Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Seeing things differently
Though it’s tempting to think that the Clinton team wrote off all of the “states that don’t matter,” as Mark Penn’s blunder suggests, I think to the contrary, they assumed those states were in the bag all along. “Why spend time and money on Red States? Those voters will never pull the lever for black man named Barack Hussein Obama”—something like that.
The success of the Obama campaign, I think, arises out from seeing the country in a new light. Senator Obama sees a wide spectrum of people fatigued by all of the partisan trench warfare. Senator Clinton, alas, cannot escape the trench warfare, especially with all of the polarizing associations attached to her (unfairly or not). The Clinton strategy seemed to have been this: we’ll assemble our usual democratic coalition behind a really smart, charismatic, and well-funded candidate. It accepted the predominant understanding of the electoral map and where the democratic votes are.
Obama’s campaign, by contrast, reflects a different vision of the country, one where people are not as far divided as we might think. (One poster at Koshttp://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/17/2729/99967 described Obama as a “dignified climbdown for Republicans,” which I think is a keen observation.)
There are legitimate reasons for Clinton (and Edwards) supporters to have questioned the wisdom of playing nice with the party of Reagan, Bush, and Rove. Still, the mounting evidence suggests that the electorate feels cramped by life in the trenches and is ready to come out and try something new.
I have qualms about both Senators Obama and Clinton, though I would happily vote for either in November. At this point, however, I find myself buying into the idea that voters of all stripes want to transcend the bitter red/blue divide, and that recognizing that fact represents not only a better strategy for the democratic party, but an important step for the entire country. The success of the Obama campaign, I think, is founded on that crucial insight, and for that, Senator Obama deserves credit.
Comments (6)
Good point. They thought it would be taken care of by Super Tuesday and everyone else would gladly follow the Pied Piper.
I also agree any movement in getting the country to work together is more important than any actual policy changes made. In the end, the medium will be the message.
February 20, 2008 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kudos to you for these observations.
We don't get anywhere by demonizing the majority of Republicans who are good, patriotic Americans who happen to differ with us on how they like their issues presented. We get to the top by finding someone who knows how to present our issues in a way that is targeted toward fair-minded compatriots.
February 20, 2008 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yup. I think is why he has shown himself in the past to be negative towards liberal "netroots" keyboard fighting types. He has basically been presenting over and over and over in words and actions over the last couple of years as someone who believes in creating a new centrism. It's very clear to me he wants to govern by a majority. Whether he will get one all depends upon how well he can finesse activist interest groups from left to right.
What's interesting to me is how many "netroots" who used to scream "we've got to attack the right wing with the same they've given us over the years" and previously thought him just another corporate centrist Dem, willing to have Lieberman as his Senate mentor and willing to work with other Republicans, have recently been taken with him. Whether that is temporary effects of Obamamentum remains to be seen. There is a long way to the final election if he gets the nomination as it looks right now.
Also along the way to the final election, it will remain to be seen whether the "coolness" factor with youth will wear thin, and the youth turnout in the final election not be as great in the primaries. The campaign may have to strike fear of an old President McCain into the youthful fans to reinvigorate them?
You can't count McCain out in his ability to appeal to some of the same Independents that Obama is courting for his new majority. Likewise, I don't think at this point in time one cannot assume that Obama's coattails would bring more Dems into the House, not until we know more of what goes on in debates between him and McCain. Because, with gerrymandering the reality, you could get many voters for Obama for president who still like their own Republican representative just fine.
February 20, 2008 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your point is well made that the reason for Obama's success is that is does appeal to everyone. Clinton on the other hand ran a decidedly divisive campaign. What a mistake. And what are they planning to do to get back in the game, amp up their divide and conquer strategy. Obama will win by big margins in Texas and Ohio because the Clinton strategists are in denial about the "it time to put an end to partisan politics" mood of the country.
February 20, 2008 11:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great post.
“dignified climbdown for Republicans”
Republican voters, not Republican officeholders!!
Obama's success on this front also provides an opportunity for a "dignified climbdown for Hillary supporters"
I think many Obama supporters are as surprised as the next guy/gal that he manages to appeal to so many voters of the non-Dem persuasion. Sure, we could see that he was crafting his pitch to appeal to them, but who knew it was going to work so well? Now that it has, that success would seem to also clear the way for a dignified climbdown for Hillary supporters. We Dems had two candidates with two approaches and who can say they knew for certain from the outset which strategy would work best? Not me.
Anyway, I can't wait to stop bickering with Hillary supporters and get to work helping to soften up McCain's support.
February 21, 2008 6:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not surprised at all. I've known plenty of Republicans during my lifetime. Very few of them are wingnuts. The vast majority of them either a) identified with Reagan because Reagan, for better or for worse, came across as a winner and a real patriot or, b) shared my ultimate beliefs in the direction we would like to see society progress, but disagreed about the pace at which that progress would best be accomplished or about whether Federal or State Governments were best suited to see that change made whole...
The irony in this, and the original post gets at it, is that for all the Clintons' vaunted "triangulation" and ability to really sense political currents and adapt accordingly, Hillary really seems to be running a campaign which is totally out of step with what the majority of people want right now. She's offering more of the same and calling it change because that's what she took from Iowa. Her tactics create too much friction for her message to overcome...
February 21, 2008 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment