Barack Obama’s Victory Speech in Iowa:

When the Anti-Hero Runs for President

 Abstract

This essay examines some of the rhetoric that Barack Obama used in his campaign speeches in

his quest to win nomination for the Democratic National Party during the 2008 Presidential

Election. Though I reference several of his speeches to build my case, I focus on Obama’s

victory speech given in Des Moines, Iowa on January 3, 2008. Here, his ability to clearly identify

and articulate who his supporters are vs. those who are not is, I contend, a key factor in

mobilizing an army of Obama voters. Instead of playing the race card, Barack Obama

consistently eschewed race by focusing on a non-partisan politics that encompasses all political

parties—not just Democrats. More importantly, he unified and solidified his audience by forging

a unique bond between both himself and his listeners. In this essay, I take a closer look at the so-

called Obama phenomenon which is, in reality, Obama’s ability to persuade, in spite of

perceived shortcomings such as heritage or race.

2
 Anti-Hero Runs for Presidency: Iowa Speech 3
Introduction

Singled-out as a rising star, Barack Obama has been dubbed as the new rock star of the

Democratic National Party and presumed nominee for the presidential ticket in 2008. Handsome,

articulate and ably equipped to poke a well-crafted jab at any opponent who stands in his way,

Obama’s leap from senator of Chicago’s 13th district in 2004 to his predicted win in the U.S.

Presidential election of 2008, continues to send shock waves throughout much of the country,

largely because of his race. Barack Obama is the first African-American to become a serious

contender for the role of U.S. President. And though both the press and the media make much

ado of this particular accomplishment, one can only speculate if it is much ado about nothing.

How much of his success at voting polls throughout the country and at fundraisers where he has

raised millions of dollars can be attributed more to his rhetoric than his race? Instead of using the

race card, Obama uses the rhetoric card. His, now familiar, “change” slogan may be what most

of America can now chant, on cue, but do his words go beyond a mere soundbite? In this essay,

I look at Barack Obama’s speeches to uncover the trigger words or nuances that not only served

as the basis for his overwhelming support but that, more importantly, allowed him to distance

himself from what might be perceived as shortcomings, (e.g., race, heritage, affluence) and better

align himself with voters of all colors. During the Iowa election, Obama’s appeal to the 18-29

year old age group is of particular note. In the first caucus of the race for the Democratic

nominee, Obama galvanized thousands of young voters and garnered 60% of their vote

(Burstein, 2008). The so-called youth vote was largely responsible for his unprecedented success

in Iowa as it was for John Kerry and Howard Dean in 2004.

Why did Obama do so well in the Iowa caucus while Hillary Clinton and John Edwards

only came in second and third, respectively? How did his handling of the lack of experience

claim work for him vs. against him? More importantly, why is examining the merit of his words

important as he comes closer to securing the Democratic nomination? Though I examine the
3
speech in which he first announced his decision to run for the presidency in 2007 and make

reference to his keynote address delivered at the Democratic National Convention in 2004, I

focus on the rhetoric of his victory speech given in Des Moines, Iowa following his successful

caucus election on January 3, 2008.

Though some might say Barack Obama’s popularity at the polls is largely due to the

timing of his nomination and the aftermath of an unpopular war (e.g., the Republican party and

the war in Iraq), there are other less obvious reasons, as well. Many have suggested that it is

because he is black that he is popular since he symbolizes victimage or a repressed white guilt

that this country has borne for over 300 years. There may be some truth to this but it certainly

isn’t because Obama, himself, is raising issues of African-American entitlement or playing the

race card. Instead of using race as a reason or factor in his campaign, Obama scrupulously

avoided any comment or mention of his race early on and probably never would have had it not

been for the stormy imbroglio with his pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Just as importantly,

Obama’s electrifying speech delivered at the 2004 Democratic National Convention proved to be

his starring audition that led to his entrée into the presidential race. The journey of a country’s

political ideology that mutated and evolved from conservatism to liberalism may, in part, been

largely due to the foibles of a Bush Administration but how much of Barack Obama’s

phenemonal popularity is due to his rhetoric and what he tells us during every speech? From the

days of his town hall meetings in local churches in Chicago’s Southside to the poignant,

emotionally-charged apology given in response to his former pastor’s so-called un-American

speech last April, Obama’s reliance on his rhetoric has served as his life-jacket in the struggle to

win nomination.

