From Concord, NH: Obama's Music
While Concord High School looks brand new (or at least recently renovated), the gym reminds me of the gym from Back to the Future: old flannel banners line the walls, lots of iron supports criss-cross the ceiling, golden wooden bleachers flank the sides. It was a slice of Americana, and today, the second stop of the Obama campaign’s New Hampshire return.
Four years ago, I was in a different gym in some town in New Hampshire whose name escapes me to see that year’s Iowa winner, John Kerry. Then as in now, the place was packed. Then as in now, the elite of the media elite were there (Bob Schieffer, EJ Dionne, Ron Brownstein, Maureen Dowd – who bummed a stick of Orbit off of me -- Al Hunt, Rick Hertzberg, to name a few). Then as in now, everyone went to see the conquering Midwest hero.
But the differences were stark.
First, I saw no Burberry scarves; you know the ones: tan with the distinctive tartan pattern. In 2004, it was as if I made a wrong turn and ended up in Aspen or Louisburg Square. In Concord today, the crowd was generally local; middle and upper-middle class folks who actually looked like the people you may see browsing the aisles of your local Borders or grabbing a sandwich at the Panera just off Route 93 (where I sit as I write this). Not working-class, but not many people who prepped with the candidate’s cousin either.
Second, and most importantly, in 2004, Kerry was hitting the right notes – Iraq, health care, education, etc. – but had no music. In 2008, Obama has the music. His speech today, which closely mirrored what he said last night, is a coherent argument about what is wrong with America (we are divided), and what needs to change (unite and bring about change). “The size of our challenges has outgrown the capacity of our politics to deal with them,” Obama said. As Roger Simon notes, Obama is inspirational. If you listen carefully you can tell the buttons he is trying to push, but unlike many other politicians’ speeches of the past few years, you don’t feel as if the speech was written off of the latest poll (although its contents were almost certainly tested). That is, the buttons aren’t readily apparent. It’s music, not a random collection of notes.
To put a finer point on it, Obama is very skillfully making his case for where we are in American history, what comes next, and why he is the person to take us there – something every presidential candidate must do. His reprised his litany from the end of last night’s speech about great moments in American history where hope prevailed (the Revolution, civil rights movement, etc); which explicitly links his campaign into the sweep of American life. That’s what Reagan did; it’s what Bill Clinton did; and it’s even what George W. Bush did. In short, it’s what presidents do.
Also to Obama’s credit, the speech is much more about the audience, and less about him – “I believe in you” is his explanation for why he decided to run. And unlike last night’s victory speech, an address in which the “notes” were faint, today he hit the issues a bit harder. He got into some specifics about his health care plan, covered a range of issues from Darfur to CAFE standards, but he did not mention the name of one piece of legislation. As a speechwriter, I say: good for him.
Add to all of that, Obama looked comfortable up there – something that we all expect, but forget how rare it is until one sees it again in person. He opened up his speech by calling up the two young people who organized the rally, praising them, and kidding with the crowd about how he had to work as hard as they and all the organizers do. It was a very genuine moment.
Like others, I don’t want to get overwhelmed with the moment and swept into the frenzy for Obama. But, from my highly predictive focus group of New Hampshire voters (the guy at the car rental desk at the airport; the elderly couple and their daughter who sat behind me at lunch; and a woman walking her dog down the block from the high school), New Hampshire has some Obamania. And from the media folks I spoke with, they feel his mo-jo; they are impressed with it; and they can’t for the life of them figure out how Hillary can overcome it.
I will write more about that later.
Now, I have to go find my hotel, and then off to the 100 Club dinner in Milford where all the Democratic candidates will speak.
Comments (110)
I was struck by something in his speech last night that I haven't seen commented on yet. That is he spoke at the podium with no conspicuous faces behind and the clear center of attention.
Hillary on the other had shared the stage with many others the most obvious being just to her left Billy boy and just to her right, most inexplicable of all, Madeleine Albright.
Obama said I am running to be the leader, Hillary seemed to say that she is running to be committee chair. That couldn't have her could it?
January 4, 2008 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is regarding last night-I was not in Concord. It was a brilliant speech which effortlessly linked this moment to conspicuous moments in history and which did, as you say, was coherent. The notion of a candidate with a coherent narrative is basically foreign to democrats. Clinton came rather close in 92, but as good a communicator as he is, this man is far better.
I am unapologetically swept up. Haven't felt this good about politics in many, many, many years.
``...Stand still. The forest knows
Where you are. You must let it find you.''
from `Lost' by David Wagoner
January 4, 2008 5:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
obama's "music" is as bland and unconvincing as Creed's. i think it was jon stewart who said of Creed: "making CDs for people who like to buy stuff". or something like that.
kinda how i feel about obama.
i'm not buying the 'music' he's selling. because the problem isn't that "we" are "divided". that's a "problem" that obama has invented so that he can sell us the "solution". nothing more than snake oil and inert 'tonics' if you ask me.
January 4, 2008 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree a little bit. I think he really believes what he's talking about. And I like his talk. I am just not convinced he has the "action" part in him. After all we need "fight" more than we need "hope" to deal with the aftermath of the republican misrule.
And all this talk about unity smacks of liebermanism to me, just like it struck you.
January 4, 2008 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
but i think his talk about 'hope' is part and parcel of his talk about 'unity'. i don't think the two can be separated. his argument, as i understand it, pretty much comes down to 'partisanship' being somehow the opposite of 'hope' (since it's supposedly an obstacle to 'change').
January 4, 2008 3:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
but i think his talk about 'hope' is part and parcel of his talk about 'unity'. i don't think the two can be separated.
Naturally it is, but it's because of the utopian aspects of both. Hope is a necessary component of unity because perfect unity is not possible, so "hope" serves as the engine toward this perpetually inchoate goal. The more he focuses on "hope" the less he has to enumerate specific things, keeping things nice, fuzzy and malleable. The things he talks about in this vein are things that he cannot be held to.
January 4, 2008 9:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh baloney. Nice try at a totally vapid smear job "manys."
Obama has all his policies, in detail, on his web site. The economy, healthcare reform, Iraq, Energy & Environment, and plenty more.
ObamaIssues
January 4, 2008 9:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reading this comment and kosmik's further comments down the thread, I would have to ask:
If kozmik is for Obama, is that a good enough reason in itself to oppose Obama ??
January 5, 2008 12:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
LOL! Well said featherfamily; you are hardly alone, believe me. Take my advice: when some of the "take my way or the highway" folks on here start to irritate your sensibilities, take a stroll through Freeper land or some reasonable facsimile thereof and you will be reminded and then some about why you are here in the first place. And if Obama is the Dem nominee, and if you are an old-fashioned pragmatic Democrat like me, you will support Obama with vigor. Hang in there and remember, regardless of the rancor and the in-fighting and the pettiness that the anonymity of posting on the interenet permits, what happened in Iowa on Thursday on the Democratic side was historic and something we should all be proud of. Don't let the "kozmiks" of the world ruin what is your party as much as it is his or hers.
Bruce
January 5, 2008 8:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
what??? why? why should i be 'proud' that obama won when i don't support obama? what does that even mean?
January 5, 2008 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
zkosmo:
Hey, whatever rocks your boat. I think a record turnout with lots of young people voting for the first time is something to be proud of, and I think that the victory of an African American in a state with Iowa's demographics is historic and also something to be proud of. And, fwiw, I'm not committed to Obama either.
Bruce
January 5, 2008 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
ok, i'll buy that.
i find that part kind of offensive. implicit in the notion that voting for a black candidate if you're white is something you ought to be especially proud of is the notion that a candidate's race is a legitimate reason to vote for them.
January 5, 2008 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Zkosmo, I'm not talking about any particular voter's choice, black or white. In fact, I hope all voters feel a sense of pride in their electoral choices. I'm saying, however, that the results in Iowa are a testament to where we've come from in this country (regardless of what happens). Zkosmo, you're not going to dispute that we've had a three hundred plus year history of turbulent race relations in this country, are you?
January 5, 2008 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you guys are too cynical for your own good.
Lieberman (despicable, I agree totally) used the idea of unity to excuse his cozying up to Bush and company.
And god knows we have plenty of people who use unity as a vacuous concept that is supposed to rally people -- apple pie and motherhood, but without so much substance.
But I think Barack is using the unity theme to redraw the map, refocus the country on the economy, health care, the war, and a bunch of progressive issues that test well but which Democrats have for a generation not succeeded in getting people to vote on and put together a winning majority. I see the potential for a realignment where Obama brings back the Reagan Democrats and more, around the economy, health care, energy and the environment, etc. It's a bit of judo where he uses the overreaching partisanship of the Rovian Republicans against them, and they are caught helplessly off balance.
I'm as partisan a Democrat as they come, on the left wing of the possible, as Harrington used to say, and pretty hard-bitten in my politics, I'm not some mush-headed person, by the way. What I think Krugman and company miss when they criticize Obama's call for unity is that what you say and do is very different if you are running for president (or are president) and if you are in Congress. I'd be very suspicious of a congressional candidate (Lieberman or anyone else) who called for unity. There is no unity with the Repubs in Congress, obviously. They need to be destroyed. But as President, you try to unify the country against the conservative forces in Congress.
January 4, 2008 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
So here's the thing. Where are Obama's liberal credentials? You either have the Krugman view that government works best when restraining corporate power or you don't, because in the absence of government restraint, corporate interests use government to magnify their power, as in the current era of Bush II. Which is a disaster for everyone, even the corporate interests in the long term.
I see Obama only running to the right of Hillary and especially Edwards on this most important point. And that's where he loses me.
I don't need someone who is going to run to the right and dog whistle to the intellectual left giving them nothing but words, much as Bush dog whistled to the evangelical right and provided them with just as much bupkus.
I love the oratory but I need some kind of evidence somewhere that he has any intentions at all of following up on those left dog whistles. Hopefully you or someone else can make that case.
So far it's been "trust me". And I am long out of trust.
smacfarl
http://reddit.com/user/smacfarl/
January 4, 2008 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with you. It appears to me that Obama has been running on ghosts of policies, designed mostly to be distanct from those of Hillary and Edwards rather than to really work.
He lost me when he inserted the right-wing points about the imaginary Social Security crisis into the campaign. Then the other day he attacked both Hillary's and Edward's health care proposals because they included mandates. Universal coverage without either mandates or taxpayer provided single payer health care is impossible. He's running against universal health care!
I'd make an even money bet right now that Obama will be the Democratic nominee. But if he will not realistically support universal health care I won't vote for him. Not once he defeats the Democratic candidates for the nomination who are for some form of universal health care. I'll even work to defeat him.
Right now it appears that the two most charming candidates (Huckabee and Obama) are leading. But I don't vote on charm. I simply don't trust it.
Like you, I ran out of trust a long time ago.
I wonder if Nadar will run again.
