Obama Offers Way Out of Dean, Hart and Kennedy Trap
Barack Obama is on the cusp of pulling off what no one in his party has achieved for years.
If recent polls, together with the crowds at his events, are anything to go by, he is simultaneously appealing to strident Democratic activists and seducing floating voters and independents. The combination, if it proves durable, is electoral gold dust.
The recent history of the Democratic Party is littered with compelling insurgent candidates—Howard Dean, Gary Hart and Ted Kennedy, for example—who rode a wave of grass-roots fervor before crashing to earth.
Mr. Obama seems to offer a way out of the trap.
On the one hand, he employs the lofty rhetoric that thrills the foot soldiers of his party, and he seems to share their basic values.
On the other, he runs on a Democratic centrist policy platform and projects a persona that, being both charismatic and optimistic, draws in the uncommitted rather than scaring them away, as a Dean or a Kennedy might.
This, as much as his now-famous life story, is part of what makes Mr. Obama special.
As he proves often on the stump, he can take an argument comprised of elements that should, on their face, be discordant and meld them into something coherent.
At a low-cost fund-raiser in Boston on Sunday night, for example, Mr. Obama excoriated unnamed Democrats for being in thrall to the idea that they could only appear tough on national security by “acting like George Bush Republicans”.
He also took to task those who, he claimed, carefully calibrate their positions out of fear about “what Mitt or Rudy might say about us.”
And Mr. Obama seemed to implicate Bill as well as Hillary Clinton in this critique. He bemoaned the tendency toward “triangulation”—a word virtually synonymous with the Clinton presidency—and went on to deride “poll-driven politics” and those who opt to lead by “calculation” rather than “convictions.”
But Mr. Obama also presented himself as a man capable of easing the enmity that has festered between Republicans and Democrats for at least a decade. Mrs. Clinton has no such capacity, he implied.
“I don’t want to spend the next four years rearguing the same partisan arguments that we had all through the 1990’s,” he said. “I don’t want to pit red America against blue America.”
Invoking long-ago Democratic icons like J.F.K. and F.D.R., he added, “This party has been at its best when we have summoned the entire nation—not just half the nation, not just a portion of a demographic, the entire nation—around a higher goal, a common purpose.”
Seventy-four-year-old Jim Foley of Danvers, Mass., was among the crowd at Mr. Obama’s Boston speech. Asked why he liked the Illinois senator, Mr. Foley replied, “He’s not an ideologue. He’ll take Republican ideas, Democratic ideas, it doesn’t matter to him. He is not interested in advancing a particular agenda.”
As Frank Rich noted in Sunday’s New York Times, Mr. Obama has even been attracting nonironic plaudits from conservatives like Peggy Noonan and former Bush adviser Mark McKinnon.
And in a Des Moines Register poll published on Dec. 2, 27 percent of likely Democratic caucus-goers said Mr. Obama was the “best able to bring Republicans and Democrats together,” compared with 18 percent for Mrs. Clinton.
In the same poll, 25 percent also said Mr. Obama was the “most principled” Democrat in the field, compared with just 16 percent for Mrs. Clinton, who was pushed into third place in that category by John Edwards.
Mr. Obama’s stump speech customarily ends with him beseeching his audience to “reach for what’s possible” rather than accepting “what the cynics would have you settle for.”
There is no proof at all that Mr. Obama could govern in such a high-minded fashion if given the chance, of course. But for now, it is easy to see why many of his supporters believe they have found a man capable of performing political alchemy.
Maybe Mrs. Clinton and her surrogates will succeed in taking the gloss off Mr. Obama’s candidacy between now and the Iowa caucuses on Jan. 3. Maybe they can turn him into just another ambitious politician saying whatever it takes to get votes.
So far, though, Mr. Obama is holding up. He is tantalizingly close to becoming that rarest of things in American politics—a candidate who doesn’t just promise a new kind of politics, but delivers it.
- Poll
- Obama (D)
- McCain(R)
- Spread
- RCP Average
- 46.3
- 41.7
- Obama +4.6
- Candidate
- Favorable
- Unfavorable
- Spread
- Obama
- 55.7
- 32.7
- +23.0
- McCain
- 52.4
- 34.7
- +17.7
Delivers what? The only reason Obama is still holding up is because for some reason NOW Oprah has decided to endorse a political candidate. Let's look at the picture fairly, Oprah is the #1 watched show in Iowa. If Oprah says "Read this book" everyone goes out and buy's that book. If Oprah say's "Don't buy this book" (cause I this person is no longer credible in her judgemental eyes) everyone follows suit. People who cannot think for themselves or take the time to actually research the candidate pool are looking to Oprah (who likes to bride her audience with shiny new cars ect...) for what to do next. Oprah likes this guy's hotdogs, Oprah likes this gal's meatball sandwiches, Oprah likes Obama. Yea! Now I like him too! Where was Oprah and her BIG endorsement when our country really needed it like in the 2000 election or the 2004 election? Boy it sure would have been great if back then before we went into a stupid war with a president that was elected by a hair to have had her endorsement. Oprah go back to your day job of recommending great books to read and plastic surgeons to go to for that much needed tummy tuck.
No need to be nasty and disrespectful Erin. Barack and Oprah are dignified Americans who touch and inspire millions. Don't vilify them because Barack is not your preferred candidate. Be true to yourself.
Minda
Maybe Oprah sees a kindred spirit in Obama, someone who is trying to elevate the discussion by actually listening to both sides in a debate versus trying to polarize people and divide them.
Obama is holding up, not because of Oprah, but because people are starting to take a second look at Hillary Clinton. She, in fact, is not holding up in the new light. It's very telling that the day after Obama pulled the Oprah endorsement, Hillary got endorsed by Barbra Streisand. He is just the fresh face on the block, like Edwards was in 2004 or Hart in 1984. Some people are also not happy with the prospect of Bush-Clinton-Clinton-Bush-Bush-Clinton describing 24 years in the White House. There are people actually saying, "No more Bush. No more Clinton."
That has nothing to do with Oprah. Maybe Obama will win and give Guiliani a good fight this November.
"He is tantalizingly close to becoming that rarest of things in American politics—a candidate who doesn’t just promise a new kind of politics, but delivers it."
I believe this. I really do.
By the way, who is Oprah?
How do you read that article and use it as a springboard to critique Oprah's endorsement of Obama? "Oprah" appears nowhere in that story.
Turning to the actual story, it's spot on. Obama's the type of guy that has infectious energy and the more people get to know him, the more he's going to ascend the polls. He's getting more and more press, and it's having a snowball effect. Big question now is whether he'll be able to parlay his victory in Iowa into wins in other states -- I feel confident he's got it in him to do just that...
Erin J,
Barack is holding up because he is honest, smart, and pragmatic. Oprah support is a sympton of those qualities not a reason for them.
You have to wonder what these people who write this stuff are smoking. Check the polls. In every national and every state poll outside of IA Obama is in the low to mid twenties. Guess what. That's exactly where he was nine months ago. In IA it is too close to call and he might eak out a narrow win. Clinton by contrast in every state poll and every national poll has leads ranging from 10% to 32%. Even if she loses IA it doesn't matter a bit. And I have a feeling she's going to pull it out there. It's the only explanation of why she is spending so much time in the state. She want's to get it over with.
I believe. I am not a democrat, but I believe in Obama as an honest, sincere, intelligent person guided by something we just don't see any more - common sense.
To hell with the far left and far right, it is time to take our country back, not by having one side beat the hell out of the other side, but but taking both sides views into account.
There are real differences between moderates on both sides of the center. But those differences can brought together by honest compromise. Obama is the only candidate that can deliver of the the top three on the democratic side. I think Biden probably could do the same thing.
The point is we need a leader with insight and judgment. Experience is just a means of demonstrating you have good judgment, not an end in itself. Obama has clearly demonstrated good judgment on a host of issues. Clinton, I'm afraid has not. Particularly with trying to smear Obama's campaign, only to be caught red-handed doing much worse doing what she has implied Obama did with her campaign today. She has lost credibility.
Gee, someone who thinks the President of the US is President to everyone in the US! That would be novel, wouldn't it? (Remember Bush calling Massachusetts "Tax-achusetts," ignoring - or perhaps ignorant to - the fact that it was the state that started the whole American Revolution & as if he wouldn't be President to the people who live there too) And refreshing. Perhaps if politicians started acting like their "base" was EVERYONE in the area that they represent, we all would be a lot better off as a nation.
