Obama: the Democratic Reagan?
Obama is now surging in new polls out. While a few (like CNN’s) have him neck-and-neck with Hillary and picking up only marginal gains, two polls–Rasmussen and the American Research Group (ARG)–show Obama surging ahead of Clinton in New Hampshire by 10 to 12 points. Other polls report that Obama’s positives are similarly surging, as are his ratings for electability, now equal to Hillary’s.
Though Clinton has somewhat successfully gone negative (“successful” in that she got negative barbs out), Obama remained aloofly positive, and in the end, I think people will react better to that. Clinton’s overall strategy: paint Obama as a liberal (now, that’s hitting below the belt! And incredibly ironic!), claiming that he’s too far to the left–at the same time that Obama’s message of unity has some lefty bloggers worrying that he might run to the center. I believe their worries are misplaced; Obama shows respect for all views, but he comes out of the reasoning and the negotiation process with solutions still well within liberal bounds.
But I think there’s an angle here that few if any have picked up on: Obama is likely to be the liberal version of Reagan, a great orator who will inspire people to follow him. Obama will not be a Clinton, chasing after the electorate in the hopes they will favor him. Obama’s eloquence, his trustability, his appeal to independents and even Republicans is more likely to allow him to sell his liberal ideas and policies. From 2009, we might start hearing people talk about “Obama Republicans,” like we heard of “Reagan Democrats” in the 80’s. Obama could get these the same way Reagan did, by speaking directly to the nation in a way that would cause a popular upswell, bringing enough Republicans nervous about their electability over to Obama’s side. And he would not need too many Republicans to get the bills he wants passed, as Congress will likely still have a Democratic majority.
In fact, if Obama can translate his ability to bring in huge voter turnout from Iowa to the national stage, we might see more Democrats winning Senate and House seats than expected. A few Obama Republicans might be all that is needed to create a super-majority and remove the Republicans’ massively-overused filibuster weapon from their arsenal. And if Obama can show that he has coattails that will let Democrats beat out Republicans in close races, it might be an easy sell to get those borderline Republicans to vote with him.
In short, instead of running to the center–which Hillary would absolutely do, without any doubt whatsoever–Obama could bring the center to him, and swing the country to the left. No way Hillary could do that, and Edwards doing it would be a stretch.
So let’s all cast our vote for a man that can throw some ‘ideas’ together and many of the naive will ooooohhhh and ahhhhhhh about. I would much rather see a candidate that can speak from experience and present his/her voting record to the public to validate his/her positions. You loyal Obama supporters might want to do a little research on your selection.
Val: you mean look up the dirt people are throwing at him? I probably should, just to know what’s out there. Unless you have solid stuff on the man, in which case please feel free to post links. If it gets caught for moderation, I’ll approve; if you don’t see the comment up soon, then the spam filters may have taken it out without allowing for moderation; if that happens, then send another simple message that’ll pass by the spam filters and we’ll arrange a different way to get the links up.
I found Mr. Obama’s performance last evening in the debates strangely hollow and lackluster. The Democrats better wake up to reality- A man with the middle name of Hussein has not a snow balls chance in July of being elected President a mere 7 years after September 11th.
The republicans are and will eat him alive. As a lifelong Democrat, it seems if Mr. Obama wins- I will sit out the election in November- I would never ever vote republican- Mr. Obama is just a great personality in an empty suit, and thus far has said little to make me believe he is qualified to lead this country.
I can’t say for sure, but my suspicion is that Val is referring not to the conspiracy of whispers against Obama, but rather to the absence of any real accomplishments on his part. As you put it:
Obama shows respect for all views, but he comes out of the reasoning and the negotiation process with solutions still well within liberal bounds.
He’s been a legislator for some time, but beyond speeches and books, can you point to any solutions that he’s actually implemented? And I’m not asking that rhetorically–I’m really curious. In all of the heated rhetoric that’s surrounded Obama, I haven’t yet heard of anything he’s actually accomplished. For instance, unlike most other candidates, he voted against war in Iraq, which is admirable, but has he led any efforts to end or shorten the war, or advanced any constructive legislative alternatives? Because if not, his stance is danger of becoming simply, “I told you so.” That may be fine for a legislator, but it’s not the sort of leadership that I’d expect from someone who thinks they’re ready to become President.
Do you have solid stuff on the man about what he’s done, rather than just said? I understand why he makes such a compelling candidate, but I don’t see much evidence that he’d actually be a good President.
I think the comparisons to Reagan and Clinton are apt. Regardless of your feelings about either man or their ideologies, Reagan was better liked, Clinton accomplished more in his two terms in office. It’s nice to have a President who’s liked, but given the mess we’re in now, it’s probably much more important to have a President who’s competent. I can’t imagine that’s Obama, but I’m not sure who it is.