January 4, 2008 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nader? You are a total loser.
January 4, 2008 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Obama runs against universal health care as the Democratic nominee then all of America are losers.
Again.
As they have been since Truman tried to get Universal health care back in 1948.
January 4, 2008 5:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excuse me while I butt in, Rick, how have the Dems done since Truman on universal health care? This issue has gone nowhere. Did Edwards and Clinton proposed this in the Senate and I missed it--or are they now pandering for votes without any action behind the words?
I'll take the legislation to move us toward universal healthcare without the damned mandate; you and others like you apparently want the whole apple or nothing. I disagree completely.
Dust off those damned Democratic Party policies that have public (translation: voter) support and get the legislation moving. That is the promise that Obama makes.
January 4, 2008 6:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
The mandate is the poison pill for suckers.
Mandates are disastrous and corporate interests know it plays right into their hands. the Massachusets mandate has been a disaster. No child left behind is a disaster. Mandates are easy to sabotage.
All they have to do is sabotage the implementation and stick the public with a lousy mandate and botched implementation, to sour the public on HC reform for another decade or more. And that's if they can even pass mandates, which is unlikely, and many Congress people will balk at them.
Just the way the Clintons poisoned it last time, while passing NAFTA, deregulation, and everything corporate interests wanted.
Edwards probably doesn't know any better being a populist, and neither do his supporters.
January 4, 2008 6:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I do share concerns about the injection of social security into the debate, but note two features of this which I have not seen discussed widely here.
1) It is a major concern of young people. I have talked to plenty of reasonable people 30 and under who just assume (without having looked deeply at the evidence) that social security will be gone when they come of age. Hence, as a political strategy, it is about appealing to the young, who have anxiety about health care but not obviously as much as older American or those with families. I could be wrong about this, but I think that this could be a component of his strategy. I note that Bush tried this as well, but his transparent effort to raid the coffers was quickly recognized as theft and abandoned.
2) Obama is expressing concern about social security without offering privatization (rather, he focuses simply upon maintaining solvency through increased limits on payroll deductions). This is easily explained and understood, I believe.
OK, if the republican congress was in power and Barack was espressing this, it would be a ``Danger Will Robinson'' moment. Instead we are facing a democratic congress with a likely increased majority. Hence, as a simply explained exercise in upping the cap on deductions to render the system solvent, he can a) actually solve a problem, albeit one that is down the road, and (b) ensure that the public understands no coffer raiding is required.
Moreover, he pulls in the youth.
I have concerns, but think that the generic response of Krugman and left blogistan are a bit overblown.
``...Stand still. The forest knows
Where you are. You must let it find you.''
from `Lost' by David Wagoner
January 4, 2008 10:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I see Obama only running to the right of Hillary and especially Edwards on this most important point."
You naysayers on these blogs are as vague in your unsupported claims that Obama is running to the right of Edwards and Clinton(!)as you generally accuse Obama of being.
Let me make it simple for you:
1) wanting to privatize Social Security = rightwing - wanting to insure its long term solvency by raising the cap on payroll taxes = not rightwing;
2) criticizing trial lawyers because they file frivolous lawsuits and make America less competitive = rightwing - criticizing trial lawyers by saying that you chose public interest law instead = not rightwing;
3) wanting to achieve universal health care by providing additional tax breaks to people already able to afford their own insurance = rightwing - offering a workable program of subsidies and the option to choose government provided insurance that lacks a mandate requiring adults to purchase their own health insurance = not rightwing;
4) voting in favor of a preemptive war against a supposed enemy on manfactured intelligence = rightwing - opposing such a war even though many members of you political party find it politically expedient to do so = not rightwing.
Get it?
January 4, 2008 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Single payer cannot be passed, so the perfect becomes the enemy of the good. That leaves the subsidy plan. But what happens when someone choses no health care and gets ill or has an accident? Someone pays for charity care, or we shove them to the curb and let them die.
If the subsidy plan gets passed with no mandate, I want the "curb" option made law.
The alternative is if they accept health care paid by government, mandatorily enroll them in the government plan and tax them for the premiums at 150% the rate of anyone else, and if they die and still haven't reimbursed for the cost of their health care, the government gets first call on their estate.
If the option for universal health care exists, then there is no room for Free Riders, just as there is no room for Free Riders when is comes to getting national defense or the benefits of the police and the courts. You opt in by living in the United States, you opt out by leaving. That's the choice you make. The costs and benefits come as a package.
January 4, 2008 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I understand the argument. I just think that claiming that failure to include mandates in a plan seeking to greatly broaden the availability of health care for people (and which, by all estimates, will do so) may be a legitimate policy difference, and Obama's plan may be inferior for that reason. It is simply not a difference between "left" and "right", whether the estimable Paul Krugman describes it as so or not.
January 4, 2008 5:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's absurd. Have you really bought into this nonsense people don't want medical?
Here's a reality check:
1) Mandates aren't free politically. Talking about mandates, and actually doing them, are two entirely different things. Mandates come with huge political cost, and can be a poison pill to any reform. Which could stop reform for another decade or more, just like last time. mandates can also be hugely beneficial to insurers, as it will allow them to jack up rates while the government program is hobbled, as they've done in Mass under mandates.
2) 85% of America is presently insured, even at absurd rates. The 15% that are uninsured at any given moment aren't the same people as at other times, becasue they fall in and out. As much as the lower income 50% of Americans have HCI sporadically or in danger. NOT BY CHOICE. Many of them lose insurance with work, or are forced out by plans who actively cull sick people. Meaning, they are people who want insurance but can't afford it.