I'm reasonably sure that Obama's position owes very little to Oprah's endorsement.
But is Obama really "capable of easing the enmity that has festered between Republicans and Democrats for at least a decade?" If he reaches across the aisle, will there be Republican hands reaching back?
I believe that if Obama becomes the Democratic nominee, Republicans will vilify him with every bit as much fervor as they would any other opponent. If he is elected, Republicans will work just as hard to undermine his agenda as they would that of any other political "enemy."
I think that American politics are polarized because the electorate itself is polarized. I don't believe that any individual candidate, no matter how talented and high-minded, will change that anytime soon.
For me, that undermines the basic rationale of Obama's candidacy. For the moment, I'm supporting Hillary Clinton, at least in part because I know she can take a punch and keep working. She's been doing it for 16 years.
Although a conservative, I do see his charisma, and he gives the impression of having a sense of values to govern from (rare for Democrats using polls to determine what to think). I would not however call him a 'centrist' at all; he is a liberal, when you view his stated positions, and votes. If you doubt that then ask why George Soros ( a man dedicated to making the US a socialist state) would fund him with millions. He has the great support of Oprah, a classy individual, and that support is valuable and impressive. The question will be whether he is too inexperienced or naïve about his ability to lead our country and unite the Congress. Will he survive the barrage from his own party, and especially the Hillary people? If he does, will he be so wounded, that he is overwhelmed by the national election? I guess that is a question for you Democrats.
"He is tantalizingly close to becoming that rarest of things in American politics—a candidate who doesn’t just promise a new kind of politics, but delivers it." quote from the article.
What has he "delivered"? What is he going to deliver? That is my question. After the Oprah endorsement, he imediately shot UP to surpass the other candidates in Iowa. Why has she not endorsed other "honest, smart and pragmatic" candidates like Al Gore before? Just a question and still looking for the answer.
I agree with LESD.
"I think that American politics are polarized because the electorate itself is polarized. I don't believe that any individual candidate, no matter how talented and high-minded, will change that anytime soon."
"Mr. Obama also presented himself as a man capable of easing the enmity that has festered between Republicans and Democrats for at least a decade"
Anyone who thinks that Obama or any other contender (Dem or Rep)can do this is clueless. Just not gonna happen.
Full Disclosure: I'm voting for Rudy.
Barack is holding up because people do not want to think bad of him. Because he is such a sympathetic fellow. But he is no less devious and no less dishonest than anyone in the field.
He has made a number of innacurate statements about other candidates and refused to correct himself even after being given the correct information. He relies a lot on innuendo to avoid being seen as an attacker but he is among the most consistent mudslinger in the race.
The truth is, Obama is the most inexperienced presidential aspirant since World War II. He is not highly regarded as a state legislator nor as a US Senator where he has barely 3 years of experience. He has demonstrated his naivete, time and again, on national issues because he has such a limited grasp on them. He has never been tested and has wimped out on answering very substantial challenges to his integrity and his character.
African Americans deserve a better candidate and in fact most of them have already made this determination. How telling is it that you are not getting the support of a majority of African Americans when you are an African American? That should give everyone pause.
And, more importantly, is Obama going to be able to maintain his 'centrist' line in the general election, when some of his less mainstream votes (and votes he missed) in the Senate and Illinois State Senate become major republican lines of attack. If his big appeal is his ability to get independent and republican voters next November then the democrat primary voters in the early states better make damn sure he doesn't have too many votes that will turn off those voters next year!
It's all very well to talk 'new politics', but in next October, being assailed on every front, it could easily look like 'deer stuck in headlights'.
Obama's use of illegal drugs is a BIG turn off!
We've got a president NOW who used cocaine - like Obama.
No thanks!
How exactly has Hillary demonstrated that she can take a punch and keep working? After the GOP killed her Health Care Bill in 1994, the White House went out of its way to underscore that she was no longer involved in policy and was relegated to a more traditional (and antiquated) "First Lady" role. She went from being held out as actively involved in policy to being in charge of china. Not China, the country, but china, the stuff people eat off of when they visit the White House. Hardly taking it on the chin and fighting back.
I'm not sure that more recent events have instilled a lot of confidence in her, either. By any objective standard, she's made some political miscalculations in the last month or so when the heat started to be turned up against her. Whether those have contributed to her fall in the polls is an arguable point, but she's gone from inevitable to vulnerable in one month, and the attacks she's getting now are peaches and cream compared to the venom she'll see from the GOP in a general election. If she reacts in the same fashion against a republican, we could see another GOP-controlled White House in 2009.
In 2004, Obama stated he was absolutly NOT running for president in 08. But then the CORPORATE media pundits and DC establishment began urging him to run - KNOWING he'd suck support from Edwards.
Obama had to know it too - and went along.
Corporate lobbyists have funded Obama's political career and he didn't stop accepting their donations until he began running for president. Why didn't he begin "changing Washington" when he entered the senate in 2005??
Follow the money....
Obama would be nothing without the corporate media promoting him and Obama Girl from the gitgo!
Erin,
Here is your answer.
It is the right of every American to endorse a candidate who they believe in. I haven't whole heartedly believed in any presidential candidate in the last two decades. Perhaps Oprah, along with myself, has finally found a candidate worth believing in and endorsing. The fact that his poll numbers jumped as a result of the Oprah endorsement is only credit to the kind of man he is. The afformentioed candidates you mentioned were fine candidates but did they really inspire. Because they didn't get the endorsement, only means they didn't do enough to inspire Oprah to do so.
This race is bigger than one endorsement, but if that endorsement brings people to the polls to end the mess of the last 7 years, than is it worth it, regardless of who she endorses.
It is so sad that these well meaning ----- folks can't get past there own deep rooted begotted ways and embrace a real person and not a poll driven talking head. The only reason people beleive Hill has all this experience is because she tells you so. We are going to wake up and feel we all have been rode hard and put up wet, It is really sad truly. God Bless America and Go Obama
When the press starts turning their critical eye on Obama, he won't "hold up".
For instance, instead of pronouncing him "squeaky clean", they might explain why he befriended a slumlord who had 11 apartments in his district and then accepted financial aid from him while the slumlord was under investigation and now indicted. This might be "squeaky clean" politics in Chicago but shouldn't we be given all the facts?
Obama is a good guy, average Senator and probably WILL be a rising star in Democratic Politics
He has no where the experience, the "circle" of advisers or the knowledge that Hillary and Bill (I'm not apologizing for the well known fact that Bill Clinton will be "First Advisor)will bring to the White House
Obama will lose the General election if nominated and we will be stuck with a nut case (rudy)even more radical and self centered than Bush or a wishy washy Governor who looks good but has done nothing
If we (Democrats) hope to regain the White House it is time to tell Obama to get some experience (Attend to the Business of the Senate you were elected to, Hillary does make her votes) and come back in 8 years when you have learned what goes on outside the USA
Curious is right. After Romney gives his religion speech the MSM may be forced to take note of the racist splinter church in Chicago that Obama calls home.
"I don’t want to spend the next four years rearguing the same partisan arguments that we had all through the 1990’s," he said. "I don’t want to pit red America against blue America."
I have to say, I'd be a lot more enthused by Obama's desire not to live in the red-versus-blue dichotomy of the 1990s if I'd heard much out of him of substance that actually drew from the red.
George W. Bush ran on a similar promise. He actually had plenty of things in his platform that drew from the "blue" playbook (NCLB, prescription drug benefit, 2 of his first ten Court of Appeals nominations being Clinton appointees, cutting back his initial tax cuts by $300B, Patients' Bill of Rights support). And we see how the grand reconciliation went there (and it was going nowhere well before 9-11 and Iraq). I really don't see how nominating a guy who cedes no ground to the other side except in rhetoric is going to perform better.
"Where was Oprah and her BIG endorsement when our country really needed it like in the 2000 election or the 2004 election? Boy it sure would have been great if back then before we went into a stupid war with a president that was elected by a hair to have had her endorsement. Oprah go back to your day job of recommending great books to read and plastic surgeons to go to for that much needed tummy tuck."
Erin, I *love* you. You ROCK. All you MINDYs out there who think we need to be RESPECTFUL of the likes of Oprah have no clue. Oprah needs to have this thrown in her puffy face for the rest of her life, the same as SANDRA DAY O'CONNOR. All the enablers of an obvious idiot son with severe mental and emotional problems, which Bush obviously was, need to have issue taken with them for the rest of their miserable lives for all the damage they've done to our country and the entire world.