4
 Anti-Hero Runs for Presidency: Iowa Speech 5
Campaign Rhetoric that Embraces Lincoln

Probably one of the greatest reasons for both the public and media’s surprise (and much

of the skepticism) of Barack Obama’s success at the polls is due to the fact that he would be the

first African-American to become a candidate for U.S. Presidency. But instead of using his race

as an excuse or a reason to validate or justify votes, Obama has taken a decidedly rigorous course

in avoiding references to his skin color. A prime example is one of the first campaign speeches

given in 2007 that is more inclusive of patriotism vs. race or partisanship. Obama’s skill in using

campaign rhetoric that embraces not only a former president but a president who is also

symbolically identified with racial divisiveness and unification goes beyond mere coincidence.

On February 10, 2007, on the steps of the state capitol in Springfield, Illinois, Obama

compares himself to Abraham Lincoln, metaphorically, throughout his speech. Both the timing

of his announcement in Springfield, Illinois and allusion to one of the greatest presidents of the

United States is a stroke of genius in that he effectively aligns himself with an American

tradition.

Probably the most obvious similarity between both Lincoln and Obama is their career

tracks: both were lawyers but what is even more compelling is the outcome of their political

campaign elections in their formative years in Congress. As with Lincoln’s loss in 1858, Obama

unsuccessfully ran for a Congressional seat in the State of Illinois where he lost to Bobby Rush

in 2000. Lincoln would later win the nomination of the Republican Party in 1860 just as Obama

would go on to win the nomination of the Democratic National Party in 2008. Of course many, if

not most, U.S. Presidents were lawyers prior to assuming office so this might not be of any

surprise. What is probably more intriguing or the real concidence is their rhetoric. Both speeches

encompass a symbolism of racial unity that Obama and Lincoln used to effectively inspire the

audience.

It was in Springfield, Illinois where Lincoln gave his famous “House Divided” speech on
5
June 15, 1858 and was chosen by the Republican Party as their leading candidate for the U.S.

state senate. But just as either of these events constituted a major turning point in Lincoln’s

career (Fehrenbacker, 1960), the symbolism of a black man giving roughly the same speech one

hundred years later is almost prophetic. Whether one remembers Lincoln for his tremendous

success and fortitude in bringing the Civil War to an end or the fact that he freed millions of

African-American slaves with the Emancipation Proclamation will vary based on your audience.

Lincoln is treasured and endeared by all races for very different reasons. But the imagery of an

African-American who boasts a mixed parentage of a white mother and a black father, adds to

the notion of that racial unification that Lincoln sought. Obama’s racial make-up, in and of itself,

lends itself to the mysticism of whites releasing blacks to freedom, especially when one of those

blacks comes back to rule or govern a largely white population. Biracial, himself, Obama’s

biological make-up and heritage implies or gives the illusion of whites and blacks finally uniting

and coming together, as one.

When we consider the fact that Lincoln’s primary purpose and resolute goal in office was

not only the abolition of slavery but the unification of two races, we are inclined to consider

Obama’s own ancestry, as well. Obama, himself, is theoretically, the product of both the master

and the slave dichotomy that existed between white slaveowners and African-American slaves

prior to Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation of 1862. Obama is, in many respects, following in

the footsteps of another leader who successfully led this country through one of the greatest

crises in its history, uniting two adversaries, both geopolitically (the North and the South) and

racially (blacks and whites). It is in this sense that he can be considered the by-product or

intrinsic center of the whole that Lincoln sought to create and unite more than one hundred years

ago. What follows is an excerpt from Obama’s speech, delivered on the capital steps in

Springfield, Illinois, announcing his decision to run for the Democratic nomination in 2007:

And that is why, in the shadow of the Old State Capitol, where Lincoln once
6
 Anti-Hero Runs for Presidency: Iowa Speech 7
called on a divided house to stand together, where common hopes and common
dreams still, I stand before you today to announce my candidacy for President of
the United States. (Obama, 2007)

Of course, Obama’s announcement for candidacy is not without a generous prefacing.