3) Rates for a household can easily be into several hundred dollars a month, and more if there are pre-existing conditions, who are also the people insurers force out.
4) 20% of American households make $0 to $18.5K/year.
5) 20% of households make between $18.5 and $35K.
6) Virtually 100% of Americans want catastrophic and preventative insurance. Much of the lower 40% of the households are already paying through the nose, which shows how much people want medical insurance.
7) It's just a matter of cost.
Meaning, we don't need mandates. Mandates don't help, they're a poison pill.
All that's needed is to allow Medicare to compete with private insurers, and to legislate regulation ending cherry picking and force outs, make plans portable, and allow Medicare to do negotiated drug buys. That will allow people to buy into affordable plans, lower drug costs,and force private insurers into a shrinking market, which will cause investors to flee for greener pastures, like supplemental care for the rich.
We don't need mandates at first. It's a poison pill. They've been disastrous in Massachusetts.
People need to think, not be suckers for all the populist spin, and get hoodwinked again just like in the 90's.
January 4, 2008 7:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
The problem of a pay or play system, with mandatory coverage for pre-existing conditions, without a mandate, is the same as if car insurance companies were forced to offer car insurance that could not exclude pre-existing damage. Many people would wait until they had an accident, and sign up then.
As I understand it, Obama's response is some system of penalty that discourages that freeloading behavior. If it is effective enough to eliminate that freeloading behavior, it is a mandate ... so it will either be a mandate in disguise, or will be not entirely effective at eliminating freeloading ...
... or (most likely) both, with the effort to create a de facto mandate that cannot be labeled a mandate resulting in something that is less effective than if it could be honest about what it was.
January 4, 2008 7:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama has worked for progressive causes in the trenches. Importantly, he opposed the invasion of Iraq, something that Hillary and Edwards did not. He called Hillary out on her foreign policy attitude of giving the country information on a "need to know" basis - just like the corporate executives advised me when I worked for them years ago. And as far as the unity theme goes, what he's saying (and to his credit, although I'm not a social conservative, creationist, Huckabee too) is that people in the US basically aren't divided on a lot of things: we want to take care of business at home, we don't want an empire but we do want defense, we want to alleviate poverty, we want to overcome racism, we want to overcome barriers. He doesn't seem to me to be a "corporatist" - most of his money has been raised by individuals, rich and poor. I was an Edwards supporter, but when you actually look at his voting record, he fails. So does Hillary. So???? Prove your case.
January 4, 2008 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's amazing people claim Edwards is so right on, when he lined up and voted for the Iraq resolution, which he defended all through 2004, and then flipped on recently.
He talks all this populist stuff, but where's the actual proof, and compared to whom?
Edwards makes it sound like he's from extreme poverty. No, his dad was a textile mill worker, but was made supervisor. And that was in the era of pretty good pay for blue collar labor.
He makes himself sound like a lifelong hero of the people motivated by his family's plight. No, his early legal career was defending corporate interests.
Then he realized how much money there was in class action law suits when he one a big case for $3.5M. Some of his first big pay days were to sue the Red Cross, three times. From there he's been on the bandwagon as people's advocate, but also racks in the pay in multi-million dollar settlements.
Which is fine and all, but I don't get the populist hero routine. He's very ambitious and very rich, that we know for certain.
And Obama by comparison graduated from Columbia with BA in foreign affairs, and then Harvard Law magna cum laude after being the first black editor in for the Harvard Review in "107 years" of history. Much better credentials than Edwards ever had, yet Obama turned down offers to work for high power lawfirms, and went straight into community work for issues like healthcare reform, childcare, ethics reform, and voting rights.
No big paydays for helping individuals lucky enough to get to court. No ambulance chasing. No high rolling corporate law forms. Just community service ans legislation effecting the lives of all Illinois people.
People need to get real about who worked for the people, for politcal reform, and motivations.
January 4, 2008 7:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, you are saying that he graduated from Harvard angling straight for a career in politics vis community organizing, was an experienced state legislator when he won his seat in the Senate, and the best way to fight the war he could come up with when he got to the Senate was to fund the war and buy into the Republican talking points that the Congress exercising their Constitutional authority of the purse is equivalent to the Congress "not supporting the troops"?
On the other hand, it was a kick ass speech that he gave on Thursday.
January 4, 2008 7:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh get real. It would be suicide and totally counter productive to try and have ended the war by defunding it. That's a fool's errand.
January 4, 2008 9:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I liked the fact that Edwards based his campaign on relieving poverty and supported him early on, but you're absolutely right, kozmik, that he really doesn't have a political track record standing for the things he's basing his campaign on. If he could win, that would be one thing, but if I really wanted to support an underdog with whom I shared beliefs, I'd support Kucinich.
January 4, 2008 7:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
What DD said.
People need to get real.
The Edwards supporters calling Obama naive and idealistic, are projecting, big time. Edwards is going to be out of the race soon, and he and his supporters should have the grace and sense to go in a way which helps the issues, not egotistically pulling a Nader.
The people who claim to be Edwards supporters who then back Hillary, are just liars and Hillary supporters all along, or utterly clueless.
January 4, 2008 9:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I couldn't agree with Ann H more.
I think what those of us who are "tapped in" to politics (sometimes to our detriment) often lose sight of is the fact that "Washington, DC" is not "America". When I hear Barack Obama talk about hope and unity, I don't think he's talking to the Senate Minority leader. I don’t think he’s trying to build a coalition with Duncan Hunter. I don't think he's "reaching across the aisle". He's talking to real people, and in this case, I don't even think he's primarily talking to those of us who are blogging and commenting and trolling and flaming (and I'm not sure we're "real people" sometimes, but I digress). I don't think he has this pie in the sky notion that he's going to convince Rush or Hannity or O'Reilly to sing from the mountaintops about strengthening the middle class or marching on the White House to bring the troops home from Iraq because he's not talking to them.
In a nutshell, Obama moves me because I think he's trying to actually change the dialogue here. I think he's making a nationwide effort to "reframe the debate," as the expression goes, but on a host of issues and on a national scale. He's moving the goal posts in a positive way by changing what people think of as “centrist”. I think his oratory is an effort to marginalize the hate mongers by appealing to people's desire for America to be great; he's trying to use patriotism (a positive trait) to diminish nationalism (a negative trait). I think he's making an effort to communicate with actual people and remind them of who they want to be and what they actually want this country to stand for. There are plenty of people in America who are good, honest, God-fearing, moderately conservative people who aren't happy with where we're headed right now, who aren't happy with Gitmo or Abu Ghraib, and who aren't snowed by Bush's false conservatism, Romney’s plastic head, Huck’s “awww, shucksism,” or Rudy's 9/11 Tourette's. I know those people exist because I've worked with them and broken bread with them, and even lived with them. Obama seems to understand that they exist and he seems to understand that we are better as a nation when they stand with progressives to make the country better.
Progress isn’t about moving full speed ahead without giving a damn if anyone agrees with you. Leadership isn’t about communicating only with people who already support what you believe in. If the Democratic nominee is going to get elected, it will only happen with the support of people who aren’t the heart of the TPM constituency. If the Democratic President is going to get a damned thing done without a supermajority, it will only happen with political carrots and sticks. It will only happen with ideas that are appealing and the will to get the Susan Collinses and Olympia Snowes of the world to do what is right for America. If you can’t go directly to the so-called moderate Republicans, you have to turn up the heat on them by pointing it out every single time they stand to the right of the coalition you’ve built. In order to do that, you actually have to have a coalition of real people in place in a lot of different places who actually care enough to call and write letters and raise hell. If you think HRC is the best candidate to build such a coalition, you have every right to volunteer for her, donate to her campaign, vote for her, etc. If you’ve seen John Edwards inspire what Obama is inspiring in people, show me. I’d love to see it too. The better the field is, the better each individual needs to be in order to earn the nomination. For my time, my money, and my emotional investment, Barack Obama is my candidate.
January 4, 2008 7:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
.
I live in a traditional conservative area of this red state. Traditional in the sense you describe. I had many discussions with those traditional conservatives (Republican and Democrat) in 2004 who expressed what you describe in anguished tones. Then they went into the voting booth and punched the chad to put Bush/Cheney back in office. Pretty much every single one if I read the statistics correctly. Terror terror terror and gays won out over the Constitution - that and the "death tax". So I really need an explanation of exactly how Obama's theory is going to work in that environment because I haven't seen anything convincing yet on how he will convince those people AND remain true to the Constitution.
.
sPh
January 5, 2008 7:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
In total agreement, sPh.
The Kentucky county I live in is near Louisville, the fastest-growing county in the state, affluent, with lots of out-of-staters -- so you'd think it'd be at least as liberal as the nearby city. But the county votes overwhelmingly in every election for the Republicans, and everyone seems convinced that only Bush's presence in the White House has prevented terrorist attacks on Kentucky these six years. (OTOH, judging from the huge number of Hummers and oversized SUVs registered to county residents, global warming seems not to worry them at all.)
These people dismiss as "weak" and "a joke" any bipartisan attempt by Democrats in Congress. Why should anyone think that Obama's "unity" message will affect them any differently?
January 5, 2008 11:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, he's not going to get all of them, obviously. We just need 50% plus 1 for starters-- and then if you get 52% or 55% you get mandate momentum. Of course there is a solid red mass out there who are not coming over, and we wouldn't really want them to, either, because they'd move the center to the right. I want Obama to unify 55% of the country, get a mandate from people who tell pollsters they believe every American should have health care, and would be willing to pay for it. 55% would enable him to force action from Congress, even without 60 Dems in the Senate. That's what I want, and what I think he has more potential to do than Hillary or Edwards.
Don't get me wrong, if Hillary or Edwards win the nomination, I will support them like crazy -- but I think Obama is positioning himself for a governing majority -- in public opinion -- that he will be able to do good things with. I'm from Illinois, I watched him as a State Senator, I know he's good but not perfect, we will need to organize to make sure we push him as far left as possible-- but he's damn good. And we'd have to push Edwards or Clinton just as much if not more. That's how politics works.
January 5, 2008 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Re: unity...Obama is speaking during the Democratic primaries. Not in a general election. So what gives?
January 6, 2008 2:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Brilliant insight, zkosmo, and, of course, it's right out of Rove's playbook. Works especially well when you have a voting populace that really doesn't pay attention or that receives all its information from corporate-controlled media.
January 4, 2008 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't see what was especially brilliant about parroting the tired idea that Obama is somehow selling a story, devoid of any real belief.
Politicians in Presidential elections spout all manner of focus-group tested messages in the hope of telling America what it wants to hear. Bush's "compassionate conservativism" being just the latest, and probably the most insincere. It seems foolish to knock Obama for his message of hope and unity given his history. His story has the benefit of being consistent from start to finish, so why doubt him now?
January 4, 2008 4:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
the problem isn't obama's sincerity, the problem is obama's diagnosis and prescription.
the problem is NOT that 'we are divided'.
so the cure is NOT 'hope' and 'unity'.
it doesn't matter if obama developed these ideas in a laboratory or picked 'em in his garden or pulled 'em from a focus group.
what's important isn't whether or not obama believes in his ideas, what's important is whether his ideas are TRUE.
and they aren't.
January 4, 2008 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
In fact, the problem is partially that we are "divided". Not that R's and D's are being too partisan-- but that Dems need a leader who can pull together a governing majority (in Congress and in public opinion). I think Hillary and Edwards both (maybe Edwards less than Hillary)have trouble with this-- and I think it is a big slog for either one to pass legislation in the currently divided Congress. Obama I think can break through this.
I see more gridlock ahead with Hillary. I like a fight as much as anyone, if I think it is moving in the right direction, and progress will be made-- but I think Hillary would be four more years of fighting without much result. Or more likely, that she will triangulate just like Bill to pass stuff that we won't like, no matter what she is saying now.
And hope as Obama uses the word is the opposite of fear, as has been peddled by the right wing. Anyone who gets us out of that rut is good by me-- and Obama is the only one who opposed the war from the beginning, who I think will take foreign policy in a signficantly different direction. I don't think Hillary will be signficantly different from Bush on Iraq. Obama will.
I'm not thrilled with Obama's health care plan -- hell, I wish they were all for single payer -- but I think he has a better chance of rallying the country behind something reasonably solid and getting it through Congress than either Hillary (I don't think she can do it) or Edwards.
January 4, 2008 5:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
based on WHAT??
hasn't he been in a position to do just that as a senator? what does he have to show for it? what has he done?
January 4, 2008 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
He and Dick Lugar passed an important non-proliferation bill that might make my son's future just a little bit safer. Of course, he could have chosen the much more productive course of impotent blogospheric ranting.
January 4, 2008 6:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
ok, he helped pass a bill.
good job.
obama is obviously the cure for the partisan gridlock that has poisoned our once great nation.
January 4, 2008 6:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama's position is that the majority of the electorate is not bitterly divided. And he is starting to prove that he can draw together a different coaltion of voters behind the Democratic Party and behind him. The primary will allow us to see if he can do this; Iowa certainly shows that he can draw in disparate groups of folk.
The second position is more important. I do think the problem in WDC, and our resulting gridlock for too damned long, has been the partisanship practiced by the Democrats and the Republicans--in Washington. Obama plans, if elected as President, to speak directly to the American electorate who put him in office and ask for their help against a recalcitrant Congress who fails to enact legislation.
I think this will work. You may disagree. But I am damned tired of WDC politicians and pundits deciding what needs to be enacted--or doesn't need to be enacted because it isn't "good enough".
January 4, 2008 6:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
put together, these two positions are even more underwhelming than i first imagined.
hmmm... so obama's position is: "i can win"?
democrats should find the second 'position' as offensive as it is boring and vacuous.
here's how i see things: the democrats are right, the republicans are wrong. the democrats haven't been able to do what's right because the republicans have prevented them from doing it. because the dems in congress - obama included - haven't stood tall enough or strong enough.
pandering to republicans and people who don't like politics by blaming democrats is a crock that i completely reject. you may disagree.
January 4, 2008 6:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's a difference between pandering to Republicans, and uniting the country in favor of Democratic progressive values. Obama was a community organizer, which means that he actually had to help change the minds of real, sometimes eccentric, sometimes uncooperative people. In other words, he uses rhetoric and skills at unifying people to bring Independents and Republicans around to a common cause that Democratic progressives have been working for. We're not talking about Joe Lieberman or David Broder. We're talking about someone who can bring good people around to thinking about things in a constructive, logical way - which leads to progressive politics.
January 4, 2008 7:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
.
And as I asked over on DailyKos, having done some of that work myself and known many who have broken themselves doing it, I would really like to see some solid examples of what community organizing has changed in Chicago since the 1960s. The entire city is firmly in the grip of the Daley machine and they laugh at the people who think they are making a difference in the small organizations. If any such organizer does get anywhere the machine invites him to show fealty and join - which is more-or-less what Obama did in order to get elected to the state legislature.
.
sPh
January 5, 2008 6:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
This guy zkosmo is just trolling and flaming. Childish rants.
January 4, 2008 9:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
re: "impotent blogospheric ranting"
good one. boy, you got me there. how dare i bother talking politics when i'm just some nobody voter.
just so you know, i wasn't comparing obama to ME. so my blogospheric ranting, impotent or otherwise, really has nothing to do with whether or not there are concrete reasons to buy into his rhetoric.
January 4, 2008 6:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I replied to the wrong Ann H post, obviously, but if she wants to run for something, I'd be happy to start canvassing on her behalf in Maryland!
January 4, 2008 8:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, then we can't hope for any kind of honesty in what a politician represents. That's kind of a low standard, isn't it? You see, what I'm looking for is the kind of politician who doesn't depend on focus-group tested messages to set their agenda. Even if it means a politican would come right out and admit they were wrong about something they did earlier, like say, vote for the war authorization. It just seems, like, honest. Real. Instead of the vagueness of "hope" and "unity."
January 6, 2008 2:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Let's face it. If we were to hire a CEO to head the Executive Branch of government based on his resume (which the functioning world does) rather than crowning a daydream, we'd opt for Richardson.