Peter, I think you’re conflating two different issues. There’s the question of Obama as a candidate (can he get elected?) and the question of Obama as President (once elected, can he do the job?). Though I certainly think cynicism is justified with respect to his ability to get elected, it’s looking more and more (though it’s still quite early yet) like he might be able to get elected. But regardless, the tactics you’re expecting from the right if Obama gets the nomination become most effective if the Democrats decline to nominate Obama out of fear of them.
But the more interesting, and separate, question is whether or not he should be elected. I don’t see a lot of evidence to suggest that he should. I just don’t know how to figure out what kind of job he’ll do once in office. But faced with a choice between him and any of the current Republican candidates, particularly as a life-long Democrat (which I’m not), I don’t see how sitting out the election is a rational option.
Morgannels: In some ways, that’s a stacked request, not that you intended it that way. You’ll have to remember that of the 3 years Obama has been in the Senate, for two of those years, Republicans controlled the floor and rather effectively shut out Democrats from taking any action that was not approved of by the Republicans. For the last year, while the Republicans have been in the minority, they have nevertheless blocked in the Senate just about every major initiative the Democrats have tried to put through. So it is not as if Obama has had much fertile ground to sow, so to speak.
Neither is it fair, I believe, to suggest that a candidate must have a long list of accomplishments in order to be qualified; I would suggest a case in point to prove what I mean here, that being a man who was also from Illinois, the member of the U.S. House of Representatives from Illinois’s 7th district. He had only 2 years under his belt as a lowly Congressman before he ran for president. That was Abraham Lincoln, and I have no doubt that many of his detractors said that he had too little experience. My point is not that Obama is the new Lincoln (nor that he is not), but rather that experience before the office is a tricky thing. Hillary Clinton has tons of experience, but I do not believe that she would be a better president; it depends less on what you have than it does on what you do with what you have.
So the question is less about “what has he accomplished as a junior member of a 100-member house at a time when he had almost no opportunities to do anything,” and more about “what can he realistically accomplish given the presidency?”
Nevertheless, let me give a few examples of what he has gotten done, important not only in what was accomplished, but how it was accomplished. A good example in Illinois was when there were problems with the death penalty. Later, these would become so plainly evident that the Republican governor (George Ryan), who strongly approved of the death penalty, would halt all executions. Before that happened, Obama was concerned about innocents being sent to death row, so he proposed a bill to videotape all interrogations in potential capital cases.
This was not an easy sell. The death penalty was popular, prosecutors and police adamantly opposed the bill, Republicans in the legislature wanted to look tough on crime, and Democrats feared being seen or portrayed as criminal coddlers; additionally, the governor at the time opposed the bill. But Obama led a campaign to get it passed, and a key element of that was to quietly but effectively bring together “prosecutors, public defenders, police organizations, and death penalty opponents” to work together behind the scenes to work out an agreement that all groups could endorse. Eventually, the bill was passed unanimously and became law.
But it’s not too hard to find Obama’s accomplishments during that period–just Google it. Wikipedia notes that “As a state legislator, Obama worked with both Democrats and Republicans in drafting successful legislation on ethics and health care reform. He sponsored a law enhancing tax credits for low-income workers, negotiated welfare reform, and promoted increased subsidies for child care.” A WaPo article points to his role in “the state’s first earned-income tax credit to help the working poor and the first ethics and campaign finance law in 25 years (a law a Post story said made Illinois ‘one of the best in the nation on campaign finance disclosure’).” The article continues:
The NYT called him “pragmatic and shrewd,” and noted that he had “a record not inconsistent with his lofty rhetoric of consensus building and bipartisanship.” It’s not all glowing, but these are pretty solid endorsements; read them.
As for what he has done in three years in the Senate–despite huge Republican roadblocks I outline above–there’s too much for me to write at 1:00 am, and besides, I’d be reinventing the wheel; allow me to crib from Wikipedia:
Is that enough for three years to convince you that if he were elected to the White House, that he would do well enough there?
I would also ask you in return, what have you done (aside from asking this question) to find out more about him? As I mentioned in a previous post, I wanted to know the same kind of things you’re asking about–so I got his book and am reading it. I’m up to page 228 right now, and can tell you that if you haven’t looked closely at Obama, it might explain why you’re not as interested in him; his appeal is not in his smile or his charm, but rather in his message, in his intelligence, in his willingness to accept, and in his goals.
Those are good points, thanks. I think the comparison to Lincoln is largely irrelevant since this is a very different country and the Presidency is a very different job now. But I think his work in Illinois around the death penalty is interesting and promising. I guess that leaves me with a question about style then. His campaign presentations seem, in their stirring airiness, to be those of someone trying to sound more impressive than they are. Why aren’t they more wonky and detailed?
And actually, I did read excerpts from his book, and it was those that turned me off of him in the first place.
[Editor’s note: I am allowing the below comment to pass through, but with reservations; while it is not a “spam comment” (a comment that is generalized and widely distributed verbatim on several blogs), it is nonetheless cribbed without reference or citation from several different sources.]
“When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights, are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, extreme materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered…True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar. It comes necessary to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring…A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death…We are now faced with the fact , my friends, that tomorrow is today. We are confronted with the fierce urgency of now… We must move past indecision to action.” – Dr. Martin Luther King Jr, April – 1967
Senator Obama is what the nation needs and the world needs. The so-called experienced candidates are responsible for our current state of affairs. Why should we keep electing the same people over and over again and expect different results? It’s time for a change with new people who have new ideas. It’s time to redefine the way we do business in Washington D.C. and on the world stage.
Senator Barack Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961 to an American mother and a Kenyan father. When he was two, his parents, who had met as students at the University of Hawaii, divorced. Obama’s Harvard-educated father then returned to Kenya, where he worked in the economics ministry. Obama lived in Indonesia with his mother and stepfather for part of his childhood, returning to Hawaii to finish high school. He graduated from Columbia University, where he majored in political science and specialized in international relations. He then attended Harvard Law School, graduated magna cum laude, and served as the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review. After law school, he worked as a community organizer and a civil rights lawyer in Chicago. He also taught at the University of Chicago Law School as a senior lecturer specializing in constitutional law. Obama represented the South Side of Chicago in the Illinois State Senate from 1996–2004 as a Democrat. In 2004, he was elected to the U.S. Senate, winning with 70% of the vote against the conservative black Republican, Alan Keyes. Obama became the only African-American serving in the U.S. Senate (and the fifth in U.S. history). Obama’s idealism and commitment to civil rights generated enormous media attention for his Senate campaign. The eloquence of his keynote address at the 2004 Democratic Nation Convention in Boston, Mass., confirmed his status as one of the Democratic party’s freshest and most inspirational new leaders.
Obama published an autobiography, Dreams From My Father, in 1995; it became a best-seller during his 2004 Senate campaign. The Audacity of Hope became a bestseller after its Oct. 2006 publication. He is married to Michelle Obama, a Chicago native who also graduated from Harvard Law School. They have two daughters: Malia Ann and Sasha.
This is the 40th year since the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. He would proud of Sen Barack Obama, proud of Iowa and proud of America.
Senator Obama is ready!
I think the comments about administrative ability are worth considering. Obama hasn’t managed anything of consequence. There’s a learning curve that usually takes new presidents two years to get the hang of the job. Presumably, and this in my mind is Clinton’s greatest arguement on her behalf, is the sheer volume and magnitude of success in the First Clinton presidency. The learning curve would be much reduced.
We need competency in the next president. We need strong economic growth in the next president. In this, Clinton can argue the best prospect for success.
I recall Thurgood Marshall’s comment regarding MLK: he was a great speaker but he was the most poorly organized person he ever met. Obama’s ability as a charismatic speaker and his past role as a legislator does not give me any confidence in his ability to be an administrator, which is a totally different skill set. That doesn’t mean he can’t do it, but his ability to campaign hardly suggest that he would be a great and sophisticated administrator.
I’m an Edwards guy. I think policy is the most important part in picking a candidate. Second, is coat tails, and I think Obama might have coat tails, I am seeing Obama Republicans already, But next on my list is administrative ability and competency. Obama might be great in these roles, but I have no evidence suggesting that. (I agree with Krugman, mandates are essential for making public health care plans work – in my home town of St. Louis, they have the best water in the U.S., Anheuser-Busch has their own water plant, but even they have to buy water from the public source because the economics don’t work out if wealthy can opt out). He hasn’t been a governor of a state, so he’s got no back ground in an administrative role. Again, Obama’s a smart guy. Maybe he’ll be a smart, savy and sophisticated administrator. If he isn’t, then, could be a problem. That’s the role of the dice that Bill Clinton talks about. He’s got a point.
Who would Obama select as VP? Hillary (w/ Bill in tow)? That would be a nice combination in the white house, with the 2 later bringing in experience. I would vote for that.
Have the bots shifted their allegiance from Ron Paul to Barack Obama?
