Obama For President
The Anonymous Liberal Editorial Board (which consists of me) hereby officially endorses Barack Obama for President.
Regular readers of this blog will not be surprised by this decision, but I nevertheless intend to explain my reasoning as thoroughly as I can.
At a policy level, I really don't see much difference between any of the major Democratic candidates, (including the so-called "second tier" candidates: Biden, Dodd, Richardson.) Thanks largely to the realignment of Southern states, we're now at a time in history where there is a broad consensus on most issues within the Democratic party. Even on foreign policy, there is remarkably little daylight between the stated positions of the candidates. At the debates, the candidates argue about whether or not their largely identical health care plans should include mandates or whether or not their largely identical plans to end the Iraq War leave too many troops behind, etc.. To choose a candidate based on one of these differences is to place undue emphasis on what are, in the long run, trivial policy differences that are likely to be re-examined down the road anyway.
The more important questions are, to my mind, 1) who can get elected, and 2) who would be best able to run a competent, successful administration.
Because I think all three of the "top tier" candidates are capable of winning a general election, I don't want to focus too heavily on the issue of electability. That said, I do think Obama would be the strongest general election candidate. Democratic voters have a tendency, I think, to place too much emphasis on a candidate's resume and reputation for moderacy when evaluating his/her electability. John Kerry was considered the "electable" candidate because of his military record and his history of taking moderate positions on key issues. It was thought that these attributes would inoculate him to some degree from the standard Republican attacks, i.e., that Democrat X is too liberal and is weak on national security.
The reality, however, is that a candidate's personal charisma and communication skills are far better indicators of how that person will hold up in a general election. Though Bill Clinton tried very hard throughout his career to build a record as a centrist, I suspect that his political success was due mostly to his charisma and personal likability. In both the 1992 and 1996 general elections, he gave spell-binding convention speeches and handily won all of the candidate debates. Those are the pivotal moments in presidential campaigns, the moments when a largely distracted public finally tunes in and evaluates the candidates. And their evaluations, I suspect, have very little to do with the candidate's resumes or voting records and everything to do with how presentable and compelling the candidates come across on television. It's a cliche by now, but it's true; presidential elections--at least for swing voters--largely boil down to perceptions of the candidates' characters.
With that in mind, which candidate do you think would give the most riveting and persuasive convention speech? Who do you think would do a better job selling the Democratic platform in a debate with Mitt Romney or Rudy Giuliani? And who do you think, at the end of the day, has a better chance of convincing character voters to like and trust him (or her)? I think the answer to all three questions is Obama.
I also think that Obama is the most likely to lure people to the polls who don't typically vote, particularly African-Americans, whom I suspect would turn out in record numbers if presented with the prospect of electing the first black president.
Which brings me to another obvious advantage Obama has when it comes to electability, one that many Democrats can see but, for various reasons, refuse to consider as a legitimate factor: he gets much better press coverage. Big Tent Democrat acknowledged this reality in a post today:
If you believe, as I do, that it is imperative that a Democrat be elected president in 2008, you have to consider how media coverage will shape the election. If Hillary Clinton is the nominee, I suspect that the dominant media narrative will be the dynastic element of the election (Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton). I suspect the media dynamic will be very similar to campaign 2000, where press coverage was overwhelming tilted in favor of the Republican candidate. If Obama is the nominee, however, I suspect that the dominant media narrative will be the historic nature of the election. Coverage will revolve around America's willingness to take a giant leap forward as a country and elect its first black president. And I think the mainstream press corps--who are political junkies at heart--will be rooting for that outcome, in much the same way sports fans rooted for the Red Sox in 2004. They wanted to see history being made. The Republican candidate, whoever it turns out to be, will have to try very hard not to be seen a merely a footnote to history.
I'm not suggesting that this, in itself, is a reason to support Obama over Hillary, but if you are at all on the fence, I think it's a pretty reasonable tie-breaker. Overall, I think Obama has a much greater upside in the general election than either of his chief rivals.
But how about the second, more important consideration: how effective a president would Obama be?
Some of the same considerations that go into the electability analysis are relevant here as well. For instance, I suspect that Obama's communication skills and charisma will make him a more effective advocate of his policies once in office. A president's ability to command public opinion (and to win by a sufficient margin to legitimately claim a mandate) will determine, to a large extent, what he/she is able to accomplish legislatively.
