Obama's Virtues on Display
I'm on the record criticizing the (undue) significance that the media places on the results of the Iowa caucuses, so even though I'm very pleased by what happened tonight, I'm going to steer clear of any horse race analysis.
What I do want to comment on, though, is how tonight's events help solidify the case for Obama.
First (and most obviously), Obama is simply on a different plain than his opponents when it comes to his public speaking abilities. I really don't see how anyone can deny this. Hillary Clinton and John Edwards both gave perfectly fine speeches by everyday political standards. But Obama made them seem small by comparison. His speech was inspiring and grandiose in a way that I really don't think either Edwards or Clinton could ever realistically hope to achieve.
Clearly a candidate's rhetorical gifts, standing alone, aren't a good reason to vote for him. But they're an important part of the package. After watching the candidates tonight, who would you rather have delivering the final speech at the Democratic convention? Who would you rather have on stage representing the Democratic party in a debate with Mitt Romney or John McCain? Eloquence matters. An ability to inspire matters.
Which brings me to my second point. Attendance at the caucuses shattered all records, largely because of Obama. He was not only able to inspire people who don't normally pay attention, but he was able to convince them to sacrifice several hours of their time on a cold January night to participate in an arcane caucus process. If he can do that in Iowa, there's every reason to believe he can do the same thing on a much larger scale in a national election, where more people are paying attention and they need only pull a lever to register their opinion. An Obama candidacy has the potential to lure people out of the woodwork in an unprecedented way, and I just don't see that happening with either Clinton or Edwards.
Finally, as the election results tonight confirm, Obama does far better among independents and unaffiliated voters than either Clinton or Edwards. That's a crucial advantage in a general election.
Again, none of this matters if you think that Obama's rivals are somehow far superior to him on policy grounds. But if, as I do, you see very little difference between the Democratic candidates on policy issues, then supporting Obama seems like an easy call. After tonight, I really don't understand how anyone could fail to see Obama's superior virtues as a general election candidate.
What I do want to comment on, though, is how tonight's events help solidify the case for Obama.
First (and most obviously), Obama is simply on a different plain than his opponents when it comes to his public speaking abilities. I really don't see how anyone can deny this. Hillary Clinton and John Edwards both gave perfectly fine speeches by everyday political standards. But Obama made them seem small by comparison. His speech was inspiring and grandiose in a way that I really don't think either Edwards or Clinton could ever realistically hope to achieve.
Clearly a candidate's rhetorical gifts, standing alone, aren't a good reason to vote for him. But they're an important part of the package. After watching the candidates tonight, who would you rather have delivering the final speech at the Democratic convention? Who would you rather have on stage representing the Democratic party in a debate with Mitt Romney or John McCain? Eloquence matters. An ability to inspire matters.
Which brings me to my second point. Attendance at the caucuses shattered all records, largely because of Obama. He was not only able to inspire people who don't normally pay attention, but he was able to convince them to sacrifice several hours of their time on a cold January night to participate in an arcane caucus process. If he can do that in Iowa, there's every reason to believe he can do the same thing on a much larger scale in a national election, where more people are paying attention and they need only pull a lever to register their opinion. An Obama candidacy has the potential to lure people out of the woodwork in an unprecedented way, and I just don't see that happening with either Clinton or Edwards.
Finally, as the election results tonight confirm, Obama does far better among independents and unaffiliated voters than either Clinton or Edwards. That's a crucial advantage in a general election.
Again, none of this matters if you think that Obama's rivals are somehow far superior to him on policy grounds. But if, as I do, you see very little difference between the Democratic candidates on policy issues, then supporting Obama seems like an easy call. After tonight, I really don't understand how anyone could fail to see Obama's superior virtues as a general election candidate.
posted by A.L. at 12:06 AM
16 Comments:
We did it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
A.L. you were one of the first bloggers to come out for Obama that I read, and being a fellow early bandwagoneer.........well, I just wanted to celebrate with the people I don't actually know but have enjoyed reading the past year. Here's to a great 2008. Its starting out well.
