PHILADELPHIA — No state began with more promise than did the commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Here was the new nation's first capital city. And what leaders! William Penn — whose Quaker values imparted charity, tolerance and acceptance of religious minorities — then the wise and brilliant Benjamin Franklin, the quintessential Founding Father.
Sadly, since those early salad days, Pennsylvania has produced just one U.S. president, the disastrous one-term Democrat James Buchanan, whose weak indecisiveness plunged the nation into its bloodiest and most tragic era, the Civil War. But please note that the man had a truly impressive resume — Buchanan had served with some distinction in Washington, D.C., in the House, later as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations committee, and then as secretary of state and ambassador to Great Britain, and had three times turned down a nomination to the Supreme Court. With that experience, one might have concluded Buchanan would have been ready on day one!
In 1900, Pennsylvania was still the United States' second largest state. As recently as 1960, when John Kennedy defeated Richard Nixon, Pennsylvania, which JFK carried, had the same number of electoral votes — 32 — as did California, which Nixon won. This November, the winner of the Golden State will get 55 electoral votes, while carrying the Quaker state will mean just 21 electoral votes.
During the George W. Bush presidency, Pennsylvania has lost 207,400 manufacturing jobs. The state is now the nation's third oldest (only Florida and West Virginia have a higher percentage of elderly), 43rd in percentage of population under the age of 18 and 46th in growth (Pennsylvania is projected to lose another congressional seat in the 2010 census.)
To put it bluntly, Change has not been that good to Pennsylvania. While the American tradition has been to welcome Change as essentially just another name for improvement, Keystone state citizens have grown understandably wary of Change.
While historians can debate whether the incumbent Republican chief executive is as bad as Buchanan, and while better than four out of five Americans believe their country is "seriously off in the wrong track," Pennsylvanians appear reluctant to embrace Big Change.
You almost got the feeling, in the candidates' debate here Wednesday night, from the somber, almost sullen facial expression of Democratic front-runner, Barack Obama, that he knew the skepticism and doubt toward Change among the electorate.
It had been easily Obama's worst week of the campaign.
He had been playing defense — badly — never fully apologizing for nor adequately explaining his thesis, offered at a private San Francisco fund-raiser, as to why economically stressed blue-collar Pennsylvania voters turned to their religion, their hunting and their fear of the unknown. From personal experience, I can testify that I have never been more fervent in devotion to my own religious faith than when I was away from all family, friends and the familiar as a lowly enlisted man in the Marine Corps.
What was missing from Candidate Obama was the message of Hope, which had carried him to the fore. Gone, too, was his wonderful smile. Americans love smiles on their public favorites. Think of Ike and JFK and FDR, and you see their smiles, warm and confident. Imagine Tiger Woods without his smile. You can't. Obama's winning smile was apparently a casualty of a week of punches.
Up to now, one of the strongest cases for the Obama candidacy has been the Obama campaign, which has been exceptionally well-managed and efficient, as well as refreshingly welcoming and inclusive. But every campaign is inevitably and ultimately the mirror reflection of the candidate in whose name that campaign is run. It has not been the high-tech wizardry that has made the Illinois Democrat's campaign so special, it has been his message of hope, change and inspiration of bringing people together in the common interest.
Pennsylvania is not easy for Barack Obama. But how he responds will tell us volumes about the kind of presidential nominee and, more importantly, the kind of president he would be.
To find out more about Mark Shields and read his past columns, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com.
DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.
COPYRIGHT 2008 MARK SHIELDS
|
 |
Comments
|
5 Comments | Post Comment
|
|
Dear Mr. Shields,
The polls keep showing that the ecomony is the number one problem. Senators Clinton and Obama want to TAX THE HEDGE FUND DEALERS. You know, the same ones that live in Bermuda, which is pretty close to Haiti, where they are eating mud cookies according to the news media. According to the April 13, 2008 Parade magazine, the GAO report of 2004 talked about the corporate fat cats. The newest GAO report of October 2007, (GAO-08-25), available on the Web, really gets into details about HEDGE FUNDS and DERIVATIVES and I haven't found anybody that wants to talk about it in the media even though it's been out since October. I'd like to see a two hour exclusive debate on the economy regardless of how many lobbyists down there in Washington telling that you don't need federal regulations but they're lying, otherwise, you wouldn't have Enron and commercial banks bailing out Bear Stearns and many others.
