OCTOBER 17, 2007
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
The Post has a nice piece today about one of the fundamental problems of the Obama campaign--the possibility (likelihood, in my mind) that a message of post-partisan unity and fundamental change won't capture the imaginations of Democrats nursing deep resentments after seven years of Bush. This graf distilled it for me:
Obama offered a similar argument two days later at a Boys and Girls Club in Waterloo, saying that the country was "failed by a president who didn't tell the whole truth" but that it was "also failed" by the rest of the D.C. establishment. But the crowd broke into such loud applause after his charge against Bush that his broader criticism of the Washington system sounded like an afterthought. Similarly, those moments on the trail when he allows himself to take clear shots at Bush--on issues such as torture, military contractors and education funding--tend to win him his loudest cheers.
Obviously, just getting rid of a president who didn't tell the truth would be more than sufficient for a lot of Democrats.
But there's a second problem with this message, which is kind of implicit in these comments from Obama strategist David Axelrod:
"Senator Clinton has enormous negatives, were she to go into a general [election], and the fact that Barack is a good unifier is a good harbinger for the general," he said. But, he added, "voters get sold short. They're smart and sophisticated. They realize that it's important to replace a Republican with a Democrat, but that it won't do enough" if "all we do is change parties without challenging our politics."
On some level, I'm not sure how credible Obama's promise to change (in this case "challenge") our politics is. I personally believe in him--there are times when I hear him speak and think he could do pretty much anything. But when I consult his biography the way an ordinary voter might, I don't see any evidence to suggest he's capable of changing politics in some fundamental way. Yes, he reached across the aisle to pass some bills in Illinois. And he did work as a community organizer n Chicago. But there are probably hundreds (if not thousands) of people who could boast those achievements. Other than that, what is there?
It would be one thing if like, say, John Kerry, Obama had helped lead a movement to end a war. Or if, like Rudy Giuliani, he had some non-traditional, non-Washington experience that was nonetheless pretty extraordinary. (You can quibble about how much credit Giuliani deserves for reviving New York City, but it still sounds pretty impressive.) But if there's nothing that immediately jumps off your resume like that, I'm not sure you can persuade voters it's suddenly going to happen when you get to Washington. Maybe Obama means to suggest that running his campaign is itself experience leading a movement, but I think that's a little too clever.
There's something ironic about all of this: One impetus behind Obama's changing politics theme is to compensate for his perceived lack of experience relative to Hillary Clinton. The message is: People (such as Hillary) with traditional Washington experience are going to keep on doing things the way they've always been done, which hasn't accomplished much for the American people. To get something done, you need to change politics.
Fair enough. But you arguably need more, not less, experience if you want to change politics, albeit a different kind of experience. And it's not obvious from Obama's resume that he has that experience either.
P.S. I'll do a post later today or tomorrow about what I think Obama should have done instead.
--Noam Scheiber
9 comments
I just mean tell her story. The story of a corrupt and arrogant politician who thinks she's owed the presidency.
- virginiacentrist
October 17, 2007 at 10:53am
How about send his Chicago-political machine henchmen out to anonymously smear Hillary in the press, day after day after day, all throughout the summer? I would have enjoyed that.
- virginiacentrist
October 17, 2007 at 10:45am
Noam what did you smoke today? you are not sure he's capable of changing politics in some fundamental way? A black man (Ok mixed race but apparently black) as President of the United States, one who is also charismatic, would overnight change the worlds perceptions of the United States. He could go on a world wide tour to ecstatic crowds greeting him and you don't think that will change perceptions of some lily white pols in Washington? Stop looking it as a wonk reading a resume and look at it as an American. An Obama Presidency would represent a true departure from the past, and you don't think he could ride that to pass some pretty mainstream, non controversial legislation?
- blackton
October 17, 2007 at 12:24pm
- community organizer - law professor - conciliatory Senate President in Illinois, crossing the aisle and earning respect the old fashioned way. It's not like you need a freaking Nobel Peace Prize to change the politics in Washington...
- stgla
October 17, 2007 at 12:45pm
yes, i agree. i'm not saying he doesn't represent change. that's obvious from looking at him. i just think making it explicit - talking about changing politics - is unnecessary and counter-productive. it makes you think about whether he's really going to be able to push lobbyists aside, or whatever - things that seem difficult for anyone, much less a relatively inexperienced pol - rather than focusing on how refreshing he sounds. i think they would have picked up all those change voters without wallowing in the change theme; and by wallowing in it he turns some people off by drawing attention to some of his weaknesses. noam
- scheibern
October 17, 2007 at 12:49pm
Good lord. Here we go again with the Carterite mush. Politicians don't and won't "change politics" by being nice, or civil, or having better table manners. You change the political discourse by relentlessly focusing on the truth, ie by making arguments based on facts and logic. And you follow the facts and logic wherever they lead. So if it's blatantly unconstitutional, and patently stupid, to allow our schoolchildren to be taught religious superstition as science, then you say so, and fight like a bulldog to prevent such horseshit from polluting teh public schools. You don't respectfully, politely disagree; you say, this is not permissible in our democracy, here's how and why it's wrong, and it must not be tolerated. Ditto for taxing moneyfidding gazillionaires at rates less than half of what they should be taxed, or for subsidizing corn production that's dumped into Mexico, or....
- teplukhin2you
October 17, 2007 at 12:53pm
Fight fair, yes. But fight.
- teplukhin2you
October 17, 2007 at 12:54pm
This is absolute crap: "But there are probably hundreds (if not thousands) of people who could boast those achievements." Obama needs to drag that mandatory- videotaping-of-murder-suspect- interrogations legislation into the limelight - not the actual legislation (which is great), but the fact that people had been trying to pass that and failing, and he won by getting everyone - including the cops - to endorse it. That is no mean trick. That takes major, major skills. I say this as a former criminal defense attorney - these factions are as hostile to each other as it gets. To get them to agree is... dang, he should get the Nobel Peace Prize.
- psantillana
October 18, 2007 at 4:35am
That L.A. Times piece Mike linked to earlier had a couple more useful nuggets. First, a theory of Hillary's
- Anonymous
October 29, 2007 at 5:37pm