Before he can presume to be helpful in solving America’s political problems, he must build his

case to substantiate or validate his worthiness as a presidential hopeful and someone qualified to

solve the people’s problems. As a relative newcomer to Congress with a little over ten years

experience as a state senator, he tactfully ingratiates his audience with stories of his humble

beginnings. But it is Obama’s talent for weaving metaphors and personification into statements

that also evokes images of this country’s divisiveness and Lincoln’s tireless efforts to unite the

South with the North during the Civil War that is even more impressive:

In the face of a politics that’s shut you out, that’s told you to settle, that’s
divided us for too long, you believe we can be one people, reaching for what’s
possible, building that more perfect union. (Obama, 2007)

His announcement speech given on the steps of the Old State Capital in Springfield,

Illinois is carefully crafted so that it paints the picture of a pious, hard-working college student

who endured for the greater good (Obama, 2007). Standing in front of a thunderous roar of

applause and cheers from the audience, Obama admits that he realizes his decision to run for the

most important office of the country is presumptuous, audacious, even. To the average citizen

who is probably well-acquainted with the racial history of this country, the assumption implies

Obama’s temerity in believing a black man can become president of a country where

institutionalized racism has been an endemic point of contention for more than 300 years. This is

not the case. Obama goes on to say that it is because of his relative recency to Congress that this

might be the probable concern: “I know I haven’t spent a lot of time learning the ways of

Washington. But I’ve been there long enough to know that the ways of Washington must

change” (Obama, 2008). Again, Obama’s tact in apologizing for a raceless shortcoming is

noteworthy because it allows his audience to comfortably escape any feelings of guilt associated
7
with this country’s unsavory history of racism and slavery. Instead of dwelling on issues of race

or class, his speech allows his audience to participate in the more comfortable, more wholesome

notion of being a newcomer or new kid on the block, something of which practically everyone

can relate to or has experienced. Common themes and shared beliefs are standard fare for all

politicians because of their efficacy and cost-effectiveness. They allow the politician or the

rhetor to quickly embrace the hopes, dreams and emotions of the large majority of his or her

audience with little worry of offending or slighting a particular group who might also be in

attendance.

Politicians and presidential hopefuls basically employ and use the same campaign

rhetoric throughout their speeches, both during nomination as presidential hopefuls and, again,

once elected to office. In fact, themes that Obama references in his announcement speech in

Springfield, Illinois are reminiscent of a campaign speech given by another Presidential hopeful

some sixty years earlier. And while Obama cites what might appear to be only coincidental when

he references Lincoln and the location of his announcement, Franklin D. Roosevelt not only

alludes to Lincoln in one of his campaign speeches, he makes full reference to Lincoln in the

introduction of his speech. Like Obama, Roosevelt also prefaces his speech by reminding the

audience that political pundits said he was the unlikely candidate, as well. Both candidates

pepper their speeches with campaign rhetoric that is rich in grand themes of political symbolism.

Freedom, justice, democracy, etc. are popular abstracts of most political campaign speeches and

Obama, quite fittingly, tells us that his decision to run for president was based on a sense of

justice and his commitment to liberty: “I came to understand that our cherished rights of liberty

and equality depend on the active participation of an awakened electorate” (Obama, 2007).

Roosevelt does Obama one better in a speech given to workers at the rear platform in

Wilmington, Delaware in 1940 during his second run for office: “This year I think the definition

is of even greater significance. Here is what President Lincoln said: The world has never had a
8
 Anti-Hero Runs for Presidency: Iowa Speech 9
good definition of the word liberty, and the American people, just now, are much in want of one”

(Woolley and Peters, 2008).

Is Obama’s concept of liberty analogous to Roosevelt’s when he tells his audience to be

the generation that “reshapes our economy to compete in the digital age” or “the generation that

ensures our nation’s workers are sharing in our prosperity?” I don’t think so. If anything,

Obama’s definition of liberty seems to be more analogous to freedom-seekers who are taking a

chance or running a risk—supporters who are abandoning the status quo and seeking a new

direction in this country’s government.

Winning the Youth Vote in Iowa and the American Dream

Obama’s interpretation of “liberty” is more in keeping with a sense of privilege that

separates and subtly contrasts his own supporters from those of his opponents, most of whom all

have a long history with White House politics. Though Obama makes clear in all of his speeches

that he is interested only in the solidarity and unification of the Democratic party, there is still a

certain element, a trace of an agonistic populism that quietly defines who his supporters are vs.

those who are not. Obama’s generational divide comment is particularly apropos, given his

tremendous success with young voters or the youth vote. It was during the Iowa Caucus that

Barack Obama made history, in several respects, given his color and the color of the large

majority of Iowa’s population. Even more surprising, Obama’s talent in recognizing a

demographic that would not hold his race against him is even more perceptive: it was Iowa’s

Generation X that would propel him to victory. Among Democratic caucus participants under 30,

Obama took 57 percent of the vote (NPR, 2008), garnering a majority vote of 37.58 percent for

the State of Iowa (Iowa Caucus Results, 2008). He seized upon a neglected voter demographic

that was the total antithesis of the conventional voter: white, middle-class, and well over the age

of 30.

Whether it was his marketing strategists or Obama, himself, he correctly targeted a group
9
that would be most receptive to a presidential candidate who happened to be a biracial male,

born after 1960, and suspected of being a Muslim—all of the ingredients for a renegade, the

underdog and martyr for a very different crusade. This was the raceless generation; how more

fitting than to be an ardent backer for the raceless candidate. Schooled in Indonesia and raised in

Hawaii, Obama was pure in the sense that he carried none of the baggage of victimage or

segregation that his predecessors invariably brought to the table. The fact that most of his

supporters were probably born well after 1980 suggests a felicitous relevance, given that neither

he nor his audience were ever a part of Jim Crow segregation or the racism in this country. And

in the end, perhaps it was this very combination of ingredients that enthralled a neglected

population eager to be a part of the change in the status quo. As early as November of 2007, Paul

Waldman’s prophetic commentary confirms this:

Though it may not be reflected yet in national polls, the candidate generating the most
enthusiasm among the young is unsurprisingly Barack Obama. As others have noted
recently, if Obama were to become president, the symbolic value of him taking the oath
of office—a multi-racial man who was partly raised overseas in a Muslim country—
would provide such an extraordinary contrast with his predecessor, the very embodiment
of what many see as the worst of America in all his ignorance, arrogance, and
parochialism, that it would instantly suck the life out of a good portion of the anti-
Americanism that has presented such an obstacle in recent years. (Waldman,2007)

This was the generation that was only a gleam in our eye when Rosa Parks made her

greatest stand on a bus in Montgomery, Alabama in 1955 or when more than 250,000 protesters

marched in Washington in 1969 to denounce the Vietnam War. Yet, and still, it can be argued

that it was events like these that would brood and fester in the minds of an earlier generation that

also saw a more positive direction with an Obama in office. He was the personification of the

very change inscribed on his bumper stickers and campaign posters. In many ways, perhaps

Barack Obama was the end-product of a political backlash, the result of a cultural war or

rebellion whose time had come. For the younger generation, he was a combination of Louis

Gossett, Jr. and Will Smith all rolled into one, where even Rupert Murdoch comments that

10
 Anti-Hero Runs for Presidency: Iowa Speech 11
Barack Obama was our next “rock star” (Mooney, 2008). For voters between the Ages 18-29,

Obama was probably more of an iconic superstar than a political leader. Charismatic and

charming, he seemed to exude an aura of excitement, more reminiscent of Harrison Ford’s

Indiana Jones than a stodgy Washington bureaucrat.

These serendipitous rumblings of a new hero in the White House, or anti-hero, given

Obama’s unexpected and unprecedented rise to stardom are not new, though, and can be traced

back as early as 2004. In their “Recasting the American Dream and American Politics: Barack

Obama’s Keynote Address to the 2004 Democratic National Convention,” Rowland and Jones

also reflect on Obama’s star-quality, but more so within the context of how he structured his first

national speech. Both authors contend that Obama transfixed an audience of millions by using

the narrative of the American Dream as the basis of his speech (Rowland and Jones, 2007).

Instead of targeting any hard-hitting legislation or specific political action, Obama resuscitated

the notion of a romantic American Dream that is long on hope and promise but short on depth.

Lack of substance, notwithstanding, this anti-intellectualism may have been appropriate for

Obama’s speech. As a spokesperson for the Democratic National Party, Obama’s sentiments are

more reminiscent of politicians who seek abstraction: an expansive rhetoric that makes religious,

poetic, and idealistic references instead (Lim, 2002, p. 334). More evenly stated, a narrative that

“has been among the most powerful secular myths in this country” and serves as a “political

romance” (Rowland and Jone, 2007, p. 428). Rowland and Jones’ argument, though insightful,

must still be tempered with the realities of a keynote address. Again, one must keep in mind that

it was not Obama’s purpose to outline a 10-point plan or convince his audience of any specific

strategy. If anything, it was John Kerry’s role to outline specifics since it was he who was

running for president. Obama’s probable intent was to invigorate and revitalize the audience and,

perhaps, to instill a sense of confidence in a dispirited party that was battling with a Republican

majority in both the White House and Congress. Obama accomplished as much, ten-fold, but
11
doubt still lingers as to the substance of his words. If Obama is our action-hero, in disguise, what

will he do for an encore once elected? The sobering truth is that, in many ways, this speech was

really no different than the dozens of others that previous presidential nominees and actual

presidents also recited. Rowland and Jones remind us that much of what Obama inspired us with

at the convention was really quite similar to speeches given by Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy

in previous years. “Obama’s address literally thrilled millions because he seemed to offer a

strikingly new vision [or version, perhaps?] of the American Dream…despite the enormous

reaction to the speech and the fact that it instantly turned an unknown state senator into a major

political figure, in many ways the message was quite unremarkable” (p. 433).

Perhaps to compensate for this reality, Obama is able to call upon a disadvantage and turn

it into a distinct advantage with his listeners: his lack of tenure in Congress. During his

Springfield, Illinois speech, Obama makes it very clear that though he is a relative newcomer to

the state senate, his recency works to the advantage of his audience. Though certainly not in

overt terms, Obama tells his listeners that it is important to know that, unlike his competitors, he

has not been sullied or tarnished by any of the [implied] entrenched political deception or

duplicity in Congress. More importantly, only he can best serve the public if they are truly

interested in any real change to the old ways or the conventional White House bureaucracy,

something of which Obama is not yet a part.

In many respects, Obama operates or presents himself as the outsider who has an inside

to the White House conspiracy that is keeping the little guy down. When one listens to Obama

giving a speech, the issue of his skin color and his relative recency to Congress are immaterial in

this fight against the oppressor. In listening to his words, instead, there is this sense of a “we-

against-them” battle that he, and only he, can fight and win. Though they might want us to

perceive him as the underdog, the reality is he is not. Obama is the key to unlocking the door of

an entrenched political subterfuge that goes beyond skin color, class or upbringing. As we listen
12
 Anti-Hero Runs for Presidency: Iowa Speech 13
to his words, we forget for a moment that he is the relatively affluent Harvard-educated lawyer,

stumping for our vote. He referred to himself as the “skinny guy from the South Side with a

funny name like Barack Obama” during a victory speech in May 2004 (Weisskopf, 2008),

perhaps implying that he is more like us than we think. Even if he is suspect because of his race

or class, we can take heart in the fact that it is because he is not one of “them,” or one of those

entrenched politicians in Congress, that best qualifies him to serve as our salvation.

The First Crusade: Victory Speech in Iowa

Probably one of greatest underlying themes of Obama’s rhetoric is the sense of

empowerment that he gives his audience. This concept of a shared empowerment undergirds

many, if not all, of his speeches. But it is the way he distinguishes and singles-out the

empowered, his chosen-few, that is even more telling. His victory speech in Des Moines, Iowa

on January 3, 2008 offers a good example of this tactic and is especially propitious for several

reasons. First, the mere fact that an atypical candidate (African-American, mixed parentage) can

not only run in a preeminent presidential caucus, but also win that caucus in a state that is more

than 90% Caucasian is quite telling. Second, Obama’s consistency in the type of rhetoric he

serves-up to his audience that ignites his constituency. His choice of pronouns and skill in

weaving key unifiers like we and us into speeches clearly identifies a “them-against-us”

undercurrent and is a running theme throughout the speech. Just as importantly, though, he

creates a camaraderie, a sense of commitment between both himself and the audience by ably

walking the you/us/we terrain throughout most of his speech:

“You know, they said this day would never come. They said our sights were set too high.
They said this country was too divided, too disillusioned to ever come together around a
common purpose.” (Obama, 2008)

In reading this statement, what might first puzzle the reader is this notion of “they” that

Obama is referring to at the onset of his speech. Is “they” the other party, another ethnic group or

supporters of Clinton or Edwards? What separates the people in Obama’s audience from those
13
who weren’t in attendance? Obviously, his audience is being singled-out because they voted for

him. But if one were in that audience, one of Obama’s supporters during the Iowa caucus, would

one not feel a sense of privilege, a sense of relief, even, that he or she wasn’t a part of that

insidious “they” that threatened Obama’s candidacy? Again, Obama clearly identifies his target

audience by separating his supporters from those who do not support him. During the actual

presentation of this speech on January 3, Obama was genuine and sincere. But the very

implication of this “they” against “us” paradigm suggests some sort of conspiracy; a battle,

perhaps, where only the victorious are those who voted for Barack Obama.

Throughout most of his speech in Iowa, Obama’s words are designed to both reify and

rectify a national identity discourse that transcends any concerns of race or class. Not only does

Obama’s rhetoric work to soothe and inspire, it recognizes the trauma or hardship that his

constituents have endured. Of course, whether or not that trauma has been significant for these

voters is immaterial. Obama’s intent, instead, is more focused on mobilizing his audience and

forcing them to recognize that not only have they survived a difficult undertaking, they deserve

to be rewarded for their efforts. Images of an Obama and his foot soldiers (Iowa Democrats who

voted for him) banding together to defend the last stronghold or fight a real war seem to imply a

battle between good and evil vs. black and white. Again, this is precisely what Obama needs to

accomplish if he is unite his troops and establish some level of unification or commonality that,

on the surface, may not seem likely:

This was the moment when we tore down barriers that have divided us for too long; when
we rallied people of all parties and ages to a common cause; when we finally gave
Americans who have never participated in politics a reason to stand up and to do so.
(Obama, 2008)

Though Frank and McPhail focus more on Obama’s ability to create a rhetoric of

consilience or reconciliation that is required for racial healing in this country, they also use the

word “coherence” to describe a conscious understanding and integration of difference in order to

14
 Anti-Hero Runs for Presidency: Iowa Speech 15
transform division (Frank and McPhail, 2005). Their definition is particularly relevant to

Obama’s presentation at the Iowa caucus. Here, he must find a way to minimize or detract voter

attention from the obvious fact that he is one of the few African-Americans in a sea of white

supporters. This predicament is especially precarious; not only is he only one of few in

attendance, he must also address the audience, not as an equal, but as their intended leader, their

assumed president; someone who will be in charge of the decision-making. As such, his ability

to find a universal or a commonality that is endemic to both he and his audience is critical. In

many of his speeches, like most politicians, he directs the audience’s attention to emotions and

common themes of patriotism that all races and classes can identify with and agree as important

—concepts and concerns that are raceless, in fact. This concept of promising a better way of life

or using the “hope” mantra is not new, of course. Though Obama’s political campaign might

have seemed more like a Disney marketing blitz inundating millions of Americans with the

infamous “change” propaganda, his tactics are very typical of a political rhetor whose single goal

is to persuade. “Most persuaders sell the future when trying to move audiences to a better place,

a happier circumstance” (Hart, 2005).

In the final analysis, of course, one might ask why evaluating the words of Barack

Obama or any speaker is important. Why should one be insistent on understanding the substance

or rigor of a campaign speech, especially when we know it is probably very similar to that of the

opponent, in most cases? Simply put, evaluating the tenor of a politician’s rhetoric is a form of

rhetorical criticism and “rhetorical criticism is necessarily analytical” (Wichelns, 1925). In

Barack Obama’s case, as well as any other political candidate, it must be analytical. This is a

phenomenon that might be best described as “rhetorical responsibility” (Braet). Realistically-

speaking, though the public may be enamoured with the breath-taking imagery of an Obama-as-

president panorama, it must or should also be critical of what he says and does, especially now

15
during the nomination process. Obama is, at this point, an unknown entity to some extent. With

only a modest number of years in Congress we, as his public, have little on which to gauge our

trust or confidence. Obama is a politician but he is also an orator. As such, his function should be

recognized for what it is: the art of influencing men in some concrete situation (Wichelns, 1925).

What should never be far from our minds is the fact that we, too, bear a level of responsibility

should we cast our vote for him or his opponent. We certainly can’t know with any certainty if

he will follow through on all the victory speeches and promises made at campaign stumps that

dot almost every state in the union. But just as Obama must decide which campaign promises he

chooses to keep and those he will not, we, as Obama’s public, also have an obligation to make

sure that we are mindful of why we chose him when we cast our ballot or why we did not.

Conclusions: Saying Goodbye to Camelot

When we dust-off the confetti and sit down in our seats after the campaign speeches, we

are still obligated to evaluate the merit of Barack Obama’s words and the sincerity of his

rhetoric. As Wander concurs “no credo, however lyrical, authentically expressed, or truly

believed, should escape cross-examination” (Wander, 1998, p. 1).

Probably one of the most challenging transitions he’ll have to make in his campaign

rhetoric is meeting that of the opposition. Reflective reminiscing on an American dream worked

well during the keynote address, but it probably won’t be sufficient in doing battle with a

Republican contender in November. Race may not be directly mentioned by either candidate as

an issue during the November election, but it will not be far from everyone’s mind, especially

when they cast their ballot within the confines of a private voting booth. The national electorate

is whiter and more conservative than the Democratic one (The Economist, 2008, p. 37). Obama

16
 Anti-Hero Runs for Presidency: Iowa Speech 17
was extremely successful in harnessing the power of a youth-driven voter campaign at the Iowa

caucus, in addition to a reliable base of African-American support during the nomination

process. How instrumental will both young and black voters be in the upcoming election,

especially when there are thousands of Clinton voters who are promising to vote for John

McCain in response to Hillary Clinton’s narrow defeat? And even if Obama does, indeed,

become president what lies ahead regarding his policy initiatives and the nation’s problems? If

we look beyond the charisma and the dashing good looks, do we see genuine policy or a platform

that will carry us through the next four years?

In his five-point plan, served-up on April 23, 2007, Obama outlined a set of initiatives

that were reflective of the imminent peril that awaits us, globally, outside the castle known as

America. The majority of us knew he had been dead-set against the war in Iraq but will both he,

as well as us, remember the rest of his plan if he’s elected? Obama says he will address issues

regarding the friction between Israel, Palestine and Syria, but will he also make room for the

dozens of other conflicts that also await him? We are facing a crumbling economy where our

world-power status is seriously threatened. Oil prices have skyrocketed to the point where the

average tank of gasoline is well over $100 for many consumers. How will Obama extract any

sort of normalcy in oil prices from countries in the Middle East while bracing against NAFTA-

aggravated trade deficits from Mexico and Canada or a sleeping giant like China? Are

international problems more pressing than national problems, and if so, in what order should they

be approached? Even in the United States, Obama must operate in a conflicted space of dueling

entities. Issues regarding the economy may be obvious, but what about issues concerning race,

age groups, and class systems where the demands of affluent whites in Chicago’s Hyde Park are

distinctly different from those of blue-collar workers in states like West Virginia or North

Dakota? The very fact that Obama was vocal in his position on the war in Iraq is a clear indicator

that he has developed a sense of agency that says he can rise to the challenge. More importantly,
17
his actions, his votes, and the ballots that he has cast as a Congressional representative tell us

what position he will probably take on future measures and bills that cross his desk once in the

White House. As Asante states, he understands that he must project himself as an agent rather

than a spectator to the making of history if he is to be viable in his new role as President of the

United States (Asante, 2007, p. 106). And perhaps the most intriguing, the most daunting

challenge of all is Barack Obama as a black man, the first African-American president of a

country that, historically, has curried no favor with his race.

Ironically enough, to a large extent, it is because of his race or color that Barack Obama

was supported in this election, not just by other blacks, but by millions of White Americans, as

well. Obama’s nomination is a watershed moment in this country’s history because of his skin

color. Just as Obama is running what is probably the race of his life, American voters are also

being tested. How is Obama’s rhetoric any different from Hillary Clinton’s? Are we voting for

him because of his skin color or because of his beliefs and promises to us, as a people? Though

issues such as unemployment or healthcare are universal to us all, many African-Americans will

fully expect him to address issues that are endemic to other blacks simply because he is also

black. Obama cannot answer to crises like the collapse in the black family or the fact that black

men are seven times more likely to be incarcerated than white men (The Economist, 2008, pp.

34-35), but he can address the glaring disparity in conviction laws for crack vs. powder cocaine

users. In 2006, 82% of those sentenced under federal crack cocaine laws were black, and only

8.8% were white—even though more than two-thirds of people who use crack cocaine are white

(U.S. Sentencing Commission, 2007). Obama said he would rectify this injustice in another

campaign speech at Howard University’s convocation address in September of 2007. The

question is will he remember to attack this particular crisis, in addition to the dozens of others

that await him once he assumes office? Asante reminds us that the symbols of change Obama

evokes in many of his speeches should not be confused with the real change that his voters
18
 Anti-Hero Runs for Presidency: Iowa Speech 19
expect of him, assuming an Obama presidency (Asante, 2007, p. 115).