We ignore background checks at our peril. George makes the point.
January 5, 2008 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
One thing I'll have to say for Obama, especially as the post describes him: he talks a lot. He and Edwards can both gear people up or offend people by what they say. Obama's ticked off even people I agree with, like Krugman and some members here, even if I've argued they much overstate the conservatism of what he says. This is in stark contrast to Clinton, who ticks off people by saying as little as possible. (I can't ever imagine her gabbing on ad lib like her husband, much less in the substantive rhetoric of Obama or Edwards.)
And she came up disappointing in the caucus. Does this mean we can finally put to rest the Democratic gurus wanting poll driven campaigns?
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
January 4, 2008 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama didn't tick off Krugman.
Krugman is ticked off anyone is challenging the Clintons, who are, and have been for over a decade, his patron saints that he's automatically endorsed and defended on both the good and the bad. All that is good and bad about the Clintons is also reflected in Krugman. They're tied at the hip.
In fact, Krugman was expected to get a position in the Clinton WH in 92, but was deemed more valauable for his continued endorsements. Which he provided, on everything from NAFTA to deregulation, while he was also a consultant to ENRON for $45K.
Krugman isn't this wonderful, progressive, independent, intellect that some people imagine. He's a player. He's very closely tied to the Clintons. He's been a big proponent of deregulation and flirts dangerously close to romanticism of laissez faire in all the wrong ways, just as the DLC and Third Way types are generally prone to.
And again, it was Clinton deregulation that brought us ENRON, NAFTA, and such, with Krugman's 110% endorsement. Krugman has been good on some issues, but always remember he has another side too.
January 4, 2008 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Funny you should spin all these tales, because Krugman endorsed Edwards over Hillary.
Now, I'd like to see you 'splain that.
January 4, 2008 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're both wrong. New York Times columnists aren't allowed to endorse anyone; Krugman has endorsed neither Hillary nor Edwards.
At the beginning, he was writing favorable things about Edwards because Edwards was the only major candidate with a decent health care plan. He warmed to Hillary after she came out with a comparable plan.
He has said in the past that he liked Bill Clinton's policies but not his triangulating politics -- which is consistent with his recent criticism of Barack Obama for thinking that reconciliation with the right-wing is possible.
In other words, there's nuance here. Don't go around making claims based on nothing.
January 4, 2008 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nope. Regardless of official NYT policy, defacto and clear endorsements are common. Next you'll be telling me Bill Kristol isn't going to endorse hawks from the NYT pages, or that Brooks doesn't already.
Krugman clearly endorsed Edwards and Hillary. He's not stupid, and knows Edwards isn't going to win. And he has long ties to the Clintons. It's a Hillary endorsement.
The notion that Krugman got Hillary to steal Edwards' plan is laughable. Hillary and al candidates obviously needed a plan and couldn't campaign without one. She didn't need Krugman to tell her that, and Krugman knows that too.
And it remains a fact Krugman endorsed NAFTA. Not just endorsed, but championed, and vigorously defended NAFTA, in print and in talks, many times. Everybody with Clinton was onboard for NAFTA, by power of their persuasion and condition of patronage/employment. Krugman totally bought into free trade dogma, along with all the DLC types he's close with. He went as far as to ridicule people who raised alarms about NAFTA. Error in judgment or just outright patronage? Either way, not good.
Another example is the way Krugman backed deregulation all through the 90's, which directly led to the kind of energy trading markets that created ENRON, who then paid Krugman $45K to promote them, which he did. Again, vigorously.
There are plenty of other examples of his blind patronage to DLC policies, and being a sucker for watered down laissez faire.
Then you have Hillary sitting on the board of WALMART and other lousy corporations, and the fact she was a college Republican and Goldwater gal, and you see where they absorb all this economic hogwash, that Krugman is also inundated by.
That's the problem. The status quo these people represent is infested with ideology and talking points straight out of Wall Street. I didn't support NAFTA. Or deregulation. Though I do support trade and healthy market competition, deregulating utilities and lousy trade deals were clealry not in the interest of the American public.
Nobody I knew supported them except Republicans and DLC types. There were plenty of reasonable critics who accurately predicted the problems. But not many in Washington, not in the beltway. None in the DLC, New Democrat, Third Way types.
That's what the Clintons do: wrap corporate dogma and political mediocrity in democratic tokenism and push it on the public. They use proxies like Krugman, who are dazzled by them, to sell bad policy to the public.
Maybe he's a toady, maybe just a sucker. I don't know. He's good on occasion, but totally unrelibale, especialy when it comes to the Clintons. It's sad but true that Frank Rich and Bob Herbert have consistently better economic and political judgment than Krugman.
***
And speaking of accuracy, I'll thank you for substantiating where Obama claims he'll "reconcile with the Right wing." What he's said is that he wants to get moderate votes for common issues. Which is common sense. Only he actually seems capable of doing it.
For accuracy, do you claim Krugman hasn't supported NAFTA? Deregulation? Wasn't on ENRON's payroll for $45K for "consulting" that amounted to nothing, and smells a lot like payola for a player.
Where is this consistent progressive Krugman some people seem to imagine?
Sure, he attacks Bush, as a DLC proxy. But then he endorses many of the the same policies from the Clintons as Republicans would pass. He got on Bush for the housing bubble, at first, and then backpeddled away and took the Republican and DLC line that it really wasn't so bad.
He's tied at the hip to DLC economics, which are just watered down laissez faire with some social policy tokenism thrown in, which they usually fail to pass anyways.
