Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Is Obama too much talk and not enough substance?
(I tried to post this a minute ago but the body seems to have been lost in the internets. Here it is again)
Is Obama too much talk and not enough substance?
First, I’ll say that before I came to support Obama this was exactly one of my critiques of him. I didn’t think much of his speech at the Democratic National Convention in 2004, even as many friends raved about it. But at some point last year I decided that Obama would get my vote based on his early opposition to the Iraq invasion, back when Edwards and Clinton were giving the President the authority to invade. Otherwise, I think it is fair to say the Democratic candidates have very, very similar records and positions on policies.
Given that on a policy level these candidates are so similar, it makes sense that the Clinton camp is going to have to go after Obama in some other ways. The “inexperience” tag really didn’t work and was probably a major strategic misstep when you consider that experience doesn’t exactly resonate at a time when people are yearning for something very different in the White House. Also, when we’re talking about experience as an elected official, Hillary has 7 years in the U.S. Senate. That doesn’t seem to be an overwhelming advantage compared to Obama’s 3 years in the U.S. Senate and 8 years as a state senator.
So now the Clinton camp is going after Obama because he gives great speeches - essentially saying that he's all talk but without substance.
I think that there is a sizeable chunk of the Democratic base, certainly the ones who follow elections closely and get involved with campaigns, who really like getting into the meat of issues. If you’re reading this, that would be you. We’re policy wonks.
Many of us helped to nominate the last two Democratic contenders, John Kerry and Al Gore. During their campaigns, no one could accuse them of being inexperienced and they could argue policy with the best minds in America. They could also get into the nuances of each and every boring ass policy. Indeed, they were practically twins in their wonkish, monotonous, robotic style. I’m getting sleepy just thinking about them.
When they did try to come off with some emotion and fanfare, it came across as utterly fake. I was aghast when at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, the first words out of John Kerry’s mouth were “reporting for duty” followed by a military salute to the crowd. It was a moment when I first realized that Kerry could lose the election to one of the worst Presidents in the history of this nation. It was a sign of a campaign run by professional consultants and speech writers who would have been better suited writing scripts for an episode of Saved by the Bell. I can also remember the week that Al Gore conceded the election in 2000 and when he gave some interviews shortly afterwards. He sounded so much more human, emotional, and relaxed and many people lamented that he didn’t give us more of the “real” Al Gore during the campaign.
Obama may speak generically about change and about hope and he may just scratch the surface of the issues as he campaigns – but that’s because it works. He connects with the average person and that connection cannot be underestimated.
I’ve been a community organizer for nearly a decade and I’ve seen how this works with organizing on progressive issues. If I’m collecting a petition for campaign finance reform, I don’t talk to the average Jane/Joe on the street about the intricacies of the reform options, but stick to much more generic rhetoric that hooks them in and gets us on common ground. When the occasional policy wonk comes by and says that “the devil is in the details,” I’m ready with all the facts figures, and models they could hope for. But those people are 1 in 100 at best.
If you’re a wonk and worried about Obama’s politics, I say dig into his record. (96% lifetime voting record on the environment, 100% voting record on choice, fought for federal ethics bill, spoke out against the invasion of Iraq when it was a popular war, passed Illinois legislation to protect the rights of the accused from police brutality, etc.) I think that once you do you will be convinced that Obama is a strong progressive candidate.
Obama is the anti-Kerry-Gore candidate. He’s connecting with people rather than preaching to them. He’s talking about progressive policies yet he has some conservatives excited about his campaign. He’s running a hell of a ground game in the primary states and he’s building a true movement around his campaign that gives people many ways to get involved. Perhaps more than anything, he is winning people over with the idea that he is genuine. And I believe that’s what voters want that more than anything.
Comments (17)
If Obama supporters do not see their candidate as the nominee, they simply might not vote at all. Remember, many of them are first-time voters, meaning they are just as likely to go to the beach instead on election day.
However, Hillary supporters who are generally older and women will cross over and vote for McCain rather than vote for Obama. Older people vote in higher numbers, so I'd be careful counting on the fickle youth vote.
