them to join him in changing the nation and renewing its promise. With that message, he has simply won too many contests and has to be stopped. The corporations and the powerful in the country cannot afford to let an entire generation actually believe they have any say in who will be president. They must squash hope once again, as they did when they made sure Martin Luther King Jr. and Bobby Kennedy could not be allowed to succeed.

We will see what comes of all of this trashing of Obama. The media and the power brokers are doing their best to destroy him. So far he has maintained his cool and seems to be continuing his transcendence of it all. But voters are gullible, and dishonest and vicious appeals to racism and fear may work with enough people to destroy Obama.

If they do they will also destroy the hopes of a generation, as the assassinations in the sixties destroyed the hopes of my generation.

Hope is a fragile thing, easily dislodged. If Obama can continue to inspire his followers to hope, in spite of these ridiculous and vicious attacks, if he can prove himself to withstand the last vestiges of the original sin of this country as well as the awesome ability of the corporations to control our elections, he will truly transform this country.

We are at an epic turning point – will we go back to the old and the vicious and the ugly or will we courageously move ahead and renew this country, destroying that which divides us and turns us against each other? If Obama can lead us to do that, he will be a transformational figure, the likes of which we have not seen since FDR.

But I fear the powerful elites will not stand for it.

The mood of the electorate: 2008

Over the past few days, pundits and analysts have been furiously studying Obama's victory in Iowa, as well as Huckabee's, and trying to determine how it happened and what it means.

Huckabee's victory is chalked up to populist rhetoric and evangelical ground troops. He is not ahead in New Hampshire, however, so populists and evangelicals must be in short supply in the granite state – or perhaps there is another explanation for why Huckabee may not repeat his victory.

As for Obama, the conventional wisdom is that he is the "candidate of change," and that people want change more than they want experience. He is likely to win in New Hampshire, with polls showing him anywhere from two to fifteen points ahead of Hillary Clinton. Since John Edwards also seems like a good candidate for change, and in fact since every democratic candidate would be an enormous change from the current administration, I'm not sure "change" is the key factor in Obama's amazing momentum.

At this moment, momentum is definitely something Obama has and Huckabee doesn't. Why is that? Why has Hillary dropped to second or third place, while Edwards can't get traction? Why, on the other hand, is the momentum less strong with Huckabee?

I believe the explanation for Obama's success in this election season lies in his perfect assessment of the psychological mood of the American people. I'm not talking about their intellectual preference for change vs. experience. While preferences are certainly significant, I'm talking about emotions rather than intellect. Obama seems not only to understand the emotional mood of the people, but also how to respond to it. Huckabee, on the other hand, understands the mood and the concerns of the evangelicals, but not the predominant mood of the country.

When it comes to factoring in the mood of the electorate, a successful politician has to do one of two things. He either has to accurately reflect the mood of the people, so that they feel he is in tune with them, or if the mood is negative and painful, he has to provide an antidote to that mood, so that they can move past it.

Let's think about the shifting mood of the electorate over the last twelve years or so. During Bill Clinton's second term, much of the electorate was angry. The elected officials and visible and invisible hate-mongers on the right had managed to fire up many in the Republican Party to feel anger towards Bill Clinton. At the same time, many on the left responded with anger to the Republicans' endless investigations, ultimate entrapment and finally impeachment of the president for an issue that had nothing to do with his presidency. The anger was widespread, but about equal in both parties, so the candidates in 2000 did not talk much about it. Neither side tapped into the anger, both sides wanting to move past it, and so the vote was split nearly equally. There was no clear winner.

After the terrorist attacks in 2001, the predominant mood in the country, especially among Republicans, was fear. George W. Bush recognized that fear and then deliberately fueled it prior to the 2004 election. He also tapped into anger towards the terrorists, and a desire for revenge, especially within his base. Thus, his Iraq War, though based on lies and deceptions, was popular with Republicans and enough Independents to assure him a second term. His mood and rhetoric matched the mood of enough voters to keep him in the White House, though just barely.

There was another mood in the country before the 2004 election, however, and that was among Democrats. That mood was intense anger - towards George W. Bush and his entire administration – for Iraq, for pandering to corporations and the wealthy, for the stolen 2000 election, for lies and secrecy and blatant defiance of the Congress - and Democrats needed a candidate who would both reflect their mood and empower them to stand up and fight against this man who should never have been president. John Kerry simply didn't have the personality or the platform to do that. The one who did, the one who captured the imagination of many Democrats, was Howard Dean, who spoke openly of the abuses of George W. Bush and vigorously opposed the Iraq War.