Yours truly, Disgusted Middleclass Taxpayer, LaVern Isely
Comment: #1
Posted by: LaVern Isely
Sat Apr 19, 2008 11:56 AM
|
|
|
|
Thank you Mark Shields; and the problem is, that change has not really been good for the United States. I mean, if business does not like you, or your tax burden for your infrastructure, they can whip saw you to death before finally packing up and moving abroad, or down South, where they can do it all again in a few years, ever leaving their problems behind them. Business runs this place, and they leave a lot of bitter people behind. But How Dare Mr. Obama talk about bitter white folks? Here is the problem for him. The news media and the republicans, and Mrs Clinton have finally gotten him to shut up his mouth and quit talking about change and hope. How? Easy. They made him afraid to open his mouth. He stated the obvious to large money contributers in San Fansisco about bitter Americans. The simple fact is that they are an impediment to change. But the lesson is that Mr. Obama cannot talk about white folks. He can't talk about your typical white folks or any other sort. We can still talk about Nwords. That is our right, and they better not talk about us. My question to you is: how white would any black person have to be in this country before he could enter the political discussion as an equal? It seems a man like Mr. Obama, -not the child of slavery, and equally white and black would be the perfect man to see both sides of the question, yet his mouth is stuffed with the fear to open his trap. Isn't there any way to point out to people that he is not from another planet, that he is half white, and entirely human? It is not only that he is excluded from talking of our shared national condition, but that the most inane banality must be conformed with before he or anyone can be elected president; and yet, we elect liars or idiots without consideration. How do you condemn a man for not wearing a flag lapel pin when to be president in this country means being the national commander, and a target for every nutcase who wants his name in the history book without merit. Will he swear to defend the flag or the constitution? If he is elected he will wear the flag forever whether he likes it or not. Dr. Sam Johnson was right to say patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundral; but patriotism is grass through a goose for every two bit piece of garbage looking for a government retirment plan. If every man waving the flag for his bread and butter now got an honest job, we would have no problem fixing the government . My bet is that those who will not vote for Mr. Obama for any reason only need a reason to say they will not vote for Mr. Obama because even the most illogical people know they must present the appearance of being reasonable. Who needs a reason? Electing a president to great power with little control for a long time on short aquaintence is never an act of reason. It is a symptom of national insanity. Thanks again. Keep up the great work.
Comment: #2
Posted by: James A, Sweeney
Sat Apr 19, 2008 9:09 PM
|
|
|
|
All true Mark. But I wish to add to what you have written some comments about your lesser colleague on the News Hour With Jim Lehrer. These are the kinds of things you were too much of a gentleman to say but I am not.
As you and the Lehrer listeners know, Mr. Brooks really had a field day with flag lapels. He went on and on about how Obama doesn't show people he's just like them, a fellow dog in the pack, and that's why he “blew” the flag lapel issue. You came right back with how little true patriotism many flag wearers have shown, and that was cool.
But then Mr. Brooks went on to express outrage at the promises both Democratic candidates made not to increase taxes for those with annual incomes below $200,000 or so. What a dishonest failure of leadership, he bleated in so many words.
So I really wanted you to ask him, “Didn't you just get done ranting about how Obama should feed people more of what they want to see and hear, and go ahead and wear that lapel of conformity? Your president has just finished bankrupting the country, with the full approval of your Republican Party, on his fantasy tax cuts in the midst of the wildest spending spree the U.S. has ever seen. So what is so dishonest about Barack or Hillary wanting to at least try to inject a little fairness into tax policy? And how is that any worse than feeding the masses the same kind of poison cotton candy the Republicans have been stuffing down their throats for just about 8 years?
The fact is, Obama will be elected as a leader or not at all. True leaders don't try to pass for another sheep in the herd. We've kind of forgotten that because the don't-worry-be-happy phonies have been running the show for so long. So, yes, he has to work on not offending those pathetic Reagan “Democrats” out there who, sadly, are every bit as mired in their feel-good substitutes for reality as Obama was saying they are. Unfortunately, odds are they just won't vote for a black candidate anyway, and specially one as threateningly brilliant as he is. He has to worry about offending everyone else with a stake in the fantasy status quo as well. That's no small undertaking, and no wonder no one else has the courage, or should I say audacity, to come along and try to do it.
The problem with Mr. Brooks, that down to earth guy who never misses an opportunity to remind us that he went to the University of Chicago (and, oh yes, that he was singled out there by William F. Buckley for probably the only act of brave writing in his life), is that he doesn't know a leader from a cheerleader. He proved that when he joined the chorus in 2003 on the same News Hour With Jim Lehrer by calling our invasion of Iraq a “noble cause”.
Every time he comes up with one of his criticisms of the Democrats for not taking a realistic approach to the war and offering a concrete “plan” to exit the mess he helped talk us into creating, that phrase just pops into my mind. I'm sure it's slipped his by now. And he just can't resist jumping on the bandwagon, so now he's back to doing that yellow thing he does best by taking cheap shots at Barack Obama.
Comment: #3
Posted by: Masako
Sun Apr 20, 2008 11:28 AM
|
|
|
|
Masaco; Every so called leader of a every social change is really a follower. And, no follower is fit for command. If Mr. Obama were a demagogue, the first thing he would do is wear a flag. If he, were me, the first thing he would have done after this broil is wear a flag under his chin like a spit rag, and ask America if that is all they want from their leaders. He should tell people he is not running for demagogue of America; but president. As president he is only first among equals, yet we are so neatly divided that no one can placate one side without offending the others. So, whether he wears the flag now is immaterial as old glory has once more become an object of division rather than a beacon of unity. You must understand, that for some, division is the greater good, and all the mending in the world can't catch up to their tear. Thanks. Sweeney
Comment: #4
Posted by: James A, Sweeney
Mon Apr 21, 2008 6:27 AM
|
|
|
|
042608 - News Hour - 9.2 Per cent. Thank you Mark. I have been waiting to hear a journalist, any journalist, other than John Stewart, announce the results, instead of saying 10.
Comment: #5
Posted by: Dave Anderson
Fri Apr 25, 2008 7:51 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