The superdelegates were created to consider this type of problem---hopefully they have the best judgement as to who will beat the Republican candidate.
The perception has been that there is not much substance, or experience to Obama, whereas McCain has that in spades.
Hillary Clinton is probably the most obvious candidates to unite the party, as love her or hate her, at least you know what you've got.
Obama has a very liberal voting record, and the Republicans will tear him apart I'm afraid.
Just my opinion...thanks for reading my post.
February 22, 2008 4:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Obama supporters do not see their candidate as the nominee, they simply might not vote at all. Remember, many of them are first-time voters, meaning they are just as likely to go to the beach instead on election day.
However, Hillary supporters who are generally older and women will cross over and vote for McCain rather than vote for Obama. Older people vote in higher numbers, so I'd be careful counting on the fickle youth vote.
The superdelegates were created to consider this type of problem---hopefully they have the best judgement as to who will beat the Republican candidate.
The perception has been that there is not much substance, or experience to Obama, whereas McCain has that in spades.
Hillary Clinton is probably the most obvious candidates to unite the party, as love her or hate her, at least you know what you've got.
Obama has a very liberal voting record, and the Republicans will tear him apart I'm afraid.
Just my opinion...thanks for reading my post.
February 22, 2008 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's virtually no way that Hillary will get more pledged delegates at this point. If Superdelegates overturn the popular vote - which I don't believe they will - it will tear the Dem Party apart.
Older, white voters shouldn't get any more credibility or weight added to their votes. One person, one vote. If we want t5o build a biogger and better Dem party, then brining in young voters will be a way to dominate the political scene in America for decades and decades.
If Hillary pulls off a miracle and wins landslide victories in TX, OH, Penn, NC, and IN and gets more pledged delegates than Obama, then I would tip my hat to her tenacity and vote for her in November.
February 22, 2008 8:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I believe the change Obama is talking about is how we talk to each other, allies and rivals alike, and that excites me more than any particular policy position possibly could.
I decided a few months ago that the next President is going to face problems we can't even describe yet. Given a new set of facts and circumstances, who do I trust to make the best decision? I've seen what Senator Clinton did when faced with the unknowns of Iraq. And she showed us the limitations of her negotiating style when championing universal health care in the 90s.
I'm ready to elect a community organizer. That's experience we can count on.
February 22, 2008 11:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed.
Obama has experience that it meaningful to me (civil rights lawyer, community organizer) and says a lot about his character.
Just because I know Hillary better, doesn't mean she's the best candidate.
February 23, 2008 1:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
it's been interesting to me to see how his campaign has looked like it's been run by a very effective community organizer, since last fall. it has given me the impression that he is very much in charge of his own campaign.
February 23, 2008 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's a good basic article about Obama's legal career: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/02/20/obama_got_start_in_civil_rights_practice/
February 23, 2008 1:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am tired of the, "well, at least we know what we'll get with Clinton" argument. Seriously people this is America,.. supposed to be land of the brave. It's this kind of thinking that got us into the situation we are in now.
People voted for Bush the second time because they were afraid of what might happen to us with a different president.
I am also tired of seeing voting analysis done based on what has happened in the past. Young voters are engaged because we realize what is truly at stake here. We have seen how much damage politicians have done to this country for years as we stayed silent.
I don't hate HRC, but I don't trust her as far as I can throw her. This is a politician who has followed the political winds at virtually every step. I DON'T WANT FAMILIAR! I do now what we'll get, and it's certainly not what I want.
I don't want politicians who are willing to degrade someone who is very good for there party and the people just to reach there goal.
I don't want politicians who play it safe in there political career so they are homogenized enough to be elected president.
I am sorry, I know I got overly passionate there but the fear I see in a lot of this party bothers me. We lost twice in a row, it happens. There are times in life when a little fear can be healthy, but there are and will always be times where the best course for the future is to stand up and fight for something new.