Many scholars have made the comment that “race matters” (Asante, 2007; West, 1993) in

our society, particularly when there is any discussion of how African-Americans must operate in

a world where the hegemony has traditionally been unkind. In Barack Obama’s nomination and

run for the 2008 presidency as the first African-American in this country’s history, it goes

beyond a truism. In Obama’s case, race not only matters: it is the reason.

Notes

19
[1] African-American and black are used interchangeably in this essay to refer to

people of African-American ancestry living in the United States.

References

Asante, M. (2007). Barack Obama and the Dilemma of Power: An Africological

Observation, Journal of Black Studies, 38, 105-115.

Black America: Nearer to overcoming. (2008, May 10-16). The Economist, 387, 8579, 34-35.

Braet, A. (1987). The Classical Doctrine of “Status” and the Rhetorical Theory of

Argumentation. Philosophy and Rhetoric, 20, 2, 79-93.

Burstein, D. (2008). Young Voters Win in Iowa. The Huffington Post. Retrieved May 29,

2008, from Huffington Post site http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-d-

burstein/young-voters-win-in-iowa_b_80094.html

Fehrenbacher, D.E. (1960). The Origins and Purpose of Lincoln’s “House-Divided”

Speech. The Mississippi Valley Historical Review, 46, 4, 615.

Frank, D.A. and McPhail, M.L. (2005). Barack Obama’s Address to the 2004 Democratic

National Convention: Trauma, Compromise, Consilience, and the (Im)possibility

of Racial Reconciliation. Rhetoric & Public Affairs 8.4, 571-593.

Hart, R.P. and Daughton, S. (2005). Modern Rhetorical Criticism, (3rd ed.). Boston:

Pearson Education, Inc.

Iowa Democratic Party Caucus Results. 2008 Caucuses-The Democratic Party. Retrieved June

1, 2008, from http://www.iowacaucusresults.com/

Lim, E.T. (2002). Five Trends in Presidential Rhetoric: An Analysis of Rhetoric from George

Washington to Bill Clinton. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 32, 2, 328-348.

Mooney, A. (2008). Murdoch predicts McCain will lose. CNN Ticker. Retrieved May

30, 2008, from http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

20
 Anti-Hero Runs for Presidency: Iowa Speech 21
Obama, B. (2007). Illinois Sen. Barack Obama Announcement Speech. Speech

delivered in Springfield, Illinois, February 10, 2007 (As Prepared for Delivery),

The Associated Press.

Obama, B. (2008). Barack Obama’s Victory Speech in Iowa. Speech delivered in Des

Moines, Iowa, January 3, 2008. Provided by Congressional Quarterly via the

Associated Press.

Obama Draws Record Number Young People. National Public Radio. Retrieved June 1,

2008, from NPR site http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=17847196

Rowland, R.C. and Jones, J.M. (2007). Recasting the American Dream and American

Politics: Barack Obama’s Keynote Address to the 2004 Democratic National

Convention. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 93, 4, 425-448.

The big remaining question. (2008, May 10-16). The Economist, 387, 8579, 37.

Special Report to Congress: Cocaine and Federal Sentencing Policy. (2007). U.S. Sentencing

Commission, Washington, D.C., U.S. Sentencing Commission

Waldman, P. (2007). The Youth Vote, the Culture Wars, and Barack Obama. The

American Prospect. Retrieved May 30, 2008, from

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_youth_vote_the_culture_wars_an

d_barack_obama

Wander, P. (1983). The Ideological Turn in Modern Criticism. Central States Speech

Journal, 34, 1-18.

Weisskopf, M. (2008, May 19). How He Learned to Win. Time, 171, 20, 26-30.

West, C. (1993). Race Matters. Boston: Beacon.

Wichelns, H.A. (1925). The Literary Criticism of Oratory. Studies in Rhetoric and Public

Speaking in Honor of James Albert Winans. New York: Russell & Russell, Inc., 1962,

181-216.
21
Woolley, J.T. and Peters, G. The American Presidency Project (online). Santa Barbara,

CA: University of California (hosted), Gerhard Peters (database). Retrieved

May 30, 2008, from http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=15882

22