There's a debate raging right now--started by the Edwards campaign and echoed by Paul Krugman--regarding what tactics are most likely to produce real change. The argument is that Obama's "bring everyone to the table" approach to governing is doomed to failure, that special interests like the pharmaceutical and insurance lobbies have to be aggressively confronted, as Edwards claims he'll do if elected president. As Krugman put it in his column today:
But I think the kind of combative populism that Edwards is currently espousing has its limitations. While it may well be sufficient to command majorities, it seems likely to antagonize and polarize much of the electorate as well. The real trick in politics is to be strong, assertive, and demanding while appearing reasonable, conciliatory, and open to compromise. There is no question that, at times, you have to be willing to bear down and fight, but the rest of the time, it's far better to come across as a uniter, as someone who is willing to work with all sides to reach the right outcome. I think it's pretty unfair to point to Obama's inclusive rhetoric as evidence of his naivete or lack of appreciation of the difficulty of the task before him. I think Obama's strategy is to build up good will and trust in the first instance and then use his accumulated political capital to implement his agenda.
But being a good president isn't just about your ability to push legislation through Congress. When it comes to foreign policy in particular, Congress plays a much diminished role, and what matters the most is a president's judgment and his/her ability to represent the United States on the world stage. The relative judgment of candidates is, of course, exceedingly difficult to assess. There are very few relevant data points from which to draw a conclusion. But on the key foreign policy judgment of our times, the decision to invade Iraq, Obama made the right call and had the courage to say so publicly. His opponents didn't. That's not everything, but it's something. I'm also encouraged by the foreign policy advisers that have flocked to the Obama camp. Whereas Clinton is largely advised by the same cadre of liberal hawks who enthusiastically supported the Iraq war, Obama has surrounded himself with people whose judgment I trust more, people like Samantha Power. Though I think the differences between the candidates are in many ways minor, on the whole I trust Obama's judgment on these issues more than his opponents. He strikes me as more likely to listen to the right people and less likely to be held hostage to out-dated notions of how foreign policy should be conducted.
It is the second element of the foreign policy equation, the role of representing the United States on the world stage, where Obama offers clearest advantages over his opponents. In his profile of Obama a few months ago, Andrew Sullivan wrote the following:
Obama is by no means the perfect candidate, and there are times when I find myself frustrated by something he's said or done (or failed to do). But all things considered, I think he is the strongest general election candidate and that he has most potential to be a truly great president. And that's why he has my endorsement.
Regular readers of this blog will not be surprised by this decision, but I nevertheless intend to explain my reasoning as thoroughly as I can.
At a policy level, I really don't see much difference between any of the major Democratic candidates, (including the so-called "second tier" candidates: Biden, Dodd, Richardson.) Thanks largely to the realignment of Southern states, we're now at a time in history where there is a broad consensus on most issues within the Democratic party. Even on foreign policy, there is remarkably little daylight between the stated positions of the candidates. At the debates, the candidates argue about whether or not their largely identical health care plans should include mandates or whether or not their largely identical plans to end the Iraq War leave too many troops behind, etc.. To choose a candidate based on one of these differences is to place undue emphasis on what are, in the long run, trivial policy differences that are likely to be re-examined down the road anyway.
The more important questions are, to my mind, 1) who can get elected, and 2) who would be best able to run a competent, successful administration.
Because I think all three of the "top tier" candidates are capable of winning a general election, I don't want to focus too heavily on the issue of electability. That said, I do think Obama would be the strongest general election candidate. Democratic voters have a tendency, I think, to place too much emphasis on a candidate's resume and reputation for moderacy when evaluating his/her electability. John Kerry was considered the "electable" candidate because of his military record and his history of taking moderate positions on key issues. It was thought that these attributes would inoculate him to some degree from the standard Republican attacks, i.e., that Democrat X is too liberal and is weak on national security.
The reality, however, is that a candidate's personal charisma and communication skills are far better indicators of how that person will hold up in a general election. Though Bill Clinton tried very hard throughout his career to build a record as a centrist, I suspect that his political success was due mostly to his charisma and personal likability. In both the 1992 and 1996 general elections, he gave spell-binding convention speeches and handily won all of the candidate debates. Those are the pivotal moments in presidential campaigns, the moments when a largely distracted public finally tunes in and evaluates the candidates. And their evaluations, I suspect, have very little to do with the candidate's resumes or voting records and everything to do with how presentable and compelling the candidates come across on television. It's a cliche by now, but it's true; presidential elections--at least for swing voters--largely boil down to perceptions of the candidates' characters.
With that in mind, which candidate do you think would give the most riveting and persuasive convention speech? Who do you think would do a better job selling the Democratic platform in a debate with Mitt Romney or Rudy Giuliani? And who do you think, at the end of the day, has a better chance of convincing character voters to like and trust him (or her)? I think the answer to all three questions is Obama.
I also think that Obama is the most likely to lure people to the polls who don't typically vote, particularly African-Americans, whom I suspect would turn out in record numbers if presented with the prospect of electing the first black president.
Which brings me to another obvious advantage Obama has when it comes to electability, one that many Democrats can see but, for various reasons, refuse to consider as a legitimate factor: he gets much better press coverage. Big Tent Democrat acknowledged this reality in a post today:
Josh [Marshall] is right of course but I think it underplays a very important advantage Barack Obama has - he is a Media darling. Before Obama supporters complain, they should realize this is a VERY good thing. Obama is almost certain to get better coverage than the other two leading Dem candidates, Clinton and Edwards, in a general election campaign. This is no small thing. Furthermore, if when the GOP Swift boaters go on the attack, Obama's status with the Media will put him in a much better position to fend off those attacks than any Dem candidate I can remember. This, to me, is a very strong argument for supporting Obama for the nomination.Whenever I make this point, people protest. It's not fair, they say; we shouldn't let clownish reporters like Chris Matthews choose who our nominee is going to be. To that I say, I agree completely; it's not fair. And obviously the fact that the national press corps likes him better is not a good reason, in and of itself, to favor Obama. But it's stupid to ignore this reality. As we saw in 2000--when the mainstream press savaged Al Gore and handed the election to George W. Bush--these things do matter.
If you believe, as I do, that it is imperative that a Democrat be elected president in 2008, you have to consider how media coverage will shape the election. If Hillary Clinton is the nominee, I suspect that the dominant media narrative will be the dynastic element of the election (Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton). I suspect the media dynamic will be very similar to campaign 2000, where press coverage was overwhelming tilted in favor of the Republican candidate. If Obama is the nominee, however, I suspect that the dominant media narrative will be the historic nature of the election. Coverage will revolve around America's willingness to take a giant leap forward as a country and elect its first black president. And I think the mainstream press corps--who are political junkies at heart--will be rooting for that outcome, in much the same way sports fans rooted for the Red Sox in 2004. They wanted to see history being made. The Republican candidate, whoever it turns out to be, will have to try very hard not to be seen a merely a footnote to history.
I'm not suggesting that this, in itself, is a reason to support Obama over Hillary, but if you are at all on the fence, I think it's a pretty reasonable tie-breaker. Overall, I think Obama has a much greater upside in the general election than either of his chief rivals.
But how about the second, more important consideration: how effective a president would Obama be?
Some of the same considerations that go into the electability analysis are relevant here as well. For instance, I suspect that Obama's communication skills and charisma will make him a more effective advocate of his policies once in office. A president's ability to command public opinion (and to win by a sufficient margin to legitimately claim a mandate) will determine, to a large extent, what he/she is able to accomplish legislatively.
There's a debate raging right now--started by the Edwards campaign and echoed by Paul Krugman--regarding what tactics are most likely to produce real change. The argument is that Obama's "bring everyone to the table" approach to governing is doomed to failure, that special interests like the pharmaceutical and insurance lobbies have to be aggressively confronted, as Edwards claims he'll do if elected president. As Krugman put it in his column today:
Anyone who thinks that the next president can achieve real change without bitter confrontation is living in a fantasy world.I think this is reading way too much into differences in rhetoric. I don't think that Obama harbors any illusions that these powerful interest groups will just roll over and make concessions. He knows that at some point in the process, genuine confrontation will be necessary. But I think Obama realizes something that Krugman refuses to acknowledge, that real pressure is generated not by words but by electoral success and an ability to command public opinion. The presidents who have had the most success at getting their agendas implemented were those who were able to win elections handily and remain very popular.
But I think the kind of combative populism that Edwards is currently espousing has its limitations. While it may well be sufficient to command majorities, it seems likely to antagonize and polarize much of the electorate as well. The real trick in politics is to be strong, assertive, and demanding while appearing reasonable, conciliatory, and open to compromise. There is no question that, at times, you have to be willing to bear down and fight, but the rest of the time, it's far better to come across as a uniter, as someone who is willing to work with all sides to reach the right outcome. I think it's pretty unfair to point to Obama's inclusive rhetoric as evidence of his naivete or lack of appreciation of the difficulty of the task before him. I think Obama's strategy is to build up good will and trust in the first instance and then use his accumulated political capital to implement his agenda.
But being a good president isn't just about your ability to push legislation through Congress. When it comes to foreign policy in particular, Congress plays a much diminished role, and what matters the most is a president's judgment and his/her ability to represent the United States on the world stage. The relative judgment of candidates is, of course, exceedingly difficult to assess. There are very few relevant data points from which to draw a conclusion. But on the key foreign policy judgment of our times, the decision to invade Iraq, Obama made the right call and had the courage to say so publicly. His opponents didn't. That's not everything, but it's something. I'm also encouraged by the foreign policy advisers that have flocked to the Obama camp. Whereas Clinton is largely advised by the same cadre of liberal hawks who enthusiastically supported the Iraq war, Obama has surrounded himself with people whose judgment I trust more, people like Samantha Power. Though I think the differences between the candidates are in many ways minor, on the whole I trust Obama's judgment on these issues more than his opponents. He strikes me as more likely to listen to the right people and less likely to be held hostage to out-dated notions of how foreign policy should be conducted.
It is the second element of the foreign policy equation, the role of representing the United States on the world stage, where Obama offers clearest advantages over his opponents. In his profile of Obama a few months ago, Andrew Sullivan wrote the following:
Consider this hypothetical. It’s November 2008. A young Pakistani Muslim is watching television and sees that this man—Barack Hussein Obama—is the new face of America. In one simple image, America’s soft power has been ratcheted up not a notch, but a logarithm. A brown-skinned man whose father was an African, who grew up in Indonesia and Hawaii, who attended a majority-Muslim school as a boy, is now the alleged enemy. If you wanted the crudest but most effective weapon against the demonization of America that fuels Islamist ideology, Obama’s face gets close. It proves them wrong about what America is in ways no words can.I think liberals think it is somehow unfair or illegitimate to consider this as a differentiating factor in the election, but I completely disagree. As I've written previously:
I think that fundamentally misapprehends the nature of presidential politics. This isn't a meritocracy. If it was, then none of the top-tier candidates in either party (except perhaps McCain) would be top-tier candidates. There are plenty of more qualified politicians out there. The reality is that all sorts of factors that have little to do with experience or ideology are nonetheless relevant to selecting a president. The president isn't just the leader of our country, he (or she) is the face of the country, the spokesperson for Brand U.S.A.This is one of those factors that, while not necessarily fair to the other candidates, is nonetheless important and should definitely be a part of the overall calculus.
It is therefore absolutely legitimate (vital even) to think about how that person will be perceived by the rest of the world. The answer to this question bears directly on our national interests.
And I think Sullivan is absolutely right on this score. The election of Obama as president would, overnight, dramatically improve the image of the United States abroad, and his name, face, and background could provide us, in a way that no other president could, with an opportunity to make some real inroads in the primary ideological struggle of the 21st century. For many reasons, it would be much harder to vilify an Obama-led America than a Bush-led America (and, to a lesser degree, a Clinton or Edwards-led America).
Obama is by no means the perfect candidate, and there are times when I find myself frustrated by something he's said or done (or failed to do). But all things considered, I think he is the strongest general election candidate and that he has most potential to be a truly great president. And that's why he has my endorsement.
posted by A.L. at 5:09 PM
30 Comments:
A.L.-
A very well written endorsement. And very persuasive. I have been an Obama fan since before he announced, but lately I am starting to doubt him. Probably because of what the "Smartest guy I read" Paul Krugman has been saying lately and I am left wondering who to support - Obama or Edwards. Hillary is just plain out of the question and always has been. I'd vote for Huckabee before her. Seriously. As much as I despise Chris Matthews, he summed her up well recently as being like the character played by Reese Witherspoon in the movie "Election." Perfect representation. If you haven't seen the movie, it's well woth watching. It's on the cable premium channels lately and also in video stores.
Anyhoo, I live in Nevada these days and I feel that I might have a little influence since our caucuses are on Jan 19th and the candidates have been parading around here for some time. I really should go and meet some of them at their events... but I haven't because I was sure that I'd be supporting Obama until just recently. I think I'll probably show up in January when they start visiting regularly again. Should be interesting.
Again, thanks for reminding me of what drove me to support Obama in the first place. You may well have it right.
A.L.-
I had the thought last night that perhaps Obama's "fights" with Krugman help him with the moderate right more than they hurt him with the netroots. After all, the two are arguing about arcana, about minutiae, but he gets to represent to the moderate right that he's been in a high-profile fight with the evil, evil Paul Krugman. That's worth all kinds of what ends up being basically meaningless opprobrium from the netroots.
If you are open to reconsidering your endorsement, read the interview with noted historian Doris Kearns Goodwin on The American Prospect. The ideal candidate she describes is clearly John Edwards.
As a more or less disinterested (not uninterested) observer of the Democratic primaries, I am struck by how much of your analysis is based on culture and personality, rather than policy or ideology. This isn’t meant as a criticism, just an observation, and I don’t think that this phenomenon is by any means limited to you.
You explain this focus on the grounds that the policy differences among the Democratic candidates are relatively trivial. The one area of policy that you discuss, however, belies this assertion. You point out that Clinton is largely advised by “the same cadre of liberal hawks who enthusiastically supported the Iraq war.” You might well have gone further and suggested that her foreign policy is very likely to continue the liberal interventionist doctrine of the last Clinton Administration.
That Clinton foreign policy held that the U.S. was the “indispensable nation” with a virtually unlimited mandate to intervene militarily wherever and whenever its President (with or without congressional consent) chose. Examples of how this doctrine was applied include (1) the intervention in Haiti, (2) the intervention in Bosnia, (3) the war in Kosovo, (4) the missile attacks on Afghanistan and Sudan, and (5) the conduct of a low-level war in Iraq throughout the Clinton administration, including the impeachment bombing of 1998. The Clinton attitude toward military intervention was exemplified by Madeline Albright’s famous remark to Colin Powell: “What’s the point of having this superb military that you’re always talking about if we can’t use it?”
As far as I know, there is no reason to believe that Hillary Clinton has backed away from this policy, which she (reportedly) enthusiastically supported during her husband’s administration. Now I gather (but am not sure) that you think that this foreign policy approach is fundamentally wrong (perhaps what you were referring to by “out-dated” notions of how to conduct foreign policy). If this is so, how can that be a “trivial” matter? Actually, whether or not you agree (in whole or in part) with the Clinton doctrine, it would seem that nothing would be more important than knowing where candidates stand on this issue.
In short, I don’t really buy the notion that there are only trivial policy differences among the Democratic candidates. Instead, what there seems to be, for reasons I can’t quite explain, relatively little interest in exploring what their policy views are.
The author has more confidence in the voting public than I do. While they talk a good game, I am afraid that a large segment of the voters will, in the privacy of that voting booth, ask themselves, do I want a black man as president? Do I want to see a black woman in the White House as the first lady? And for many the answer is going to be no. The same can be said for Hillary. The question will be asked by many white males, do I want a woman as president. Once again I think the answer for many will be no. Maybe I have been jaded by the voting performance over the past two elections but I just don't trust the voting public to do the "right" thing.
Hmmm how about an Obama / McCain ticket to really shatter the republican party's voters :-)
An excellent post, like your prior pro-Obama posts. While I personally am still a Chris Dodd supporter, and probably even prefer Edwards to Obama, I have no intention of asking you to change your mind, because I hope everything you say in Obama's favor is true.
I do have two questions, though:
1) What evidence leads you to believe that Obama will, when necessary, put up a tough fight? (Not a sneering question: I hope you have good answers.)
2) How confident are you that the media's fondness for Obama won't evaporate when he's up against whichever handsome he-man wins the Republican nomination?
MLS,
I do think that Obama has better instincts on foreign policy than Clinton, which is one of the reasons I prefer him. That said, I still think the distinctions are relatively minor. I think they are both best classified as liberal interventionalists. Neither are isolationists. When Obama was criticizing the planned Iraq invasion in 2002, he made clear that he was not against all wars, just dumb wars. Truth be told, I don't think either of them would have invaded Iraq if they were president at the time. The difference between them is on the margins. I think Obama is less likely to be talked into taking reckless military action and more likely to engage in creative diplomacy. But again, I think it's just a matter of degree. There aren't major ideological differences between them.
While they talk a good game, I am afraid that a large segment of the voters will, in the privacy of that voting booth, ask themselves, do I want a black man as president? Do I want to see a black woman in the White House as the first lady? And for many the answer is going to be no. The same can be said for Hillary. The question will be asked by many white males, do I want a woman as president. Once again I think the answer for many will be no.
I just don't think this is true, particularly with respect to Obama's race. I think there probably is a lot of lingering racism in the South, but the Democrats never win those states anyway. I think most of the rest of the country is perfectly willing to vote for a black candidate if they like him. In Massachusetts, Deval Patrick (who ran a David Axelrod-led campaign just like Obama's) beat his moderate Republican rival by a huge margin to become the first Democratic governor in the state since Dukakis. Not only did Patrick's race not hurt him, I think it affirmatively helped him. Voters were genuinely excited about the prospect of electing the first black governor since Reconstruction. It made them feel good about how far the country had come.
I think that Hillary will suffer from sexist sentiment, but I suspect that whatever votes she loses on that ground, she'll also gain on that ground. Some men may vote against her because she's a woman, but I think some women will vote FOR her because she's a woman, and this effect will cancel itself out.
What evidence leads you to believe that Obama will, when necessary, put up a tough fight? (Not a sneering question: I hope you have good answers.)
I think there is evidence of this in his state senate record. He liked to work to build consensus, but when he needed to, he pushed really hard. I also think that it's just human nature. Obama is a very intelligent and determined person who will be very eager to accomplish things as president. If his strategy isn't working, he'll adjust it. I think he'll do whatever he has to do to be successful.
How confident are you that the media's fondness for Obama won't evaporate when he's up against whichever handsome he-man wins the Republican nomination?
Good question. I'm sure that coverage of Obama will be more intense if he wins the nomination than it is now. But the press tends to root for the more interesting story, and the more interesting story will definitely be Obama winning. That would be historic. If the Republican won, it would just be another stodgy white conservative in power for eight more years. They'll be rooting for Obama.
Moreover, the press tends to be (rightly) intolerant of attacks on candidates that have any hint of racism, which will help Obama fend off the worst swift-boat style attacks. But unfortunately, they are much more tolerant of sexism. The GOP will be able to get away with a lot of sexist rhetoric if Clinton is the nominee. And if it's Edwards, the GOP will attempt to feminize him and make him appear "gay" and effeminate. Again, sadly, the press is much more tolerant of this kind of crap than it is anything that smacks of racism.
The only reason Obama is getting good press now is in contrast to the hated Clinton. People like Matthews, Dowd and their ilk are so imbued with Clinton hatred that they have eased up on the not-Clintons. Do Edwards, Biden Richardson and Dodd also get comparatively good press, haircut aside? Yes. Will they find hundreds of reasons to slime Obama after his nomination? Most assuredly. By the time the RNC and its minions like Matthews get done with Obama, you will think he was responsible for the Nat Turner Rebellion after a night of sniffing and selling crack. Your "good" press will vanish in an instant.
If you like him, make it for policy issues, not some imagined fondness the corporate media has for the guy.
Mike
I like Obama and think he would be a good president, but he cannot winn in the general election. Being from a southren state, I am qite aware that at least 15 southern states will not vote for a black candidate. They are too biased. Obama would lose because of this...George
I have to respectfully disagree, George. Obama's problem will be to get the nomination. Any Democratic candidate will win the general election in 2008.
I also have to disagree with A.L. (a rare occurrence) about the voters who will deliver the surprise for Obama, either in the primary or in the general election (although, by next November, I doubt it will be that much of a surprise). It will be the young, first-time voters, many of whom have been sitting out elections over the last twenty years.
Racism will have a part to play, but I think it will be trumped by the the overwhelming disgust with the GOP that the Bush administration has generated.
Please note that the young are unmoved, for some reason, by the "no experience" criticism. They see an honest, direct, person, and they'll vote for him.
Wait-are you saying that Obama can be elected because he is a) charismatic and b) gets good press coverage? I can't agree with you there. The presidency is too serious of a job. I agree that Obama is charismatic, but I actually want a hard working, serious person who knows a lot about the state of the world. Having a great personality is just not enough. Besides, everyone knows that the press can turn on someone like a pack of rabid dogs-so he may be a media darling now, but that is not guaranteed.
Wait-are you saying that Obama can be elected because he is a) charismatic and b) gets good press coverage? I can't agree with you there. The presidency is too serious of a job. I agree that Obama is charismatic, but I actually want a hard working, serious person who knows a lot about the state of the world. Having a great personality is just not enough.
At the risk of sounding testy, I think you're completely missing my point. No one questions that Obama is an incredibly intelligent guy (he was the editor-in-chief of the Harvard Law Review). And by all accounts, he not only knows a lot about the world, but he's genuinely interested in foreign policy issues. Obama is quite clearly a "hard working serious person." So are his chief rivals.
I'm not saying that we should elect Obama solely because he's charasmatic and has a good personality. There are threshold questions of intelligence, judgment, and ideology that you assess first, and I think Obama scores at least as well, if not better, than his opponents on these metrics.
But I do think he is more charismatic and likeable than his opponents and that is an important asset. It's the tie-breaker as far as I'm concerned. It will not only help him get elected, but it will help him accomplish things once he is elected.
Well, I think you are underestimating the racism still alive and well in not only the south but the midwest and west. I am not so sure that those old ladies in the electric cart cities of Arizona want some snippy black woman in "their" white house acting uppity. The voting public of this country has a great capacity for hatred. On top of that your have the religous and their intolerance. I hope Obama can pull it off but I really have my doubts. This country thrives on hatred and apathy. Those are the only two traits that seem to survive no matter what.
I've said before that I think Obama is the smart choice and Edwards is the safe choice, which, keeping in mind that this is the Democratic Party, is why I expect to see Edwards win instead of Obama.
Obama may have more obstacles to overcome to win the election, but there is a major benefit to having the world see one part of America embrace a black man for its highest office (and if he is successfully "smeared" as a Muslim, all the better), while another part of it is exposed as the collection of bitter, racist little thugs that they are.
Bush's greatest achievement as a politician was to get the entire country to stand in front of him and identify with him while he alienated the rest of the world on their behalf. Obama can change that simply by winning the election, even if he had no other achievement to offer.
Pitch-perfect.
This passage I think illuminates what Obama needs to do to seal the deal:
The real trick in politics is to be strong, assertive, and demanding while appearing reasonable, conciliatory, and open to compromise. There is no question that, at times, you have to be willing to bear down and fight, but the rest of the time, it's far better to come across as a uniter, as someone who is willing to work with all sides to reach the right outcome.
I've supported him all year, but even now he still hasn't convinced me, a die-hard supporter, that he can dig in, and not give in--like Senator Dodd showed this week--when it's necessary. But because of his intelligence and excellent political instincts, I am willing to take it on faith that he will find that fortitude. He certainly seems to have the stamina and the levelheadedness that will be necessary underpinnings to such a fight. But many others we've read and debated with in the past several weeks may be unwilling to take that on faith. If he could somehow address that concern clearly and confidently, it would help him immensely with the Progressive base.
If you think about it, it can't be said that anyone really knew that Bill Clinton would be as good a tactician as he turned out to be. (In addition to his triangulating victories, he did win some high-stakes poker games.)
We didn't know--but he was so well-spoken and wonkishly versed in everything important, in and out of government--that we took it on faith.
Obama is obviously not the same in that respect. But his own considerable rhetorical skills and political instincts are just as valuable. And as far as we know, he's no horn dog.
Above all, I think Obama's greatest asset will be what Bill Clinton cynically demeaned last week: his potential to become a living symbol. Of closure. Progress. Tolerance. And then, perhaps, even of unity. I think maybe Barack Obama is the only one who even comes close to fully understanding this. But he can't, and probably shouldn't, articulate it right now. It's too heavy, and too personal. Really it's for others (you, Sullivan) to make that case.
One hopes it will come in the context of the 2008 general election.
a.l. said:
"I'm not saying that we should elect Obama solely because he's charasmatic and has a good personality. There are threshold questions of intelligence, judgment, and ideology that you assess first, and I think Obama scores at least as well, if not better, than his opponents on these metrics."
I realize that you have considered all of those things. But the thing is, I don't know anything about Obama's judgment. He is clearly a good man, and clearly very intelligent. But I have not read much of anything that tells me that he has good judgement. I have no idea if he does. And that is why I am leery of him.
Maybe at some point I will read things that lead me to believe that his judgment is sound. So far, we know that he was a state Senator, and that Oprah lurves him. The rest is, to me at least, unknown.
The lack of articles that actually spell out what he has done concerns me. At this point, much of the coverage(except for health care proposals)has been superficial.
Where's the beef?????
I wonder about the benefit to the US and the world of having a black man named Hussein as our president. Has having a black woman as secretary of state had a big positive effect on the world's view of the USA? A black man on the supreme court? It seems like the substance of the person and policy dominates opinion in the end.
-Andy
Regardless of who wins the Democratic nomination, they are going to be smeared like never before by the Republicans. The GOP is not going quietly into the night ala Al Gore. They are going to fight and fight dirty. While it is impossible to predict all they will do, I am sure if Obama gets nominated you will suddenly hear from half a dozen people who bought drugs from him as a pusher. A Muslim inman will reveal that he taught Obama for years. If Hillary is nominated, suddenly Whitewater and the Rose Law Firm will reappear and there will be rumors that Bill, Monica and Hillary were a threesome. Edwards' law practice hasn't been touched for potential scandals yet. And as a last gasp, there is always voting roll manipulation and the Supreme Court to fall back on. This is going to be the nastiest campaign on record.
Well....I'm still pulling for Mike Gravel. Or, at least, a Pual/Gravel run.
Go ahead and waste your vote on Obama, but change- real change -can only be accoplished by him.
He totally owns n00bs at Halo 3, and I can think of no better qualification than that,
I had the thought last night that perhaps Obama's "fights" with Krugman help him with the moderate right more than they hurt him with the netroots. After all, the two are arguing about arcana, about minutiae, but he gets to represent to the moderate right that he's been in a high-profile fight with the evil, evil Paul Krugman.
Krugman is actually doing Obama a favor by pointing out weakness and inconsistency NOW while Obama still has time to address it. It also tends to remove those issues as fodder for the swiftboating that is sure to come. Rove hasn't retired after all.
To those who doubt Obama's desire to "fight" to achieve a goal he has set? Have you not read an account of him playing pick-up basketball? Very delightfully revealling. Determined, gracious, humble, hard-driving, and all elbows! MM
What evidence leads you to believe that Obama will, when necessary, put up a tough fight? (Not a sneering question: I hope you have good answers.)
AL RESPONDS: I think there is evidence of this in his state senate record. He liked to work to build consensus, but when he needed to, he pushed really hard. I also think that it's just human nature. Obama is a very intelligent and determined person who will be very eager to accomplish things as president. If his strategy isn't working, he'll adjust it. I think he'll do whatever he has to do to be successful.
Can someone offer specific examples of Senator Obama's ability to politically 'give 'em the elbow' from his Senate record? I want to vote for this man, but am leaning toward Edwards based on his experience and stand on the corporatocracy as the crux of the problem.
thanks
I think that Barack Hussein Obama will get people to vote who has not prior to this. It will be a percent of African Americans who have never voted before and vote only because he is black and Oprah loves him. Not on his policies or experience or what he says he wants to do for this county, by the way a county his wife was only proud of after he started to run for president. It also bothers me that according to the president’s own campaign spokesperson says that Barack Hussein Obama is friendly with an infamous terrorist Bill Ayers, a former me member of the violent,anti American group the Weatherman, who boasts of his role in bombing the Capital in 71 and the Pentagon in 72 and his wife Bernardine Dohrn. Although the charges were dismissed, in his book he says that he would not dismiss the idea of using bombs against US in the future. Robert Maley,Barack Hussein Obama`s policy advisor blames Israel for everything bad and suggests doing business with Hamas the radical Palestinian militants dedicated to Israel’s destruction. Barack Hussein Obama`s, Rev. seen in tapes of his sermons since Sept 11 has preached that US is the one who are the terrorists and after sept 11 the that US shouldn’t be upset that we were getting back what we did to other counties. What about his relationship to Tony Rezko who is facing federal charges of extortion, money laundering and fraud;? Rezko has raised money for Barack Hussein Obama and on the same day bought adjoining homes in 2005, although the Obama team has said that the money he received from Rezko was given to charity why was he raising money for Barack Hussein Obama in the first place. Hillary Clinton and her scandals aren’t much better but I think between the two the lesser of two evils.
i think obama would be a great president. he has tons of experience and i think he is definately ready to lead the country into a better life. He does support things that people think are wrong to support and doesnt support things that people think he should support, but for the most part hes doing almost everything right. hes trying very hard. it shouldnt even matter if hes african-american or not. he would make a great president. this country would be a better place with him as president.
Thanks,
B.M. :)
p.s. hi MC
Thanks,
B.M. :)
Seems to me...he threw his white grandmother under a bus.. and then made Richardson become just as disloyal to his Buddies the CLINTONS.....because Richardson was offered a bigger piece of the pie then the Clintons offered.....Both idiots and Obama is the personae of a candidate..not a viable , trustwiorthy sort
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home