January 4, 2008 11:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think we're confusing terms, here. An endorsement is an official announcement of support for a candidate over others. You can't endorse both Hillary and Edwards.
Moreover, I never said that Krugman is the reason Hillary came out with a health care plan. Indeed, I've never heard anyone make that claim. So I'm not sure whose argument you're finding laughable.
January 5, 2008 9:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are confusing the pre-Bush II Krugman with the post-Bush II Krugman. Krugman's Conscience of a Liberal shows he is more in line with Edwards than anyone else. If anything he is a rightfully concerned academic who woke up in late 2001 to throw off the mental chains the DLC bound us all in the late 90s.
Look closely at Obama and you will have as much concern as anyone. The choice before us is stark. Do we let an out of control corporate agenda continue from the Bush II years and grind us all under, or do we reverse that and make room for a saner FDR-like era where government restricts corporate malfeasance. If anything Obama is running to the right of Clinton on these issues, which is essential asking for another four years of what as Grover Norquist would call "date rape".
smacfarl
http://reddit.com/user/smacfarl/
January 4, 2008 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you out of your mind?
The Clinton who voted for Iraq? The Clinton who sat on WALMART's board? The Clinton who pushed NAFTA on Democrats despite much opposition, while real progressives protested in horror. Even Ross Perot was against NAFTA, a fairly conservative Libertarian, and it was Clinton who pummeled him on that issue and sold NAFTA to the public.
Get real. Have you even looked at the Clinton legislative record? Clinton and the DLC are economically to the right of Nixon. No joke. Aside from social issue tokenism, they're basically moderate Republicans. Joe Leiberman.
What did the Clintons do for the middle class? The environment?
Their legislative record is pro-Corporate and laissez-faire-lite. Many of Bush's economic policies, hawkish policies, and the unitary executive stuff, goes right back to Clinton.
Clinton claimed Saddam had a nuclear program and made "regime change" the policy. Clinton deregulated energy markets, banking, telecoms, and on and on. Clinton was for line item vetos and got them till it was ruled unconstitutional. Which Reagan had been for, and which helped lay the groundwork for Bush's signing statements and regal tendencies.
I could go on to list plenty more. You can't be a Democrat to the right of Clinton, becasue that's called a Republican.
January 6, 2008 3:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's one of the more unfortunate assumptions of our politics.
Being able to relate to people, and know what people really value, isn't just a politcal skill. It's called being human. Most people figure these things out to a varying degree in ordinary life, from dealing with family, coworkers, the community, and so on.
Not everyone is a gifted speaker or has Obama's resume and life experiences of course. But i do think Obama is actually more like most ordinary people than most politicians, in that he hasn't become so accustomed to power brokering, he can still remember what it's like to relate to ordinary folks. Especially becasue he comes out of grass roots community work, and there you have to be real.
That's one of the great ironies (tragedies?) of the beltway pundit class and other pols take on Obama. They think he's some kind of "magical negro" or "invisible man" or "incredibly talented politician" as Bill would say.
Sure, he's talented. And sure people like that he's not in everybody's face all the time like Sharpton. No duh.
But he's also just like my uncle in Ohio, who is just a genuinely nice, stand up, guy. Everybody likes him. He's white, knows just about all white people, but never had a racist bone in his body and has mixed relatives. He's a Democrat, a lifelong Union leader, Christinan but not really practicing, but not a hardliner partisan in any way. He's a pragmatist and all around decent person.
Or my aunt, who is another good person, very Christian, but also a pragmatist, and disillusioned with mixing politics and religion, and looking for a good practical leader. And she's also just a real nice person, who cares about many of the same issues as I do.
There are those people in the real world. Plenty of them. But they seem utterly lacking in politics.
Just watching the news the other night covering the Obama victory, it struck me how even the pundits on the same broadcast, were all kind of repeating each other in the echo chamber while taking petty little shots at each other. Which we mostly all do I guess, but it seems especially ramapant in politcs and the MSM, where it's all about power brokering, leverage, and undercutting each other.
There are plenty of exceptionally good stand up people in the real world. Any functional business, community, or family has them keeping things together and on course.
January 4, 2008 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's my tentative explanation. This year is about the end of the Reagan Revolution. It is over, and it has been a disaster for most Americans. The Press, however, has been reporting on the run up tot he primaries just like they have for the last three decades because all they know is horse-race coverage. They've never had to report a major "change" election, so they have been focusing on polls and the money primary and trying to put those things into the frame they've all operated on for their entire reporting career.
Only last night they were shown the the money primary meant nothing. Message trumped money in Iowa and the reporters don't know how to report on messages. Iowa threw them a major curve.
Worse, this election is ramping up to be one that is both against corporatism and against the political establishment, and the reporters are, themselves, representatives of the political establishment.
Today we have seen a great deal of confusion presented with great certainty from the Press. They are operating outside their expected frame, and don't really know how to do it.
Unfortunately, the populism that Huckabee and Edwards are expressing goes after the Press as much as the corporations and the two political parties, so the Press is going to quickly start working to shut down the populism and focus on the message from both Obama and Huckabee that much of the problem is disagreement and lack of civility between the politicians.
In so doing, the Press will protect themselves (they NEVER self-criticize) and they will be both missing and suppressing the real story which is the failure of the Reagan Revolution and the need to replace it with something more like the New Deal designed for the 21st Century.
This Summer's recession and inflation is going to make them even more confused, since the political reporters a