Yes, the devil is always in the details. Are Obama's voters just swayed by his star qualities or are they concerned about fundamental issues? And is Obama concerned about issues or image? At this point, it seems like image. And I am bothered by what strikes me as an empty rhetoric of inclusiveness, though I concede this may be the best way to bring in the typically issue-ignorant independent voter.

I do think there is great potential, right now, for a big political realignment.  I'm not sanguine about the prospects because it's not clear to me that any of the Democratic leadership is ready to capitalize on the relative collapse of conservatism as a governing philosophy, but the potential is there.

What keeps waking me up at night is the series of news articles I've seen on the fragmentation of evangelical political power.  This is potentially important, I think, for two reasons.  First, if evangelical voters stood as less of a bloc, the Republicans would have a harder time forging a winning electoral strategy.  But second, my sense is that there is a genuine interest, among many conservative Christians, to get beyond abortion and gay rights and attend to issues like poverty and racism.  They may not come to these issues with the analysis that I'd like, but serious attention to what on ourside would be called social justice concerns could really shake political alignments around in an interesting way.  

I'd like to see politicians and progressives capitalize on this. Forging alliances across progressive and social conservative interests might feel cynical and kind of odious at first, probably to both sides, but over time, I think that this could turn into alliances between progressives and other (semi-)progressives. 

Hats off to the organizational skills of his team.

That said, what do we have in Obama? A candidate who's been so busy applying for his next job he can't be bothered with doing his current job. A candidate who happily wears tired right wing frames, who stands tall with a homophobe, who drapes himself in empty language of nonpartisanship for the sake of nonpartisanship. But, man, he gives really good speech.

Sure, he's "inspirational." Whatever that means. But based on his actions in the Senate, as president, he'll make nice with conservatives, scold liberals, avoid taking a principled stand on important issues, and neither sign nor veto legislation, though he may occasionally write "present" on the bills that cross his desk. But at least his State of the Union speeches will rock.

I'm glad Hillary landed where she did, because the last thing Democrats need is more DLC triangulation. But Obama is barely better. It's sad, if unsurprising, that Dodd dropped out because he represents what Democrats need to be doing: standing up to the Republicans, not trying to be their friends.

At least Edwards still has a shot, if a long one. Sigh.

i think you're wrong about him being progressive. i think he's a demagogue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demagogy

It is important to note how the media framing is working to undermine the progressive transition. In the first place when one candidate (Republican or Democrat)criticizes another on specific policy issues in an ad it is labeled as an "attack ad" seemingly equivalent to an ad hominum or patently false (Rovian) attack. Secondly when John Edwards talks about opposing the corporate and plutocracy sources of our decline (in contrast to Obama's "I'll work with them" approach) he is starting to be labeled "angry". The path to future progress is goingto be filtered conservatively by the media.

Mr. Cameron,

If as you say, Obama is "A candidate who happily wears tired right wing frames,...", then why did 42% of caucus participants who identify themselves as "conservative" caucus for Edwards?

I may have missed someone else making the point, as I am a skimmer, but I think one of the really significant outcomes of the Iowa event was the large numbers of young folks whom Obama apparently drew into the process. 57% of caucus participants were first timers and 41% of those new folks caucused for Obama.

I am certainly not so arrogant as to make predictions of future primary/caucus outcomes (let alone pronounce what candidate x or y would do as president.) But I think it significant that of the 20% of participants in the democratic caucuses who identify themselves as independents, 41% caucused for Obama.

New Hampshire independents may vote in either the democratic of republican primaries and there are very many independents in N.H.

Obama is within striking distance in N.H., with 7%, or so, still undecided. If he wins in N.H. things will change significantly in South Carolina.

Strive for the ideal, but deal with what's real.

Nathan,

Setting aside who or what Obama identifies as the ultimate problem, isn't it refreshing to have a candidate that sees organizing and the conversion of disaffected citizens into a powerful force as the key to change, rather than TV ads, talking points, and triangulation?

I know Obama's message isn't terribly labor-centric, but I wonder if the key to effective organizing in the 21st century won't involve moving beyond the workplace and into more community structures.

But maybe I'm just deluding myself into thinking of Obama as Saul Alinksy's heir.

I'm not annoyed like some at his "post-partisanship" message, since the best way to build a big partisan majority is to assert this kind of non-partisan inclusiveness.

Believing this implies you're not taking Obama at his word, a risky thing if you ask me.

Obama says he will bridge red and blue, left and right. Two ways to do this: convince others you're correct, or compromise. The latter is what people mean when they talk about "post-partisan" politics, and that's what I expect from Obama. Compromise, by definition, means watering-down good policies to make them more appealing to the other side.

(Compromise is also the only possible politics today because of the filibuster and other rules and techniques, in which the Republicans in Congress have used extensively. We've finally realized a Congress where literally nothing can happen, where benign things like upping mileage standards to 35MPG 12 years from now somehow are made to seem like a "victory" for the environment.)