I concur with nathan. You had it right all along, A.L. You also pegged Huckabee's chances when few were even talking about him. Your site should have a whole lot more traffic than it does considering your insight not only into elections but also into politics, law, and government.
I'm sure happy Glenn Greenwald had you as a guest blogger over a year ago, or I would never have found your blog.
While I respect your admiration for Obama, he simply does not get to me. And I'm convinced that he won because of Oprah (her support giving him 5 to 10 per cent of the caucus). But in a way, that's to be expected, since he's the charisma candidate and she's a celebrity.
I think charisma isn't enough, and I'm deeply skeptical of Obama's claim that he can get people to work together in Washington. It's going to be a tough fight to get the rich to surrender their wealth, and no amount of inspiring speeches will change that.
My concern about Obama is that he reminds me a little too much of Jimmy Carter. Sure, he's a nice guy, but being a nice guy is not necessarily what makes for an effective President.
A point worth adding is that it looks like Edwards got the lion's share of the "second choice" votes, which means this really was a solid win by Obama. See Entrance Poll: The Second-Prefs Winner Was ... Edwards
I agree with Quiddity. Obama would have to deal with the likes of Mitch McConnell in the Senate. And McConnell has proven to be a wily, effective leader of his bunch. I just don't see him being persuaded by a handsome face and eloquent speeches.
I did not hear Obama's speech, in spite of slipping between CSPANI and II all night, trying to get it. I did hear pieces of Clinton's and Edwards'. Clinton was horrible, per usual. Absolutely wooden and packaged, and backing her on the stage were many of the old democratic guard. How tiresome. Edwards' speech was excellent I thought, and heartfelt. Iowa 8 newschannel switched away from him in the middle of his speech, so that pundits could talk about the anatomy of the horserace.
I agree with others that Obama's "can't we all work together in Washington" meme is both naive and undesirable, even if it was possible. I much prefer Edwards more assertive message.
Obama's ability to speak is key, and incredibly refreshing after the past 8 years. His presidency would be a vast improvement. As would Edwards'.
But regardless of who occupies the WH in the next term, the many ills of our Govt. will not be solved by this one small change.
His ability to bring people together can help to bring about change. Obama bringing new faces to the voting booth bodes well for Democrats in a national election.
With a strong mandate change is possible however improbable that seems at the present. IMO
I think it comes down to what AL wrote some weeks back, re: Who's face do you want representing Brand USA?(including but not limited to: respectability, likability, english-language-speaking ability, etc.) Yes, our problems are big here in the U.S. But step outside for a moment our myopic, mini-flag-waving bubble and know that our challenges are bigger than just ours alone (thanks GWB!), they extend to our relationships around the world.
Obama is the guy we need now. I'll take Edwards, but Obama represents a more universal fast-track fix IMO.
After watching the candidates tonight, who would you rather have delivering the final speech at the Democratic convention? Who would you rather have on stage representing the Democratic party in a debate with Mitt Romney or John McCain?
Those are two very different questions. Clearly Obama is the most effective orator of the Democratic candidates. It is not at all clear that he is the most effective debater, based on his performance to date.
What's clear to me about the developments of the last several months is that Obama is growing into his role as a candidate. Contrast that with Clinton, who was anointed into her candidacy and has struggled to maintain her position ever since. Edwards, too, appears to have grown, but mostly he appears to have mutated into some kind of populist agent-for-change (a rather difficult change to believe, IMHO).
It is obvious that Obama has been learning a lot during his run, and this is a very promising sign, because what we really need is someone who has the capability of growing into a great President. Unlike in Pakistan or England, we neither raise people from birth nor bring them up through parliament to become prime minister, we just pick people and throw the mantle on their back and hope they'll do a good job.
To some extent, this was the meme that the Bush/2000 and 2004 campaigns tried to project -- with significant success. It turned out to be spectacularly false, but it still remains a strategy that builds resonance with the voting public, especially the youthful segment.
Obama certainly has reason to celebrate but I think Edwards did a pretty good job also. First, considering the overwhelming amount of money the other two front runners pumped into this campaign and second, the press treating Edwards like he didn't exist. The national coverage was all Obama vs Clinton. I think they had all better take Huckabee seriously. There are many similarities between him and Reagan. The opposition didn't take Reagan seriously to begin with. Also like Reagan, Huckabee makes gaff after gaff and the press excuses it and paints this picture of just a nice guy and a man of the people. Huckabee has the potential of making Bush look reasonable. We are one step down the path to a theocracy. How the press could excuse some of the outrageous remarks of this guy is incredible. Democrats take warning.
I have lots of policy problems with Obama. I think his stand on Iraq is nearly insane, but the good news there is that Iraq has become enough of a non-issue that a bit of benign neglect is all that may be needed to wind things down. I'm lukewarm on his energy policy. I think his healthcare policy (like that of all the dems) is unlikely to be an improvement.
But my estimate of his competence and ability to lead continues to rise. There's no possiblity that he'll be anywhere near as insular and dogmatic as Bush. He seems to know what he doesn't know and find ways to compensate. He can legislate adroitly. And he can certainly appeal to the better angels of our nature.
I might not vote for him but I think I'd be rooting for him if he won. If most people had the same impression of him, that'd be a huge improvement over the past 15 years, wouldn't it?
Time for some input from the Fascist Hyena section.
I had the honor to cast my very first vote for Barry Goldwater in 1964, and since then have not voted for a single Democrat for any office at any level. I might very well vote for Obama, and will surely do so if Huckabee is the nominee (which I still believe is well-nigh impossible).
Like the Radical Moderate, I share some very grave concerns about his stand on some matters of foreign policy. He certainly made an ill-considered remark about "going into Pakistan," and there are hints that he might make an unduly precipitate withdrawal from Iraq, and indeed from the Middle East, which I think would be catastrophic.
I almost couldn't care less about domestic issues, with the exception of the federal judiciary, but when you have Republican presidents giving us Stevens, Souter and Kennedy, what the hell difference does it make.
I think what has happened in the past 48 hours is inspirational. And the fact that it is an unequivocal renunciation of any effort to stage a Clinton Restoration makes it much more delightful. Wasn't it great to see Madeleine Albright up there on the stage last night? If the Clintons think the nation is eager for her to return from the dead, they have another, very unpleasant think coming.
Actually, I think AL was on record as saying Huckabee could "win the whole thing," meaning the GOP nomination. I still say it is not possible, and renew my offer to commit seppuku if he does.
Sixty percent of GOP caucus voters in Iowa describe themselves as evangelicals. Despite the nightmares on the Left, that figure is grotesquely out of proportion to the national party as a whole. No matter what he does in SC, he will be out of it after Super Tuesday. He has as much chance of winning, say, New York and California as I do, but no more.
Obama is simply on a different plain than his opponents when it comes to his public speaking abilities. I really don't see how anyone can deny this
*shrug* Depends what you mean by "deny this". I'm definitely impressed by Obama's speaking ability, if you mean his ability to inspire others, which you probably should -- I mean, seriously, what a turnout. Wow.
Obama's speeches don't do anything for me personally, and I honestly don't understand why he's more inspiring than Chris Dodd, who _is_ in my opinion an excellent speaker, which may be why literally several Iowans showed up to declare for him Thursday night. Then again, I thought the West Wing's Jed Bartlet (played by Martin Sheen) was extraordinarily charismatic when chatting one-on-one or rallying his advisors, yet his official speeches were vapid to me too. And portrayed as hugely successful, which I believed easily enough. There's no accounting for taste... even if I can't help feeling, by nature, that mine are accountable in entirety.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home