Once Dean's campaign imploded and the charismatically challenged John Kerry became the nominee, however, all hope of responding to the mood of Democrats was lost. Kerry couldn't decide if he was for or against the war because he was trying to appeal to the moods of both parties. So he paraded his military experience out to prove he could be as tough as Bush, and continue the Iraq War, while also hinting to Democrats that he would stop the war, eventually. Kerry's inability to really reflect the mood of the Democrats, and show them how he could solve the problems that made them so angry, along with his focus on his military bona fides which gave the Swift Boat slime machine its opening, assured his defeat.

Today, the country is beyond both fear and anger. Witness the lack of strength of Giuliani's campaign, which is a repeat of George W. Bush's appeal to fear. Over the past couple of years, as memories of 9/11 faded, and the people saw ongoing abuses of the Constitution, executive power, and international law, and as they witnessed the impotence of the Democratic Congress they elected to stop the Bush administration, and finally as a recession loomed on the horizon, the electorate has fallen into despair. Democrats and Independents are despondent over the direction this country is going and Republicans are despondent over the disintegration of their party.

There is a lot of evidence to support this descent into despair on both sides. The Republicans are in disarray, confused about whom to nominate. No one on their side seems to have a mandate, and while Huckabee has picked up steam with evangelicals, he is hated by the kingmakers in the party. Economic conservatives, neoconservatives, and traditional conservatives are frightened by his history of taxation, his attacks on Bush's foreign policy, and his concerns for the poor. Giuiliani's fearmongering isn't working, and McCain may be gaining in popularity, but he is not setting the country on fire. Romney, too, has lost his glow. It's as if Republican voters have decided to go out with a lot of different suitors, but find too many flaws and so break up with each one of them after a few dates.

The Democrats, on the other hand, are less angry because they know George W. Bush is on his way out. The anger they once felt in 2004 – attached to a desire to defeat him – is not as palpable. However, with the seeming impotence of the newly elected Democratic Congress to stop him, a sort of national depression has replaced some of that anger. At first, Hillary Clinton was the candidate most Democrats decided to support, as she seemed the logical one to fight for them when they had lost the desire to keep fighting. If Republicans called her a "bitch," so much the better. A bitch was what was needed to scratch their eyes out in the fight to get the country back. But while Democrats could intellectually get behind Hillary, her campaign style just didn't match their mood. She was too cerebral. And she didn't lift them out of their depression.

Then along came Barack Obama. His genius is that he assessed the mood of the country - and especially his party - perfectly. He saw the depression, the disillusionment, the despair, and he started talking about hope. It wasn't just that Obama knew the value of the hope message. Almost every candidate who puts hope at the center of their campaign wins. Two examples are Bill Clinton, "the man from Hope," and JFK, whose theme song was "High Hopes." It was also that he spoke with the kind of emotion that lifted the people's mood, that showed them he wasn't just speaking words, he was feeling what he wanted them to feel, and he was going to infuse them with that hope.

His speech was inspiring, the crowds grew, and people began to feel he had the antidote to their despair. He empowered them and told them he would help unite them all as they were once united immediately after 9/11. He called on them to remember their common values, and feel hope. And as the people in New Hampshire saw in person what the people in Iowa saw, they changed their loyalties and moved from supporting one of the other candidates, to supporting Obama whose poll numbers in New Hampshire are now up 10 points.

Should this continue, he will be the Democratic nominee, and his unique qualities will help him overcome the vicious attacks the Republicans will throw at him. Hope can beat fear and prejudice and ignorance and hatred, and Obama, who has faced all those things before by virtue of his unique history, is more than capable of overcoming them. With an army of fired up supporters behind him, he will overcome the Republican slime machine.

The country is tired of slime and dirty campaigns and revisiting the past. The country is tired of being angry and depressed. Obama speaks of a positive vision for the country, of the future, and of hope, which is exactly what this nation needs. Like it or not, mood appears to be the decider in this election, and as long as Obama continues to provide the antidote to the mood of depression and despair, he will be unbeatable, no matter who the Republicans nominate, and no matter what they throw at him. And they know it. As Republican commentator Laura Ingraham said after hearing Obama's victory speech in Iowa: "we're in trouble."