At best, Obama promises a Bill Clinton-like Presidency, a mixed bag of results, that, over time (see: Telecom Act, 1996) have hurt progressive causes more than anyone first realized. Or maybe Obama will be even better than Clinton, because, bluntly, I don't think he'll have the same, ahem, personal problems that Clinton did. We may be able to come out of an Obama Presidency without losing the Congress.

But that still doesn't mean he'll be able to build a big partisan majority. His problem is that he'll overreach to the Right on a few issues that will wash out any progressive gains. And his idea, or rather, philosophical approach, on healthcare, that somehow the insurance companies and lobbyists and pharmaceuticals will magically want to sit down at his bargaining table, is really a fantasy. That's the area where change is most needed, and Obama isn't likely to deliver there.

Disconnected reactions (apologies). 1) Like Howard, I think it was a fine post and like him I am also in agreement on seeing good things in both the top two vote getters. 2) I like the pointing to Obama's skills as mobilizer, and I'm all that inclined to think that means he's conservative. (As others have said, Bush reached out just fine in 2000, but smart people still knew what he stood for.) 3) I don't agree with Devon that this is the same thing as leading to a realignment, and I don't know what that means anyhow. The political divisions in the nation are more real than ever; we just have to win for a change.

4) Edwards did amazingly well given media coverage, but I doubt anything short of winning gives him a chance now. 5) Sure he'd be a good AG (and would surely turn down another shot at VP), but also a fine senator. If a Democrat wins, someone aggressive has to lead the charge.

6) I'm as scared by Huckabee's success and its links to evangelical turnout as heartened by Obama's and Edwards's outpacing of Clinton. 7) On the other hand, I realize it's rural, white state, with turnout I'm guessing about the size of a single small precinct in Brooklyn. It's shameful so much in America's future hinges on it. 8) In the anecdotal interviews in the media, voters gave reasons as vague, frivolous, and ignorant as one might expect, so again don't get too deeply into the future of liberalism. 

John 

http://www.haberarts.com/

Brad: "It is a testament to your monomania that you would consider corporations making money to be inherently suspect."  My first problem is that the shrill tone implied by "monomania" is yours and not his. But anyhow, this is a terrible straw man. No one's worried about making money. 

Rather, what people see and fear is an utter breakdown of the social contract, partly visible in increasing inequality since the early 1970s, but gone to a sudden feeding frenzy under Bush. They hear of a recovery from recession early in the decade, indeed a business boom, but they don't feel any wealthier or more secure. Then comes the crisis, they feel the contract right back, with loss of homes and fear of great loss as well. Worse, they see executives taking good money with them from businesses that have had bad times recently. 

A functioning market economy rewards people for working hard and doing well. We're seeing an economy in which people work hard and don't benefit or do badly and get rewarded. I don't think all those polls about Americans backing health care or fearing for their security are describing a nation descending to monomania. Seems to me more that those like you who cling to conservatism have an obsession. 

John 

http://www.haberarts.com/

First off, Edwards is history, at least for this election (unless and until someone offers him another VP spot, where he was, politics-wise, less than cataclysmically effective in boosting Kerry's 04 candidacy.) While Obama and CERTAINLY Clinton could withstand an Iowa defeat, it was Edwards' big chance.

Edwards is now short of money, and unlikely to do better than third in ANY of the votes coming up (officially sanctioned or no) in the Democratic race. If I were giving him advice (if he were to insist on staying at least through South Carolina) it would be to court enormous trashing by the mainstream Democratic Party leadership, and start campaigning HEAVILY in FL and MI. The controversiality of it, together with the lack of competition, would be the ONLY way for him to save his candidacy. And don't hold your breath for 'populist' Edwards to DARE anything like that! But you never know.

More to what WILL likely happen, here's an URGENT REPOST of an election issue we REALLY need to see pundits on TPM Cafe and elsewhere at the Democratic Party grassroots/netroots SERIOUSLY debate. The issue especially rankles me as a (now) longtime Obama supporter:

When are the pundits going to start confronting the issue of how the primaries being front-loaded favors the previously well-known contender -- the one who was considered the presumptive nominee when the process started -- over ANY possible challenger or upstart, even one that might be at least somewhat well-known before the campaign began?

The way I see it, Obama could very well demonstrate his superior strength AS A CANDIDATE, with voters who are familiar with the candidates and have heard a lot (both + and -) about them -- winning not only Iowa but New Hampshire and South Carolina as well. This is not a far-fetched prediction, and indeed, Obama may be at least an even bet to do just that. (Of course, the results in MI, FL, and NV are another matter).

But then comes Tsunami Tuesday ("TT" I like to call it for short). Here, the inertia of the campaign is given full swing, and even the momentum built up by Obama with three major victories in the heavily campaigned-in states would leave him at a disadvantage in what amounts to essentially a national primary.

Curiously, the circumstances in MI and FL, the two LARGEST states to vote before TT, is such as specifically to PRECLUDE major campaigning on the part of any candidate that doesn't want to outrage the Democratic Party establishment; hence they are more like the TT states than the 'big three' of January. ALL OF THESE FACTORS SEEM TO FAVOR THE CANDIDACY OF HRC, ALMOST INSURMOUNTABLY, AND ALL ARE PREDICTABLE RESULTS OF THE WAY THAT THE NATIONAL DEMOCRATIC PARTY SET UP THE ELECTIONS.

It's time for the grass-roots and net-roots Democrats to start SERIOUSLY grappling with this issue. If this setup insures an HRC nomination, as it seems clearly to have been intended to do, AND THEN SHE LOSES, I think that progressives will REALLY have to think seriously about completely overhauling the Democratic Party. And no more dancing to the tune of the DLC and their 'why doesn't the Democratic Party dump its pro-choice platform?'(Al From) after the 2004 elections.

For those who are so upset about Obama on Social Security, I frankly don't get it. As I understand it, Obama wants to maintain a healthy sense that there is a long-term difficulty with Social Security, and use that perception of a long term difficulty to raise the payroll tax cap so that the small percentage of individuals (6%) at the highest stratum of personal incomes - individuals (not households) making over $97,500 - have to pay into Social Security.

Edwards, on the other hand, wants to protect people in the $97,500 to $200,000 from the payroll tax. So why is it Obama is thereby labeled the triangulator by Edwards fans, and Edwards is the progressive?

The notion that this is some sort of centrist triangualtion is totally absurd. There is not a whiff of any sort of privatization scheme in this, and in fact the whole idea is to ward off future privatization schemes and future attacks on Social Security. An alternative, I suppose, is to pass the problem on entirely to the next generation, which is then likely going to get socked with a broader middle class tax hike to raise the revenues we will need in order to pay ourselves the money we collectively owe to pay the bonds held by the Social Security trust fund. That's if the grousing over these tax hikes doesn't spur a whole new wave of conservative Social Security "reform".

Isn't it both more responsible and progressive to re-organize the financing now, so that upper income wage earners from the the large and affluent baby boom generation pay in now, rather than put the whole burden on the relatively smaller generation of young people who will be middle class wage earners when we have to start paying off the bonds in the trust fund?

We have already won the Social Security debate - privatization is dead for now. But some progressives have drawn from this the mistaken conclusion that the progressive message should be "The financing of Social Security is perfect and need never be addressed! There is no problem! Shut up about Social Security! Anything else is a right wing talking point!" This is an irresponsible kneejerk position that will ultimately play right into the hands of the enemies of Social Security.

Read this WP piece on Obama's legislative record in the Illinois Senate. He got a bill to require video taping of the interogation of suspects passed despite the fact that absolutely everyone was against it in the beginning. It passed the senate 35-0.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/03/AR2008010303303.html

Is that fundamental enough change for you naysayers? Is it liberal enough?

All of you who are saying Obama lacks substance, that he can't fight because he's too nice or that he's not really a progressive are just plain wrong. You don't know what you're talking about.

It's sounds like you judge him solely by the debating points he makes in public speeches instead of looking at the larger history and character of the man himself.

As someone else pointed out in another thread, FDR used the same unity and reaching across the aisle message when he took over amid a complete political realignment.

not the "low hanging" fruit of available activists, including the netroots.

Last night after visiting DKos to see the overwhelming cooing and rhapsodizing about Obama's speech, I was reminded of this post Obama made on DKos in Sept. 2005 admonishing some "Kossacks" on their attitude. (A about a year later he said to a New York magazine interviewer: "One good test as to whether folks are doing interesting work is, Can they surprise me. And increasingly, when I read Daily Kos, it doesn’t surprise me. It’s all just exactly what I would expect.") All forgotten for the moment, or at least the "angry at Obama" contingent had been sidelined.

One interesting thing I found searching for the old stuff is this quote by Obama that
Andrew Golis used in a post here on TPMCafe:

I think that I have the capacity to get people to recognize themselves in each other.

Remember your own post here,
Obama, Religion and the Blog Reaction? Pretty savvy in itself, if I may say so.

Whatever happens next, this really was an amazing victory in Iowa, and with the Kos audience, who seem to have forgotten all about his downsides for the moment.

Interesting question:

How much of the "cautious Obama" is due to the political calculus that says that a white man can afford to be more angry and progressive than a black man can?

Where would a black Edwards be at this stage of the game? Probably nowhere. I remember with great fondness Chicago Mayor Harold Washington. There was a black fighter. But even with that, he was only barely viable in a city that was close to majority African-American. Whatever Obama's REAL intentions are, these are, unfortunately, political reality.

So while I find the Krugman critiques of Obama to be on the mark, I think we have to be ready to cut Obama at least as much slack as we have to in order to be able to stomach Hillary.

I'm not completely sold, but that will all be moot in a few weeks anyway - and most of us will wind up supporting the nominee, whoever he or she is. And perhaps, being the left opposition inside or outside an Obama adminstration. Is that such a bad thing? I think I'd much rather be there than where we are now.