Between hope and change

Barack Obama, a once obscure politician and one-term senator, sealed the Democratic presidential nomination on Tuesday night, after a punishing campaign against Hillary Clinton, that will make him the first African American contender for president of the United States.

Hyperbole aside, this probably represents the most significant event in American history since the Civil War (yes, it seems all men are indeed created equal), a major milestone for the country and a sure sign of the racial progress that has taken place in society since the civil rights movement erupted well over half a century ago.

In an emotional speech before a chanting audience in St Paul, Minnesota, Obama said: "Tonight we mark the end of one historic journey with the beginning of another, a journey that will bring a new and better day to America ... Tonight I can stand before you and say that I will be the Democratic nominee for president of the United States of America".

What makes Obama's victory all the more remarkable is not just that he is the first black politician to lead a major party ticket, but that he won against Hillary Clinton, which seemed almost inconceivable a year ago, indeed a mere six months ago, when the senator from New York, with the biggest name in Democratic politics, a woman imbued with a sense of smug entitlement to lead the country, was seen as the front runner and the invincible winner.

Many of Hillary's supporters, especially those women among them who backed her for gender reasons, will claim that the nation remains deeply sexist (who will forget the heckler in New Hampshire who shouted at the senator, "Iron my shirt, will you") and not ready for a woman in the White House. But gender bias most decidedly was not the cause of Clinton's loss in her bid for the nomination. Attribute it rather to the need by Americans for new blood, a new administration that will show America's new face to the world, tired as they have been of the old guard, not to mention seven years of catastrophic mismanagement by a clueless president whose ratings have been at near historic lows. At any rate, it's not altogether clear that Hillary was ever a model standard-bearer for the cause of female emancipation in the US.

Barack Obama won the Democratic nomination because, very simply, the nation was ready for a Barack Obama, ready for his "audacity of hope", his call for "change". Americans, in particular young Americans, were entranced by his articulation of mood, his rhetoric of vivid presentation and his stylistic liveliness. And, potential resistance to the idea of a black man in the White House by those pockets of bigotry in some parts of the country notwithstanding, it seems very likely that he will also win the presidential election in November, perhaps with Hillary as his vice-presidential running mate.

It is tempting to believe that once in the White House, President Obama will, in one fell swoop, as it were, deflect American foreign policy from its previous disastrous course of brazen unilateralism, open confrontation and Machiavellian realpolitik. Heck, not so fast! Big powers, especially those whose legislative and executive branches may be at odds, make dramatic shifts in how they deal with the rest of the world painstakingly slowly. There were signs in Obama's speeches, public statements and interviews where he evinced an interest in smoothing things over with Europe, "talking" to Iran, bringing a speedy end to the war in Iraq and supporting democratic struggles for social justice and freedom in Third World countries, including Palestine.

Pressures of office

But there will always be pressure groups out there that President Obama will remain answerable to as he feels the waters in his first few months in office. (Obama recently decided to get rid of - "throw under the bus", in campaign argot - Robert Malley, his adviser on the Middle East and an expert on the Palestine conflict who had been part of the American team at the Camp David peace negotiations, because Malley was considered "too soft" on the Palestinians.)

And those are pressure groups, powerful and pervasive in political circles inside the Beltway, that you don't alienate or pick a fight with at any cost, for any reason, at any time. They can destroy you by suggesting, say, that you're an anti-Semite for openly criticising Israel. It's a mystery to Europeans, for example, why the public debate about Palestine in the US remains so puerile, why academics need to publish books and papers with innovative ideas about the region, say, in England. But that's how awesome the power of these groups is. You eat humble pie and reach out to them, unless you want your carrier ruined, your name besmirched and your life made miserable.

To that extent, consider what Obama, his party's presumptive nominee to the highest office in the land, did soon after he declared victory on Tuesday: He flew to Washington the following day to address the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the formidable Jewish lobby in the US, where he pledged unwavering support for Israel, telling the audience that that entity's security was "sacrosanct" and "non-negotiable". Oh, sure, sure he also evoked that stock phrase about how "from the start" of his administration he would work to achieve a Palestinian state - but with occupied Jerusalem as "the undivided capital of Israel".

It was a forlorn spectacle for those few of us accredited Arab journalists who attended the conference to hear that melodious Obama voice put at the service of pompous cliches and inescapable trivialities from the old lexicon of America's Palestine policy. But that's how it goes.

Fawaz Turki is a veteran journalist, lecturer and author of several books, including The Disinherited: Journal of a Palestinian Exile. He lives in Washington D.C.