If you believe HRC is the best candidate and will be a better president then more power to you. That's what this country is supposed to be about, but if you are afraid to vote for someone else because they might not win, or because it might be different it just seems like a wasted vote to me.
February 23, 2008 4:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think you are correct. People don't want policy wonks. That's why we got Bush twice and Reagan twice. Luckily, Obama is indeed a progressive and will support the right things if elected. He may also be able to build enough public support for his positions to allow him to get his agenda through congress—no small feat. And those will be great things. But to me, it is problematic that charisma is what will rule the day. I have no use for leaders. You might call me a libertarian socialist. People who win support through great speeches rather than hard facts, do well in a country of poorly educated, celebrity-obsessed masses. I had hoped one day to live in a world of rational people, but alas that will probably never be the case. (How many Americans actually believe the fairytales in the bible—even Obama and Hillary do.) So, whatever Obama accomplishes, the fact that this is the America we live in does not bode well for our future no matter what he achieves. I am not suggesting that anyone else would do better. They wouldn't. But having a better education system is going to change the fact that (according to a study by the NEA) the average 18-24 year old only does 7 minutes per day of non-mandatory reading (and thus...). It's all just a sad comment on the country and one more sign of our slow descent into the dustbin of history.
February 23, 2008 7:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
I must say that this an excellent concise analysis of Obama's appeal. It has the ring of a slightly uncomfortable truth: Other things being relatvely equal, LIKEABILITY may be the dominant factor in who wins elections.
If there's a problem with this methodology, I think it lies in the fact that the country (the world?) is left with the implications of the President's conduct of the office long after we've forgotten what a nice guy he was. You can only really judge a woodcutter by the stack of wood he leaves. In a similar way, history will judge a President long into the future by his "stack of wood": The choices he made or failed to make, the policies he implemented or failed to implement, the overall conditon he leaves on his last day in office.
February 23, 2008 8:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think the argument that all "old people" will vote for McCain is a Republican talking point and nothing more. It's a favorite phrase of Pat Buchanan. I rest my case. Some will. They can be risk averse. But a true Democrat who is over 65 will have no trouble supporting Obama. My 68 year old husband would rather eat broken glass than vote for McCain or any other Republican.
Add to Obama's list of accomplishments the Lugar-Obama legislation on securing loose nukes and other WMD. It was an amazing achievement, and sadly overlooked. A bill of national security urgency, co-sponsored across the aisle, that passed and Bush actually signed. Without caving to Republicans (Hillary's idea of bipartisanship).
The point of this post is critical: how in God's name can we make the same mistake we've made over and over the last 30-some years? Picking well-intentioned public servants with 10-point plans and no personal leadership skills to sell those plans. The only time we didn't do that -- Bill Clinton. Who ran on hope and charisma, for God's sake, and was far more comfortable with right wing policies than every made me comfortable.
For HIllary to try to destroy Obama, using the same arguments used against Bill in 1992 -- it's despicable. If she actually wins doing this, it is President McCain without a doubt. A Supreme Court that will be the most right wing court in our history.
Obama has plenty depth in policy issues, an effective legislative background working with hard right Republican majorities in Illinois, and an amazing gift for motivating and uniting people. We've seen some variation of that work for the Republicans over and over -- how can be not turn our backs on our losing strategies?
I honestly don't get it. I honestly don't see how someone's First Lady experience somehow trumps legislative experience. I don't see how this party can't see that Hillary is John Kerry and Michael Dukakis and Walter Mondale in a pantsuit.
The last few days I'm especially disillusioned: Hillary shows that she's human for the second time in her campaign, and the press fawns. Obama shows that every day, because for him it's authentic.
By the way, she reneged today on the notion that she was being conciliatory. So I guess she really was warning the American people that dire consequences would ensue if they didn't vote for her.
Obama is the only chance for turning this country in a progressive direction and enacting policies that will benefit the American people. I don't care how hard Hillary "works" -- it takes words -- yes, words -- to convince and unite. She's incapable of that.
February 23, 2008 8:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think you're right.