Yes, morons who can't think for themselves need to be blamed, too, but so-called leaders like Oprah need to own up to the blood on their hands. And whatever charms Obama might have, being nonpartisan is not one of them. The Ruin-America Republicans need to own their crap and the rest of us need to own being PROGRESSIVE and everything that is GOOD.
Collie, Rex Lipana, Jim Thompson, and Tom, I would contend Obama is showing how he will hold up under pressure and in the general *right now*. The much-vaunted Clinton machine has thrown the kitchen sink at him this week and it's gotten them exactly nowhere in the media or the polls. He's used a combination of rapid, vigorous defenses by spokespeople and dismissive humor personally to neutralize everything. I have not seen a single storyline actually be picked up by the MSM; rather, every story is just questioning the hows and whys of her going very negative and engaging in so much distortion. I would be much more worried about Clinton's GE capabilities after watching her flail recently against nothing more than some indirect insinuation by Obama and a few sporadic attacks by Edwards. Can you imagine how she will do against the full Republican assault?
ottovbvs, Clinton's lead has shrunk dramatically in both state and national polls. Obama is in striking distance in NH from an Iowa bounce that historically has been in the neighborhood of 14% (and it's easy to see where those voters could come from - I believe Edwards has already said he will drop out if he comes in third in Iowa). Her national lead is steadily dropping as well, Rasmussen today had it at only 10%. I can only assume that the Feb. 5 states are following that trend.
Erin J, most pundits credit the beginning of Obama's rise in Iowa to his performance at the J-J dinner.
Charlotte, I've seen a couple of people complaining about Obama's cocaine use in the last day. That has been common knowledge for years and happened, what, almost 3 decades ago? I think the Clintonites are just getting desperate for something that will stick. I would rather get a straightforward answer about someone's past drug use than have them claim they "did not inhale." Right.
Cmon now folks, is anyone thinking that Oprah wants to take credit for promoting and moving the nation towards electing the first black President. I know one thing, that she might be great in business, but she is naive in politics; that is why she didn't rally to support Al Gore, sorry, he is white, same with other candidates. I am not a republican or democrat, I don't even live in the US, but it is plain to see that there is more ego here than anything else so if he won she could claim victory. I mean cmon, have you ever seen a show of hers where she didn't try to be counsellor or psychologist to some member of the audience.
You Americans are desperate for change, but he is not he way to go. In fact, the decisions for change have already been made (e.g everyone agrees to be out of Iraq) the only question is when.) Same goes for healthcare, the decision has already been made to lean toward universal healthcare, the only decision is how. And same goes immigration, etc. So there isn't any great change coming, you need a manager, Chief, to lead these initiatives, not a idealist.
Hope it all turns out well.
"Deliver What?" Indeed!
Osama Obama, as Teddy Kennedy called him in a sober interlude, SAYS he wants to end the ideological wars of the Baby Boom Generation, but in fact continues them! He is just another liberal. To the commenter who says Obama will take Republican ideas seriously I say, WHAT IDEA put forth by Republicans has Obama taken as his own. Had he taken ANY Republican idea seriously and attempted to explain it to his constituency he would NEVER have won a seat in the Illinios State Senate in a district contiguous with Jesse Jackson Junior's in chicago.
Face it--he's just another left-liberal and his voters know it. His base is exactly the same as McGovern, Hart, Dean and Teddy Kennedy. Once any Democ-rat is nominated his or her views will be examined and found wanting!
All very nice and well, problem is, the man is unelectableat a national level. If he is the Democratic nemenee, I will support him, actually I will support a wet sock if it is what it takes to avoid a Giulianin presidency. Still, I find myself more attracted to senator Clinton, because I ama realist. Folks should look around themself and accept reality. We have the America we have, and change, oddly enough, will have to come via somebody like Clinton, or God forbid, Giulini. Kind of the old "only Nixon could go to China" thing. It will take a polirizing figure to soar over the frey, and bring us togeather. What president Bush could have done after Sept 11, but refused to do. But all that said and done, can anybody points me to the way Obama gets 270 electoral votes? Please enlight me!
Hey talos any dumd ass could be cynical but standing up because it matters or because you believe in a candidate priceless.