Obama and Blair: A little bit of history repeating itself
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: a) Barack Obama is winning America over as Tony Blair did Britain in 1997; and b) if America wakes up on November 5th to an Obama victory, it will be a similar feeling of a new dawn - and of a sudden, overnight and irrevocable dismissal of an old regime and an old way of thinking - as it was here in the UK on the morning of May 2nd that year, when we waved goodbye to over a decade of Thatcherism.
Joe Klein has written a very interesting article about Obama’s ascent, and his character, for Time. And here’s the quote which made me think of Blair again:
“There has been no grand cathartic moment for him in this campaign, but rather a steady accretion of trust, a growing public sense that he knows what he’s talking about and isn’t going to get crazy on us.”
And that, my American friends, is exactly how Tony Blair won the British election in 1997. So we all know what happens next, right?
Tags: barack obama, joe klein, time, tony blair
October 2nd, 2008 at 9:42 pm
There’s only one problem with this scenario of an unshakable and calm, steady Obama. Mr. Kein would have you vote for a man because he doesn’t show any passion about anything. Tony Blair is a passionate man. I simply do not see any similarity between Obama and Blair. I do however see similarities between Blair and McCain. I see similarities between Ronald Reagan and Sarah Palin. I am a passionate citizen and demand a passionate President.
Citizen USA
October 2nd, 2008 at 10:00 pm
I think that the unshakeable calm you see in Obama is more aloofness, more coldness, and a disdain for the United States. Be warned those of you who fancy him for president that he is not all he would have you believe. Beneath his mask of calm is a devious, calculating man steeped in Chicago politics, where the dead vote, and vote often. A man who is friends with radicals, socialists and terrorists. A man who has no respect for the traditions of the country he hopes to lead. Place your adoration elsewhere for this is not the man for the job.
October 2nd, 2008 at 11:08 pm
Re Blair: “And that, my American friends, is exactly how Tony Blair won the British election in 1997. So we all know what happens next, right?
No! What happens next? A great reforming leader? A man who led his party out of the wilderness, and was repeatedly elected (limited of course to 2 terms in the USA). A man who devolved power AWAY from the centre (to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland) A leader who settled a centuries-long conflict in his own land (N Ireland)? Who brought in the minimum wage despite business and Tory opposition? A leader who saved Muslims from Christians in Kosovo and stopped murder in Sierra Leone? A man who saw and understood the spreading grasp of a fundamentalist religious/political movement and would not leave it for future generations?
Since the policy ideas, purpose and vision are missing from Obama, whereas they poured out of every Blair pore, I assume you are referring to disappointment.
On, perhaps Iraq?
Well in that case, people need to grow up! Life is a disappointment. And then you die.
We elect politicians to decide because if we didn’t, we’d all kill one another trying to get our own ways.
It certainly couldn’t be anything to do with being or doing anything “crazy”. He was probably the most sane leader we’ve had for decades despite constant press traducement, which could have driven many mad.
I admit to not knowing enough about Obama or McCain, but I DO firmly believe that we need strong leadership in the USA. We have seen the reality of the “globalisation” of the world over the financial turmoil. Blair has often mentioned this, and as usual, he is right.
Have no doubt that if the west is happy to watch America shrink in importance internationally A.N. Other will take its place.
And another thing on disappointment - I didn’t think we had the Messiah when Blair first appeared on the scene, so did not set myself up for a crash. In fact I have never voted Labour until very recently, and then not consistently. But Tony Blair grew on me. And I think he was a far better leader at the end than in the beginning.
So if it’s disappointment you refer to …. people shouldn’t expect a political leader to be above politics. A reality check will land on the table of the new president, whoever he is.
October 3rd, 2008 at 8:10 am
BlairSupporter: What I meant by “what happens next” is that Obama wins the election!
I meant it as a positive thing.
Grundoon: I don’t see aloofness or disdain at all in Obama. I see enormous passion for what he cares about, albeit delivered in a very calm manner. And I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that. (That said, he is absolutely capable of showing and stirring passions and emotions - did you not see his DNC acceptance speech?!).
Beowulf: I was using Klein’s quote as an example of Obama and Blair’s *tactics* as opposed to character. They have both had to convince an unconvinced country that they are ready to lead them, and that it is safe in their hands. This is exactly what New Labour had to do after over a decade of the Conservatives in power (and coincidentally, as with Obama now, they had to do it with a younger, charismatic leader/speaker who seemed to represent a new way of thinking).
October 6th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
I would have more time for Obama if he shared Blair’s courageous views about Iraq and what needs to be done to combat terrorism.
October 6th, 2008 at 8:24 pm
Stan - in what way was what Bush, Blair and Rumsfeld (I think he was rather key) did about Iraq courageous?
October 9th, 2008 at 7:36 pm
Andrea, Blair and Bush were courageous because they pursued a just war despite one of the biggest opposition campaigns in history. My reasons for asserting that this was a just war are set out in these pieces that I have done for Progressonline http://theprogressive.typepad.com/the_progressive/2007/02/22_reasons_why_.html .
October 9th, 2008 at 10:39 pm
thanks Stan - I shall take a look.
November 4th, 2008 at 7:16 pm
Obama,Blair and Clinton are like peas in a pod. They are all vacuuous slick super smart college kids, with no moral compass whatsoever, which crave for vanity, recognition, adolation, glory and power. They have all outstanding academic qualifications only suppased by their wives. Their partners all have a superior intelligence to them and also crave power. Infact you have the most formadable team of Machevellians schemers known to man.
Blair and Clinton surrounded themselves with the biggest bunch of liars, plotters, and spin merchants ever.
Obama has yet to be exposed, it will take about 3months for him to display these traits.
November 4th, 2008 at 7:29 pm
Clinton is responsible for.
1 Doing nothing to stop the genocide in Ruanda
2 Same in the Balkans
3 Failing on the Palestian/Israel problem
4 Starting the credit crunch
5 Failing to sort out the USA health disaster
6 Backing off any security on internal USA flights because the airline donated vast amounts of money to his campaign
Blair is responsible for,
1 Scandal after scandal Eccelstone, David Kelly etc
2 Iraq, lies corruption and 2 dogey dossiers
3 Credit crunch
4 Stealth taxes
5 Dome, doom
6 Can somebody compile a dogey dossier on Bliars dogey deals it would be a foot .
7 400% of his cabinet had to resign over scandals, Mendelsson,
November 4th, 2008 at 7:39 pm
Blair also destroyed the Labour party most ordinary people resigned because they could not stomach his reactionary dictatorship and he was left to send elderly lord round to ever dogey rich meglomaniac imigrant who craves British establisnment recognition.
He ruthlessly stamped on any opposition in his party going so far to eject and arrest an elderly 90 year old for having the audacity to heckle Jack Straw on the corrupt Iraq adventure