Morgannels:
That would depend on what you have seen of him. I doubt very much that the wonky bits make the evening news, or even so much on YouTube. There are many references to him risking boring crowds by getting too much into detail about this technical matter or that. I think the wonkiness shows more with his propensity to exemplify at times, where Edwards tends to simply give feel-happy go-get-’em generalizations, as I mentioned in a previous blog post.
To be fair, it seems like you based that impression on a book review with only very limited, carefully chosen–and no pun intended, critical–excerpts from Obama’s book. I read the review, and while I can see that he was talking about the same book I was reading, I got almost none of the actual impact of the actual book. See if it’s available in a library, or somehow try to get your hands on just one chapter (“Opportunity” is a good one).
Tim: one of the downsides of the Democratic front-runners is that they’re all senators, and as such have limited experience in administration. I would be interested in knowing how Edwards pulls ahead of Obama in this area, as well as how Edwards’ policies are better.
YKW: Hillary would never agree to a VP slot, unless I am very much mistaken about her. Neither would Edwards, I would think–twice a primary contender and twice a VP candidate would probably be too much for one person. I could be wrong on that, but I don’t think so. But I do think that Obama’s VP choice would be very interesting.
“The bots”? I must have missed something…
Sorry. I was referring to the Change Agent comment, which looks kind of Astroturfy.
You make a good point about none of the candidates having administrative experience. But I think that its ingenious to suggest that Hillary doesn’t understand a thing or two about the dynamics of administration from being around Bill for 35 years who spent more than two decades in an administrative role and she would have intimate access to his wisdom in this regard.
In regard to policy, I would defer to Krugman who has been critical of Obama’s policies: specifically adopting republican talking points regarding social security and his failure to adopt mandates in his health care plan. As I suggest above, when in law school, I spent some time in an economics history class taught by a nobel prize winning economic historian, and his point concerning the utilities model is that they don’t work if people, either because they are too poor or too wealthy, can opt out. In regard to health care insurance, it is essentially a commodity that lends itself to utility economic models, and as such the failure to require mandates means the Obama policy position is strategically flawed. However, in recent weeks, Obama has pointed out that the lack of mandates in his policy proposal has been lacking. So there’s hope he could get it right.
All of this suggest to me that Obama is weak on policy in the area I am most concerned about – economics. be it Social Security or Health Care. This is, of course Edwards strength. Edwards might not win the election, but he has dragged the whole Democratic debate to the left economically. This occurred, because because Edwards is generally concerned about these issues. This is of strategic importance to the country’s overall well being – as I suggested in a letter to the New York times a couple of weeks ago. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/25/opinion/l25herbert.html?_r=2&ref=opinion&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
(In my mind concentrated wealth and power not only creates unnecessary misery, it also was the cause of most epic collapses in history, again, courtesy of my Economics History professor and my Japanese Law professor in law school.)
I just don’t see the urgency here from Obama. I suspect that, if not for Edwards and his seriousness on the issue, neither Obama or Clinton would have released policy statements on health care and related economic issues. If it’s not on the front burner for a candidate, then it likely will be ignored upon getting elected. Again, the Clinton track record in Economics in the 1990s is impressive and can’t be denied. But it didn’t address squarely the threat I see from wealth concentration.
I want to believe that if Obama gets elected, at the very least, he would match Clinton’s policy performance from the 90s. But I don’t know that. I still believe that Edwards policy and front burner concern in this area is the most correct. I also believe he would be the most electible and have the largest coat tails – see here: http://www.realclearpolitics.com /epolls/2008/president/national.html
By the way, I found that site by reading a column by Andrew Greeley on flaws in the nomination selection process for the Democratic party, which I found fundementaly enlightening: when nominees were selected in smoke filled rooms, they were better because the men in the smoke filled rooms had too much at stake, where as primaries produce moral victories, like nominating an African American or Women would represent, but general election failures. Greeley points out the long string of weak candidates: McGovern, Carter, Dukakis, Kerry etc… It’s worth noting that Clinton, a successful choice, wasn’t selected by either Iowa or New Hampshire. Interesting column there by Greeley, who, after all, is a liberal catholic priest.
I think I made a mistake earlier.
To understand the candidate that is most electable and likely to have the biggest coat tails, see this site, courtesy of Andrew Greeley’s column:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national.html
The Republicans strongest candidate, at this point is McCain, and against all candidates, Edwards shows the biggest positive spread.
Hillary will say/do anything to get funds and elected. Such as changing her stance in the NHI (national health insurance) issue to get large sums of money from HMO lobbyists. She’s not very good at concealing that either because it clearly shows when she speaks. She’ll say whatever you want to hear without ever agreeing with you. That’s probably what drives a lot of voters off.