It continually amazes me how many times I see comments online from people who want him to talk more about policy. If you're on the computer already, it's pretty easy just to click on over to his website...
quite frankly we haven't had a democratic leader in a very long time who was even close to being good at articulating the reason for their policies. most can only talk about how they work, and even then not very well. not why, in such a way that they can increase their support.
I'm going to go off on a slight tangent here: this is why democrats are having a problem with the supreme court today-- we've relied too long on the courts to protect us from bad laws without making strong, coherent arguments for good ones.
Most Americans lean more liberal than conservative when asked about specific issues, but our side has just traditionally done a poor job of presenting our case, relying instead on simply having better ideas. that's nowhere near enough.
A strong vision and clear talk, in today's world, are critical.
February 23, 2008 8:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
That is an excellent point. I hadn't thought of that: we rely on the courts instead of having the muscle to enact the necessary legislation. I'll "plagiarize" your idea, if you don't mind. This is a point that needs to be made.
And you don't get important legislation enacted without the ability to articulate those policies and convince a working majority of Americans that these policies are in their best interests. Hillary, I'm afraid, is incapable of doing that. All that plans in the world mean nothing if we can't get meaningful legislation passed. Obama is at a unique point in history to turn that tide -- he will get enough Republicans and independents to call and write their legislators when it's important. Can you honestly see Hillary being able to sway people in that way?
I hope the Rovian tactics don't work. She managed to cow the press with her outrage over Chelsea (who didn't seem to be able to speak for herself, at 28 years old). The press may have done the Clintons' bidding, but it has been an adversarial relationship with the press their entire careers. McCain is a media darling.
How about we have our own media darling for a change and get an effective president elected?
February 23, 2008 8:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
it's not really my idea.
A few years ago I heard it attributed secondhand to, well, actually, Barack Obama.
February 23, 2008 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
As one who has supported Sen. Clinton, it may be helpful if I contribute a little insight from that point-of-view:
I believe I understand as well as any Obama supporter the fundamental basis of his appeal: He represents a clean break from the messy, mean-spirited past - a potential chance to start over again on a post-partisan journey to a better place (sort of describes heaven, doesn't it?).
Clinton vs. Obama is almost textbook past vs. future. "Future" in this sense has at least 2 undeniable advantages: (1)Americans are naturally forward-looking people. (2)Since the future hasn't happened yet, it allows us to project whatever outcome we prefer onto it.
This is as tempting a prospect for me as it is for any Obama supporter. I'm as prone as anyone to idealized conceptions of a wonderful mountain-top in the clouds that I might reach if I just have the courage.
At the last minute, I recoil. I'm too old, I've seen too many saviors who didn't pan-out for one reason or another. I've come to believe in practical incrementalism, 2 steps forward/1 back, move the chains, control the line of scrimmage, hope for a litle progress - all those prosaic, workaday activities in which most of us engage in our everyday lives. To the extent any strategy has worked for me in MY life, that's pretty much what it is.
I may very well be wrong this time, and I really hope that I am. I'm actually GLAD there are those of you still out there who can see it the way you do. Let's have it out in this classic primary of ideas, and then move on. I'm forward-looking myself, in my own American way.
February 23, 2008 9:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks one-wilson for the thoughtful post. Well said.
February 23, 2008 9:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
I actually don't think that's the basis for his appeal.
He's appealing now for much the same reason he was when he spoke at the convention. he articulates liberal ideas in such a clear way that he can get independents and even republicans to realize they agree with them.
He's gotten a lot of us to step back and look at the big picture, that this isn't just some fight to be made until the next election, but that we need to stand back and make our fundamental arguments clear before and while engaging that fight. when we do we have much more power.
He appears to be the only candidate who understands that you must articulate your vision (not just your policy) before engaging in a debate over details. This, to me, is the opposite approach of the Clintons, who have tended to narrowly craft policy that can win approval from a majority by meeting halfway. Obama's approach pulls the debate to the left by making that the more appealing option.
it's NOT post-partisan. It's poaching support.
February 23, 2008 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment