Iowa morning after: Obama whiplash

[Jason McCullough]

Let me summarize the liberal blogs:

1. Best (http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=01&year=2008&base_name=wrong_wrong_wrong) field organization in 30 years.

2. Huge number of new self-identified Democrats (http://openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=3058) showed up.

3. Unbelievable turnout numbers, and very young caucus goers (http://www.thedemocraticstrategist.org/strategist/2008/01/big_crowds_everywhere.php).

4. Charles Peters on Obama's amazing legislative success in Iowa getting confessions videotaped (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/03/AR2008010303303.html?hpid=opinionsbox), going from no support to near unamity.

5. Maybe Obama really does know what he's doing (http://atrios.blogspot.com/2007_12_30_archive.html#2771732882740387024).

In all my dealings with Obama people, as well as the man himself, there's always been this sense that they're constantly telling people, "Trust us. We've thought this through. We know what we're doing. It'll work. Yes we understand that you're uncomfortable with this, or that you think it's wrong, but really we know what we're doing."

And then those of us in the cheap seats think that there's no way all of those new/young voters show up to vote in Iowa, that Obama's inclusive rhetoric doesn't have the appeal he imagines, etc.. etc... And then he pulls it off. Maybe he does know what he's doing. (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_01/012841.php)

[Lizard_King]

I thought you said "backlash" and I read your post 3 times in increasing confusion until I looked at the title again.

[Anaxagoras]

I thought you said "backlash" and I read your post 3 times in increasing confusion until I looked at the title again.

Exact same experience here. Except I read through his post once in confusion, then read your response.

[Tom McNamara]

I read that he got the highest youth vote turnout since JFK. Listening to his Iowa victory speech, I think he's the greatest antidote to cynicism that I've seen in my lifetime. It's kind of funny to watch Clinton's popularity contest bandwagon get caught like a deer in the headlights.

[DoomMunky]

He actually inspires hope in me. You know, that corny old thing?

[Funkula]

Exact same experience here. Except I read through his post once in confusion, then read your response.
I didn't even spot it until I'd read the post and the reply twice each.

I move we start a new thread with a better-chosen title.

[Rimbo]

He's got going for him what I liked most about Edwards.

I don't care which front-runner wins the Democratic nomination this year -- just as long as it's not Hillary.

On the Republican side, however, there's a lot not to like, I find. Which is unusual for me.

[Anaxagoras]

I move we start a new thread with a better-chosen title.

Motion seconded.

[Sarkus]

I like Obama but don't get too carried away with the Iowa results. One stat I heard last night was that he barely beat Hillary among registered dem's, which means his margin was in attracting independents. There are a lot of primary's where the independent impact is much less than in Iowa.

That said, he should do well in Vermont with it's independents and South Carolina because of it's ethnic makeup (not my observation, but that of several pundits last night).

[JeffL]

I like Obama but don't get too carried away with the Iowa results. One stat I heard last night was that he barely beat Hillary among registered dem's, which means his margin was in attracting independents. There are a lot of primary's where the independent impact is much less than in Iowa.

That said, he should do well in Vermont with it's independents and South Carolina because of it's ethnic makeup (not my observation, but that of several pundits last night).

In the general election, get your party out to vote and then get a lot of independents, and the holy grail of crossover votes (remember Reagan Democrats?) and you sweep the board.

Hillary is the presumed party favorite, so even "barely" beating her with the registered Dems (in an all white state) is pretty impressive. She flew in 1000 "friends" to help her in this campaign, outside of the inside the state workers, and spent $400 Billion dollars (ok, I made that last dollar figure up, but the 1000 is real) and came in 3rd. The joy in my heart is overflowing, even if it only lasts the next 5 days. ;)

I asked in this forum some weeks ago - is there any candidate you could passionately support? The answer was crickets chirping (other than the Ron Paul fans.) I think Obama could be that candidate.

[Sarkus]

In the general election, get your party out to vote and then get a lot of independents, and the holy grail of crossover votes (remember Reagan Democrats?) and you sweep the board.

Hillary is the presumed party favorite, so even "barely" beating her with the registered Dems (in an all white state) is pretty impressive. She flew in 1000 "friends" to help her in this campaign, outside of the inside the state workers, and spent $400 Billion dollars (ok, I made that last dollar figure up, but the 1000 is real) and came in 3rd. The joy in my heart is overflowing, even if it only lasts the next 5 days. ;)

I don't disagree. My point is that Hillary still has a good shot of winning a number of key states as long as the core of the party is behind her, that's all. Obviously, Obama does look like a much better general election candidate than she does at this point.

[Jason McCullough]

What's wrong with the title? The liberal blogs' heads (and mine) are snapping around fast enough to give them whiplash. There's no backlash.

[Raife]

Oh, you were talking about your personal whiplash. Got it.

[Funkula]

I think the problem is being so used to backlash threads about games. The moment something becomes a breakout hit, we have a backlash thread. The same just happened with Obama, so it's natural to expect a similar effect.

I did find it confusing, but I was mostly kidding about starting a new thread.

[JeffL]

Never count the Clintons out. They still have a tremendous amount of power, a huge machine, and a lot of strings they can pull. They still worry me.

[BlueJackalope]

I think the problem is being so used to backlash threads about games. The moment something becomes a breakout hit, we have a backlash thread. The same just happened with Obama, so it's natural to expect a similar effect.

I did find it confusing, but I was mostly kidding about starting a new thread.

Obama - The New Bioshock?

[Greatatlantic]

I read that he got the highest youth vote turnout since JFK. Listening to his Iowa victory speech, I think he's the greatest antidote to cynicism that I've seen in my lifetime.

And is that really a good thing? The republicans are dead set against universal healthcare, rolling back tax cuts to balance the budget, corprate reform, and doing anything else I think should be done. What we need is a cynical, coniving bastard who will exploit republican weaknesses, welcome their hatred, and actually get stuff done. Thats why I'm an Edwards man. That time as a lawyer has to have been good for something.

[Lizard_King]

What's wrong with the title?
Nothing. I've just been conditioned to expect a different word, there, that's all.

The liberal blogs' heads (and mine) are snapping around fast enough to give them whiplash.
You differentiate between those two entities? Interesting.

There's no backlash.
....yet. And I hope he's ready for it.

[BlueJackalope]

Never count the Clintons out. They still have a tremendous amount of power, a huge machine, and a lot of strings they can pull. They still worry me.

They remain the dragon that he needs to slay. Unless the GOP gets their shit together and nominates McCain - which ironically Huckabee's victory might scare them into doing.

[Machfive]

So when does Obama get Codex'd?

[Tom McNamara]

And is that really a good thing? The republicans are dead set against universal healthcare, rolling back tax cuts to balance the budget, corprate reform, and doing anything else I think should be done. What we need is a cynical, coniving bastard who will exploit republican weaknesses, welcome their hatred, and actually get stuff done. Thats why I'm an Edwards man. That time as a lawyer has to have been good for something.

I don't know -- the turnout in Iowa was roughly 240,000 Democrats to 115,000 Republicans. I don't think the blue team has to work too hard to get into the Whitehouse this year. And Obama has the ability to shame people for not working together towards a common cause. He can effectively embarrass you in front of your own constituency, without slinging an ounce of mud.

And as it turns out, Obama was the president of the Harvard Law Review, then got his juris doctorate, magna cum laude. Then he worked as an associate at a Chicago law firm for three years, and he also taught constitutional law at the U of Chicago for eleven years, until he was elected to the Illinois Senate. However, he wasn't a trial lawyer, as far as I know.

[milo]

The only thing I was confused by was why Obama needed to have confessions videotaped in Iowa. Reading the link helped (interesting article, too).

[JeffL]

And is that really a good thing? The republicans are dead set against universal healthcare, rolling back tax cuts to balance the budget, corprate reform, and doing anything else I think should be done. What we need is a cynical, coniving bastard who will exploit republican weaknesses, welcome their hatred, and actually get stuff done. Thats why I'm an Edwards man. That time as a lawyer has to have been good for something.

I think even Republicans are ready for a change. Yeah, not the Rove/Cheney cabal, but I'm betting you'll find a lot of Republicans in Congress who would be more willing than you'd expect to do some compromising to get some things done if the environment in Washington, among both parties, was back to let's get some things done and make the country happy with us again.

[Destarius]

4. Charles Peters on Obama's amazing legislative success in Iowa getting confessions videotaped (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/03/AR2008010303303.html?hpid=opinionsbox), going from no support to near unamity.

Obama proved persuasive enough that the bill passed both houses of the legislature, the Senate by an incredible 35 to 0. Then he talked Blagojevich into signing the bill, making Illinois the first state to require such videotaping.

Thanks for the link, Jason. Perhaps there's finally light at the end of 8 years.

[Aeon221]

I like Obama but don't get too carried away with the Iowa results. One stat I heard last night was that he barely beat Hillary among registered dem's, which means his margin was in attracting independents. There are a lot of primary's where the independent impact is much less than in Iowa.

That said, he should do well in Vermont with it's independents and South Carolina because of it's ethnic makeup (not my observation, but that of several pundits last night).

Those same pundits were predicting that Hillary would have an advantage in South Carolina because of its ethnic makeup and higher support amongst blacks due to Clinton era reforms not so long ago.

I'd vote to shoot the pundits, personally.

[Euri]

Obama has me excited. Should he win, I think he'll be the best thing to happen to this country in a very, very long time.

[triggercut]

That said, he should do well in Vermont with it's independents and South Carolina because of it's ethnic makeup (not my observation, but that of several pundits last night).

Vermont?

Vermont is not New Hampshire. You move back three spaces and miss a turn.

[Sarkus]

Vermont?

Vermont is not New Hampshire. You move back three spaces and miss a turn.

Sorry, my mistake. I keep getting those two mixed up.

[Hugin]

Sorry, my mistake. I keep getting those two mixed up.

Ah, you wacky Oregonians. :p

Meanwhile, in a fit of political optimism which I assume will subside back into bitterness and loathing soon enough, I made an online contribution to the Obama campaign today. He should be able to buy a fancy coffee drink and a muffin with it.

[Rogen]

Never count the Clintons out. They still have a tremendous amount of power, a huge machine, and a lot of strings they can pull. They still worry me.

I recently met a girl and we hit it off incredibly well and things were going great until I found out that she likes Hillary Clinton.

By the time she told me, she knew enough about me to say it apologetically, but still.

I want to see her again, but not until she agrees to learn about (and therefore support) Ron Paul, or at the very least Barack Obama.

[Mordrak]

He actually inspires hope in me. You know, that corny old thing?
That may be why he's doing well, but his "politics of hope" isn't much of a platform. He makes people feel good. Awwww, isn't that cute. Blech.

Maybe we should elect a hamster.

[Hugin]

I recently met a girl and we hit it off incredibly well and things were going great until I found out that she likes Hillary Clinton.

By the time she told me, she knew enough about me to say it apologetically, but still.

I want to see her again, but not until she agrees to learn about (and therefore support) Ron Paul, or at the very least Barack Obama.

You must be fantastic company at cocktail parties.

[Destarius]

By the time she told me, she knew enough about me to say it apologetically, but still.

Not enough to dump you, apparently.

[Erlend Grefsrud]

Women: If they don't agree, they'd better be made to agree.

Smooth, Rogen. Did you cockslap her too?

[JeffL]

That may be why he's doing well, but his "politics of hope" isn't much of a platform. He makes people feel good. Awwww, isn't that cute. Blech.

Maybe we should elect a hamster.

Plus universal health care, elimination of the tax breaks for companies sending work off-shore, a relatively quick disengagement from Iraq, a tax simplification program, amendments to NAFTA to correct some issues in it, extensions of the Trade Adjustment Assistance program to help those who are losing jobs, an energy plan that gives auto manufacturers incentives to make sure that the more fuel efficient cars are made in the U.S., a fairly comprehensive renewable energy plan, modification of the Universal Service Plan to provide universal broad band coverage, a program to make it more attractive to doctors to move to rural areas (where there is a crisis of a lack of easy doctor access,) pressure to enact easier Union organization (I disagree with his approach here,) indexing minimum wage to inflation rather than having to pass minimum wage increase bills whenever it is politically correct for Congress to bring it up, introduction of the HOME act to make it easier for potential borrowers to compare and see the true costs of mortgage finance offers, a fairly comprehensive approach to stop credit card companies from being predatory wolves and taking advantage of people (for example, the practice of increasing someone's rate to something like 24% for being late on a payment would only allow them to apply that rate to future purchases under the premise that you've already agreed to a rate on the current obligation, and also approaches to prevent card companies from charging such outrageous rates in the first place,) reforms in the bankruptcy laws that includes provisions such as providing relief for families that would have to file for bankruptcy due to medical bills (i.e., the family that goes bankrupt because someone gets cancer or is in a bad car crash, etc. no longer has to go broke,) expansion of the Family and Medical Leave Act, specific improvements to the Child and Dependent Care tax credits - and that is just a shortened list, just a few I picked out, of his proposed programs and platforms in the area of the Economy. He has similar detailed proposals and plans in the areas of Civil Rights, Education, Energy and Environment, Technology, Senior Citizens, Poverty, Rural America, Immigration, Iraq, Service programs, Security, and about a half dozen other areas.

So yeah, he inspires people. Along with a very detailed, comprehensive platform on a wide variety of issues. As opposed to candidates who have no capability to lead and inspire people and much less detailed and comprehensive specifics platforms.

[Karen]

That said, he should do well in Vermont with it's independents

Ha Ha Ha Ha.... Vermont? Do you perhaps mean NH?

When we lived in Vermont, another member of this list was fond of pointing out that "Our vote really doesn't count". It made 2000 all the more depressing

[Brendan]

I must say that from the outside looking in, Obama looks to be the better potential presidential candidate than Clinton does.

Another question, why is there so little news about the Republican presidential race?

[Lizard_King]

Another question, why is there so little news about the Republican presidential race?
Probably because they are running (badly) from a position of weakness. When your frontrunner's trump card is Chuck Norris, the party's in trouble. That's not to count them out altogether, but the Democratic race (as you can see from the love letters here on qt3) is, for the moment at least, a much more dynamic and interesting animal.

[Hugin]

I must say that from the outside looking in, Obama looks to be the better potential presidential candidate than Clinton does.

Another question, why is there so little news about the Republican presidential race?

Because the Republican field is weak, and because compared to a potential woman or black President, the metanarrative isn't very compelling.

[Talisker]

When your frontrunner's trump card is Chuck Norris, the party's in trouble.
If Huckabee wins, he goddamn better name Chuck Norris as Secretary of Defense.

[forgeforsaken]

Another question, why is there so little news about the Republican presidential race?

Something else is that the Republican machine doesn't seem very happy with Huckabee doing so well

[JeffL]

I must say that from the outside looking in, Obama looks to be the better potential presidential candidate than Clinton does.

Another question, why is there so little news about the Republican presidential race?

Well, conservatives would tell you that it's because most of the media are Democrats (true) and thus are trying to push the Democrats rather than provide balanced coverage (probably not true, because..)

My opinion is that the much more interesting story is the extremely well known Hillary, who was considered a shoo-in not long ago, who (despite her lies) was leading the polls for Iowa on average from about August to the end of November, who even Rush said back in September had about an 80% chance of being the next president, who was getting all of the media coverage and fawning, suddenly being beaten, and by a margin no one predicted the day before, by an African American man who displays a charisma and generates an excitement that most in this country haven't seen in a long, long time. It's just a much better story than a bunch of people on the Republican side that everyone is kind of "eh" about, including the Republicans. Huckabee is a nice story because he seems like a sincerely nice guy and he beat a super rich guy (Romney) who was a favorite and who out-spent him about 15-1 in Iowa, but the fact is that there is a large fundamental Protestant segment in Iowa who gave Huck a majority of their vote, and I don't think people expect him to do as well in the future (although Huckabee does have a "look good" when you put him next to people like Romney and Guiliani - his line that people want to vote for someone who seems like the guy you work with, and not the CEO who fired you, resonated pretty well with folks.) But no one, including and especially Republicans, is excited or enthused about anyone on the Republican side. And I think, as well as you can tell this far ahead, that it is "common wisdom" that whoever wins the Dem nomination will be the next president (although Hillary is the one candidate who is most likely to make that more questionable.)

Just an opinion

[Stormbinder]

I don't disagree. My point is that Hillary still has a good shot of winning a number of key states as long as the core of the party is behind her, that's all. Obviously, Obama does look like a much better general election candidate than she does at this point.

Interesting discussion.

Personally here is how I feel about Obama/Clinton thing: I would prefer to see Obama as our next president. Baring that I could live with Hillary as our next president, although I dislike her personality. Still she would be big improvement over the current administration for example.

But if Hillary knocks out Obama as Democratic candidate, and than go out and manages to lose general election to republican candidate (due to the fact that she clearly has less appeal to indeps than Obama), I swear that I will hate the bitch forever!

I am curious - does anybody else here feel the same way?

[Funkula]

I recently met a girl and we hit it off incredibly well and things were going great until I found out that she likes Hillary Clinton.

By the time she told me, she knew enough about me to say it apologetically, but still.

I want to see her again, but not until she agrees to learn about (and therefore support) Ron Paul, or at the very least Barack Obama.
Did you slap her when she said Fallout was just a game?

[Jason McCullough]

I'm trying to come up with a reason why calling Hillary a bitch is anything but mysogonist, but I'm not having much success.

Some more data on Obama's amazing youth numbers (http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=01&year=2008&base_name=via_the_ndn_blog_the).

Young voters made up 22 percent of the Democratic caucus goers, up from 17 percent in 2004.
80 percent of the young people who caucused yesterday caucused for the Democrats.
The youth turnout rate more than tripled in Iowa, from 4 percent in 2004 to 13 percent in 2008.
57 percent of Obama's support came from young voters.
60 percent of caucus participants were first timers, and 39 percent of them caucused for Obama.

[Tom McNamara]

Interesting discussion.

Personally here is how I feel about Obama/Clinton thing: I would prefer to see Obama as our next president. Baring that I could live with Hillary as our next president, although I dislike her personality. Still she would be big improvement over the current administration for example.

But if Hillary knocks out Obama as Democratic candidate, and than go out and manages to lose general election to republican candidate (due to the fact that she clearly has less appeal to indeps than Obama), I swear that I will hate the bitch forever!

I am curious - does anybody else here feel the same way?

Although I don't believe that Iowa should be taken as a referendum on the state of her campaign, it's hard to deny that Obama did take huge chunks of her presumed constituency, and he's a man of color who won in an overwhelmingly white state. (He's not technically "African American," since his mother is white and was born and raised in Kansas. I personally wish that his ethnic background wasn't brought up much at all in the punditry, but what can you do.)

Hilary is certainly reacting to it as though it was a referendum, and even the objective analysis was describing her recent change in tone as "stealing a page" from Obama. The thing is, Obama never really singled out the youth vote, from what I can tell. Their gravitation towards him seemed to be pretty organic.

If we get similar results in NH, then I'm inclined to think that people just don't want to see another Clinton in the White House, and perhaps the masses really are seeing the arrogant lust for power behind her mask of gentility. Maybe they do believe that she's trying to coast in on her husband's reputation. Maybe they are pissed off that she didn't oppose the war from the beginning. But I can really only speculate until then.

Yesterday in Concord, Obama stated that he would shut down Guantanamo and restore habeus corpus. Hilary said that she'd been the agent of change for 35 years, but didn't say anything to support that. She should have been able to reel off a dozen examples. Meanwhile, Obama has that Illinois law (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/03/AR2008010303303.htm) that requires police interrogations to be videotaped (for the safety of the suspect). The governor and the police were originally against it, but it ended up being passed unanimously and was the first law of its kind in the nation.

[Skipper]

Some data on Milford, NH.

http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/01/04/clinton-operation-runs-aground-against-obama-movement-in-milford/

Apparently Obama fired up more support and more crowd on what's considered very Clinton-esqe territory. What are the odds of a repeat in voting results in NH? It's looking like it might happen again.

[Linoleum]

According to Rasmussen, Obama is now up by 10 in NH (http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/new_hampshire/election_2008_new_hampshire_democratic_primary).

[jeffd]

Right now that Rasmussen poll is an outlier; other polls either have Hillary up by a couple of points or have them tied.

That being said we'll have to see how the polling looks tomorrow and Monday; it could be that the Rasmussen poll is the first indicator of a trend.

[JeffL]

If we get similar results in NH, then I'm inclined to think that people just don't want to see another Clinton in the White House, and perhaps the masses really are seeing the arrogant lust for power behind her mask of gentility. Maybe they do believe that she's trying to coast in on her husband's reputation. Maybe they are pissed off that she didn't oppose the war from the beginning. But I can really only speculate until then.



Yeah, I'm not sure I understand that 35 year reference. WRT to the Clinton fatigue (which I think is more "same old same old fatigue") here's an observation from the NYT:

"
Yet many of the challenges and questions she faced in Iowa — like Clinton fatigue and the generational showdown with Mr. Obama — remained part of her baggage as she flew east. While she is ahead in public polls here, she faces a popularity contest against Mr. Obama. There were empty seats, for instance, at a rally Mr. Clinton held with students at the University of New Hampshire (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/u/university_of_new_hampshire/index.html?inline=nyt-org) on Friday afternoon.
And her campaign, while trying to fine-tune its strategy, is also engaging in some finger-pointing. Some advisers say that the campaign miscalculated in having Mr. Clinton play such a public role, that Mrs. Clinton could not effectively position herself as a change agent, the profile du jour for Democrats, so long as he stood as a reminder that her presidency would be much like his. Other advisers say that Mr. Obama now owns the “change” mantra and that Mrs. Clinton needs a Plan B.
“Hillary says she’ll change things, but then voters see Bill and hear them talk about the 1990s, and it’s clear that the Clintons are not offering change but rather Clinton Part 2,” said one veteran adviser to both Clintons. “That won’t win.” Beating a sunny, charismatic opponent like Mr. Obama — especially given his embrace by such a cross-section of Iowa voters — is not part of the Clinton experience. When facing political crises, the couple’s modus operandi has been to attack their attackers and question their motives. But Mr. Obama is not Kenneth W. Starr (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/s/kenneth_w_starr/index.html?inline=nyt-per), Newt Gingrich (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/g/newt_gingrich/index.html?inline=nyt-per) or Paula Jones (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/j/paula_corbin_jones/index.html?inline=nyt-per); a presidential campaign is not a Washington scandal; and the Clinton strategy of attacking Mr. Obama’s readiness for the presidency did not work in Iowa."

And therein lies the rub: the Clinton method has always been, when threatened, hard and coordinated personal attacks. And that is going to be difficult - I think - if the subject is someone as likeable and charismatic as Obama.



On a tangent - I saw that Hillary currently has about 150 "superdelagates" already in her pocket, about 3 times what Obama has - these are Democrat insiders and party officials who get to place delegate votes independent of any voters' preferences. I wasn't aware of that wrinkle.

[jeffd]

I spoke too soon; apparently there are only two post-Iowa polls released so far and both have Obama up big (Rasmussen has him up by 10; American Research Group by 12).

It's kind of funny. The frontloaded Dem primary schedule was intended to ensure that Hillary had an early nomination so she could concentrate on the general election. However it seems like it might have the opposite effect - she just doesn't have time to adjust to this strong challenge.

[Matthew Gallant]

Right now that Rasmussen poll is an outlier; other polls either have Hillary up by a couple of points or have them tied.
What other polls?

[jeffd]

Matthew: Zogby tracking poll for instance. However most of those only go through Friday so they've only got a single day of pre-Iowa data. They do also show a bump for Obama following Iowa.

[Pogue Mahone]

I don't have too much to add about Obama here, but one thing he has in his favor just from my own personal point of view is this: I am greatly bothered by the fact that, should Hillary Clinton win the presidency, then that's nearly 25 years (not even counting possible reelection) and at least 6 terms that have been held by two families -- might be more appropriately called dynasties at this point. And, even though they were fairly elected (yes, I am avoiding that Supreme Court business for W's first term) this seems somehow undemocratic to me. That's a gut feeling, not really much more, but it's almost enough in itself to get me to go Obama -- and this is from a guy who voted for Bill Clinton twice.

[Andrew Mayer]

I've been pretty unsure on Obama, but it's actually this post on the Political Animal blog that makes me think I will: (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_01/012841.php)

CAJOLERY....Washington Monthly founder Charlie Peters, responding to people (like me) who are afraid that Barack Obama's "let's all work together" MO won't be sufficient to actually bring about the change he so often talks about, says we should look at Obama's record in the Illinois legislature:

Consider a bill into which Obama clearly put his heart and soul. The problem he wanted to address was that too many confessions, rather than being voluntary, were coerced — by beating the daylights out of the accused....The bill itself aroused immediate opposition. There were Republicans who were automatically tough on crime and Democrats who feared being thought soft on crime. There were death penalty abolitionists, some of whom worried that Obama's bill, by preventing the execution of innocents, would deprive them of their best argument. Vigorous opposition came from the police, too many of whom had become accustomed to using muscle to "solve" crimes. And the incoming governor, Rod Blagojevich, announced that he was against it.

....He responded with an all-out campaign of cajolery....The police proved to be Obama's toughest opponent, [but] by showing officers that he shared many of their concerns, even going so far as to help pass other legislation they wanted, he was able to quiet the fears of many.

Obama proved persuasive enough that the bill passed both houses of the legislature, the Senate by an incredible 35 to 0. Then he talked Blagojevich into signing the bill, making Illinois the first state to require such videotaping.

This is a fair point. And yet....can I say that I'm still a little skeptical? First, any bill that eventually passes 35-0 can't possibly have had that much in the way of stone-cold opposition. Obviously Obama did a good job of working with both Republicans and law enforcement interests in Illinois, but at the national level congressional Republicans have shown themselves remarkably immune to Obama-ish cajolery when it comes their key issues. I continue to have my doubts that a charm campaign will get the job done against the likes of Mitch McConnell and John Boehner. They know all too well who signs their paychecks.

Yeah, yeah. So that's what we all think.

Here's the kicker that has me feeling just a little bit like the Grinch might have felt on that particular Christmas morning:

But lest I protest too much, Charlie does make a good point. Springfield isn't Washington DC, but it's not the Peoria city council either, and although Obama may not have been a game changer in Illinois, he was an effective legislator who got some important things done. Win big in November and maybe he'll be able to cajole half a dozen of those famous moderate Republicans in the Senate to actually do something moderate.

UPDATE: Via email, Archpundit expands on something he said in the comment thread:

It was fought tooth and nail Kevin. The cops and prosecutors were adamantly against it for some time including the Democratic Cook County Prosecutor.

I swore reform was dead after the commutations, Obama pulled it off. It was an incredible sight.

The end result was truly amazing. The police groups hated the idea and they hated racial profiling legislation — he passed both without angering them, but by working with them, listening, and showing good faith. I never thought it would pass with Democratic State's Attorneys opposing it, strongly even — but he pulled everyone along and did it pretty quickly.

I know sometimes the claims sound too good to be true, but he is truly an amazingly talented politician with the right values. I like the other candidates, but every time I've seen him underestimated, he pulls out a victory whether it be electoral or policy.

We're all sick of the BS, and no one I know is more cynical about the value of "centrism" and "bi-partisanship" than I am. I think it's a self-serving and ultimately meaningless philosophy that gives people like Joe Lieberman a way to criticize everybody.

But if Obama can really mean it, and really do it. That would be something.

[JeffL]

I don't have too much to add about Obama here, but one thing he has in his favor just from my own personal point of view is this: I am greatly bothered by the fact that, should Hillary Clinton win the presidency, then that's nearly 25 years (not even counting possible reelection) and at least 6 terms that have been held by two families -- might be more appropriately called dynasties at this point. And, even though they were fairly elected (yes, I am avoiding that Supreme Court business for W's first term) this seems somehow undemocratic to me. That's a gut feeling, not really much more, but it's almost enough in itself to get me to go Obama -- and this is from a guy who voted for Bill Clinton twice.

If nothing else, I think someone from outside the Clinton/Bush "dynasties" would most likely introduce a fresh set of faces and ideas into the cabinet and advisor panels.

[Anaxagoras]

I'm trying to come up with a reason why calling Hillary a bitch is anything but mysogonist, but I'm not having much success.

"Bitch" is the only word I have at my disposal. If she were a guy, I'd call her an asshole, but the female version of that is "bitch". It's a shame that "bitch" contains the mysogonistic streak, and even I flinch a little when I use it to describe Hillary, but the fact remains: Hillary is a bitch. A mean-spirited, vindictive, small-minded bitch.

[JeffL]

I've been pretty unsure on Obama, but it's actually this post on the Political Animal blog that makes me think I will: (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_01/012841.php)



Yeah, yeah. So that's what we all think.

Here's the kicker that has me feeling just a little bit like the Grinch might have felt on that particular Christmas morning:



We're all sick of the BS, and no one I know is more cynical about the value of "centrism" and "bi-partisanship" than I am. I think it's a self-serving and ultimately meaningless philosophy that gives people like Joe Lieberman a way to criticize everybody.

But if Obama can really mean it, and really do it. That would be something.

I was living in Illinois, in the Chicago area, and let me tell you, Obama's plan was STRONGLY opposed. People came on TV and radio talk shows to talk about what a wimp Obama was for that bill, people on both sides and special interest groups opposed it, and Obama was made fun of for trying to do this.

Here's what impressed me at the time: Obama was on a Chicago news talk radio station, and the host asked him: why are you still pushing for this when no one is going to let it go through? You made your point, and you must be happy that you at least got people thinking about it, what will you go after next? The assumption: Obama was never going to persuade the Republicans nor Democrats worried about polls, and the police (who have been known in the Chicago area in particular to be pretty corrupt) are making it clear they will never let it go through. Most people thought he would just let it drop, because it was coming across as a MAJOR political negative, and Governor Rod even hinted that it would hurt him in any future national political runs.

And Obama's answer to the host: Sometimes something is just the right thing to do, and the problem is something you can't just drop because it is the easy or even most beneficial political thing to do. He said I'm just going to keep working on it, group by group, person by person, listening to their concerns, truly listening because they may have some legitimate concerns, and figure out how to convince them to do the right thing, even if it takes years. Obama told the host: I will not stop, because I am convinced that great wrongs are being done and people are being victimized.

At that moment I realized - maybe, just maybe this guy is a little different. BTW - the talk show host and his partner laughed a bit when Obama left the studio and commented on how naive he was, as good a man as he seemed to be.

[Hugin]

"Bitch" is the only word I have at my disposal. If she were a guy, I'd call her an asshole, but the female version of that is "bitch". It's a shame that "bitch" contains the mysogonistic streak, and even I flinch a little when I use it to describe Hillary, but the fact remains: Hillary is a bitch. A mean-spirited, vindictive, small-minded bitch.

I'm pretty sure both sexes can be assholes. Calling someone a prick or a dickhead has gender connotations, asshole, which everyone has? Not so much.

[triggercut]

Right now that Rasmussen poll is an outlier; other polls either have Hillary up by a couple of points or have them tied.

That being said we'll have to see how the polling looks tomorrow and Monday; it could be that the Rasmussen poll is the first indicator of a trend.

The Zogby and CNN and Suffolk polls are all 3-day tracking polls. Their Saturday poll numbers have data from Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday, thus one day of post-Iowa surge. Tomorrow's tracking poll will be Thursday, Friday, and Saturday, and should show O-mentum.

[Jason McCullough]

"Bitch" is the only word I have at my disposal. If she were a guy, I'd call her an asshole, but the female version of that is "bitch". It's a shame that "bitch" contains the mysogonistic streak, and even I flinch a little when I use it to describe Hillary, but the fact remains: Hillary is a bitch. A mean-spirited, vindictive, small-minded bitch.

I don't get it. She's not my prefered political candidate, but I think she's no more mean-spirited, vindicitive, or small-minded than the average politician. What are you basing this on? I think she's the female equivalent of Walter Mondale or something - colorless party hack.

However, thanks to mysogony and the GOP pretty little hate machine, she's developed a personality cult that hates her guts for being female and a liberal, and an offsetting one that loves her for being female and a liberal. The hate one is a lot bigger.

[triggercut]

That may be why he's doing well, but his "politics of hope" isn't much of a platform. He makes people feel good. Awwww, isn't that cute. Blech.

Maybe we should elect a hamster.

Like Teddy Rex, this view shows either:

1. Breathtaking ignorance of American History,
2. Stupidity
3. Jealousy/envy that the candidate you support can't muster it.

For a lot of us, the Obama appeal is indeed leadership. We're voting for the man, and perhaps not so much his sketchy policy.

So what?

It's a great fallacy of US Presidential Politics that we vote for policy over personality. It hasn't been that way, even from the start. What kickstarted George Washington's political career? He showed up to the Continental Congress dressed in a totally kick-ass uniform he'd had made. Dude started his career by basically meeting the same criteria Greg Brady met to become Johnny Bravo: he fit the suit.

There have been plenty of times we've elected a person rather than policy. Anyone know what Dewey Eisenhower stood for before he was drafted into the Republican nomination in '52? Before him, the first Republican president, Abe Lincoln, basically got the nod from his party not so much for any of his policies, but because he was born in Kentucky and they hoped that if the Union came apart on the election of a Republican, he'd at least keep Kentucky from going South. Hell, Ronald Reagan was just the TV salesperson for conservative economic and military policy; as Bob Goldthwaite used to point out, giving him credit was like giving Ronald McDonald credit for a good cheeseburger.

So yeah, those of us smitten with Obama are taken with him not because of his specific policies, but because he seems to genuinely be a guy with a first-rate mind who is willing to listen to folks he agrees with and those he doesn't. Shelby Foote had a great bit on camera in Ken Burns' Civil War documentary. Foote pointed out that Americans like to think they don't compromise, but in reality our country is built on give and take and disparate views coming together. I think we've lost something of that in the last 20 years. I think Barack Obama is the best candidate in the current bunch for those of us who'd like to see it happen some more.

[Mister Widget]

Well put, triggercut.

[bago]

If you listen to his rhetoric you realize it is wicked smart. Instead of immediately assuming a tribal us vs them position, he engages and relates to the opposition in their terms. Still pushing the same policy, but using the appropriate frame for his audience. He has been criticized on the left a lot for using right wing talking points, but often the critics fail to see that they are being used to justify a policy that would normally be anathema to the people he is requesting support from. By couching it in their frames he enlists support without engaging the tribalistic response which is almost impossible to overcome when activated. The rhetoric is amazingly smart. He panders without sounding like he is pandering. Some people complain that there is not enough policy detail in these speeches, and that it's just "blah blah hope". They fail to see that policy details, such as percentages and caps and trade values are worthless on a public stage, but better dealt with in a room full of wonks. The important bit to get out public allies is that your concerns will be considered.

Engage, negotiate, and sell. Not sell, negotiate, and engage.

[Anaxagoras]

I'm pretty sure both sexes can be assholes. Calling someone a prick or a dickhead has gender connotations, asshole, which everyone has? Not so much.
It may be the particular English dialect I learned, it could just be a personal thing. I know for me, calling a female an "asshole" feels like I'm misusing the language. Even though, yes, both genders have 'em. *shrug* Dunno. I do think that Jason's right when he says a lot of the attacks against Hillary are gender-based... and the way many people call her a bitch indicates to me that her gender is front & center in their mind.

I don't get it. She's not my prefered political candidate, but I think she's no more mean-spirited, vindicitive, or small-minded than the average politician. What are you basing this on? I think she's the female equivalent of Walter Mondale or something - colorless party hack.
The turning point for me was that pathetic kindergarten smear. I mean, that wasn't just an attack that misfired. That was mind-bogglingly small & mean. And keep in mind that I'm not terribly pro-Obama. I strongly prefer Edward over Obama.

And then after that Hillary had her disgusting "Oh, this is gonna be fun." comment about getting into it with Obama. She seems to get more joy in crushing her enemies than actually creating policy or being a leader. Most of her campaign has been very professional & bloodless... but when she talked about fighting Obama, the tone in her voice made it clear that that's what really gets her blood flowing.

Finally, there was this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nKHBSFSosY&eurl=http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/12/obama_to_hillary_im_looking_forward_to_you_advisin g_me.php) comment during one of the Democratic debates. (24 seconds into that clip.) That snarky, catty, disgusting quip from Hillary sealed the deal for me. She's not fit to lead a Boy scout troop, let alone a nation. Incidentally, it was Obama's response to Hillary that made me consider voting for him for the first time. I still prefer Edwards, but being able to think on his feet like that & not let that bitch (or asshole, if you prefer) get under his skin convinced me that he might be able to fight off the right wing asshole that still inhabit parts of this country.

[Anaxagoras]

Well put, triggercut.

I know "me too" posts rarely add much to a thread, but... me too. Nicely put, triggercut.

By focusing on the person, rather than the policies he/she advocates, you're acknowledging that the way you try to accomplish things often inherently shapes what actually gets accomplished. If you have an administration that is open, invites ideas, and attempts to really grapple with the issues set before it, then I'll support it even if it makes multiple mistakes. However, the Bush administration's covert and highly tribal way of doing business makes me extremely unforgiving.

[Jason McCullough]

The turning point for me was that pathetic kindergarten smear. I mean, that wasn't just an attack that misfired. That was mind-bogglingly small & mean. And keep in mind that I'm not terribly pro-Obama. I strongly prefer Edward over Obama.

Source (http://facts.hillaryhub.com/archive/?id=4468). How is it a smear? He did in fact write it in kindergarten. It's hilarious they went, uh, a little too far and included it and a third grade essay when refuting Obama's patently absurd claims about how long he's been planning on running, but it's been way overblown.

Here's (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/02/an-attack-from-the-candidates-mouth/) the "this is gonna be fun" statement:


Asked if Mr. Obama had a character problem, Mrs. Clinton first said it was up for voters to determine, but then added:


“It’s beginning to look a lot like that – it really is, where we can’t get a straight answer on health care, where somebody runs on ethics and not taking money from certain people is found to have at least skirted if not violated F.E.C. rules and to use lobbyists and Pac money to do so. You’re going to have ask the Obama campaign, but I have said for months that I would much rather be attacking Republicans and attacking problems of our country because ultimately that’s what I want to do as president.


“But I have been for months on the receiving end of rather consistent attacks – well now the fun part starts,” Mrs. Clinton said, punctuating the word “fun.” “We’re into the last month, and we’re going to start drawing the contrasts, because I want every Iowans to have accurate information when they make their decisions.”

I read "punctuating" as "pausing for emphasis," not glee. To me that all reads as they "they've been beating up on me for months, so lets see how it goes when I start punching back."

I don't understand what's snarky, catty, or disgusting about the clip in the video at all. What's she supposed to do when a moderator asks that question?

[Theodore Rex DX]

Like Teddy Rex, this view shows either:

1. Breathtaking ignorance of American History,
2. Stupidity
3. Jealousy/envy that the candidate you support can't muster it.

For a lot of us, the Obama appeal is indeed leadership. We're voting for the man, and perhaps not so much his sketchy policy.

So what?

It's a great fallacy of US Presidential Politics that we vote for policy over personality. It hasn't been that way, even from the start. What kickstarted George Washington's political career? He showed up to the Continental Congress dressed in a totally kick-ass uniform he'd had made. Dude started his career by basically meeting the same criteria Greg Brady met to become Johnny Bravo: he fit the suit.

There have been plenty of times we've elected a person rather than policy. Anyone know what Dewey Eisenhower stood for before he was drafted into the Republican nomination in '52? Before him, the first Republican president, Abe Lincoln, basically got the nod from his party not so much for any of his policies, but because he was born in Kentucky and they hoped that if the Union came apart on the election of a Republican, he'd at least keep Kentucky from going South. Hell, Ronald Reagan was just the TV salesperson for conservative economic and military policy; as Bob Goldthwaite used to point out, giving him credit was like giving Ronald McDonald credit for a good cheeseburger.

So yeah, those of us smitten with Obama are taken with him not because of his specific policies, but because he seems to genuinely be a guy with a first-rate mind who is willing to listen to folks he agrees with and those he doesn't. Shelby Foote had a great bit on camera in Ken Burns' Civil War documentary. Foote pointed out that Americans like to think they don't compromise, but in reality our country is built on give and take and disparate views coming together. I think we've lost something of that in the last 20 years. I think Barack Obama is the best candidate in the current bunch for those of us who'd like to see it happen some more.

A good, smart, thoughtful, charismatic man who can mediate and negotiate would be a great president. If you're going to invoke my name and take shitty, mean-spirited, idiotic pot-shots at me, do it at me and not some retarded straw-man. It's funny, all the way through that little snipefest in the other thread, what I had in mind and what I talked about was closer to what you're talking about here. A good president for me would be somewhere between a Speaker and mediator - he doesn't have a 'vision' or a Master Plan. That's the image that the word 'leader' invokes! Words I used like 'manage' and 'preside' are the opposite. So what the fuck? Basically, this is just a misunderstanding, but it's really not my fault so I'd really appeciate people not acting like shitheads, thanks. Finally, it really is good to see that people actually on the same page as me, which eases a lot of the concerns I had. I could do without a lot of the flowery rhetoric about 'inspiration', and the historical fallacy, but whatever.

[Rogen]

Women: If they don't agree, they'd better be made to agree.

Smooth, Rogen. Did you cockslap her too?

She is very free to not agree with me. And I'm free to not respect her opinion.

Anyway, it's not like I derided her for it. I just said "oh yeah" and changed the subject.

Unfortunately the next subject was sports. She is apparently a huge fan of football and basketball and all that, and I am so apathetic about the whole phenomenon of spectator sports that I can't even pretend to be interested.

Oh well. I still like her though. I just can't see myself dating a girl who likes Hillary Clinton, unless she has a damn good reason. And I don't think she does. I think she just likes that Hillary is for the most part a woman, and some talking heads on TV say nice things about her.

Not everyone spends hours a day reading news and following the political theater, and I don't hold that against her. But finding out that someone you like supports her is still a bit of a facepalm moment. Incidentally, during the same trip to the USA (visiting parents for Christmas), I heard a lot of people supporting Huckabee, which is actually even worse in my opinion. So there's that.

[Rogen]

On topic, as much as I love Obama, he supported the PATRIOT act and hasn't (as far as I can see) apologized for it, even now. And why is Kucinich not getting more love? The man's policies and record are nearly perfect, and he must have charisma: he landed a wife about 5 ladder rungs higher than himself, and he's not even corrupt.

[Anaxagoras]

Source (http://facts.hillaryhub.com/archive/?id=4468). How is it a smear? He did in fact write it in kindergarten. It's hilarious they went, uh, a little too far and included it and a third grade essay when refuting Obama's patently absurd claims about how long he's been planning on running, but it's been way overblown.
Smears aren't necessarily lies. In fact, the best smears have a kernel of truth that gets warped for your own ends. Bringing up an essay that somebody wrote in grade school is incredibly tasteless on its own. I mean... interviewing grade school teachers (or however they got that essay) doesn't strike you as incredibly twisted?

And leaving aside how they got that essay for a moment, to hold up that essay as proof of anything whatsoever is just demented. It demonstrates a mind that is so obsessed with power that they've forgotten that people also, you know, had childhoods. Childhoods in which they picked their noses, talked about cooties, and wrote essays about what they want to be when they grow up.


Here's (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/02/an-attack-from-the-candidates-mouth/) the "this is gonna be fun" statement:
I read "punctuating" as "pausing for emphasis," not glee. To me that all reads as they "they've been beating up on me for months, so lets see how it goes when I start punching back."
It's all in the word choice. You don't use the word "fun" when you need to do a disagreeable but necessary task. You use it when it's something you look forward to.


I don't understand what's snarky, catty, or disgusting about the clip in the video at all. What's she supposed to do when a moderator asks that question?
Are you serious? The question wasn't directed at her at all. She's supposed to keep her mouth shut & let the candidate to whom it's directed answer. It's obvious that she thinks Obama is some upstart who's just playacting at being a contender, and now, finally, someone's going to nail him.

Oops. Didn't work out quite like she thought it would.

[triggercut]

On topic, as much as I love Obama, he supported the PATRIOT act and hasn't (as far as I can see) apologized for it, even now. And why is Kucinich not getting more love? The man's policies and record are nearly perfect, and he must have charisma: he landed a wife about 5 ladder rungs higher than himself, and he's not even corrupt.

The "insane socialist" thing seems to be hamstringing him.

[Anti-Bunny]

On topic, as much as I love Obama, he supported the PATRIOT act and hasn't (as far as I can see) apologized for it, even now.
Not only that, but reauthorized it.
Giving law enforcement the tools they need to investigate suspicious activity is the right thing, and the Senate showed earlier this year that it can be done with the oversight of our judicial system so we do not jeopardize the rights of all Americans and the ideals America stands for
Cheney!?!?

[Jason McCullough]

Are you serious? The question wasn't directed at her at all. She's supposed to keep her mouth shut & let the candidate to whom it's directed answer. It's obvious that she thinks Obama is some upstart who's just playacting at being a contender, and now, finally, someone's going to nail him.
Alternatively, it's pretty damn funny to hear someone ask that.

I think you and I disagree because you've already flipped the bozo bit on her, so all those events events reflect badly her and reinforce your opinion of her. I haven't, so they're just minor oddities.

[Stormbinder]

I'm trying to come up with a reason why calling Hillary a bitch is anything but mysogonist, but I'm not having much success.



Well, in my book she will only become a bitch if she will screw general election and make Guliani or McCain or Romney our next president. If she will win I will be totally fine to have first female USA president. In fact it would be nice, since it would demonstrate that USA general population is not as close-minded as some people think.

Therefore I think my statement was not misogynist but simply political. (while being politically incorrect of course :) )

[Rogen]

The "insane socialist" thing seems to be hamstringing him.

Again with the "insane". Learn some new adjectives to describe people you don't agree with, people.

If consistently promoting coherent philosophies with intelligent discussion and reasoned argument is "insane", then what the hell do you consider sane?

TV commercials?

[triggercut]

Relating tales of your UFO experience to Shirley Maclaine is evidence of his emotional soundness.

He's the greatest ever.

[Mordrak]

Like Teddy Rex, this view shows either:

1. Breathtaking ignorance of American History,
2. Stupidity
3. Jealousy/envy that the candidate you support can't muster it.

No, it proves I hate motivational speakers.


For a lot of us, the Obama appeal is indeed leadership. We're voting for the man, and perhaps not so much his sketchy policy.

So what?

The so what, is there is only one time that Obama has distinguished himself from his competition during the debates. Well, one time before I stopped watching them (which was the third I think). Whenever I hear talk about hope, I want to gag. It's as vacuous as Bush pimping freedom. Cue Mel Gibson.


It's a great fallacy of US Presidential Politics that we vote for policy over personality. It hasn't been that way, even from the start. What kickstarted George Washington's political career? He showed up to the Continental Congress dressed in a totally kick-ass uniform he'd had made. Dude started his career by basically meeting the same criteria Greg Brady met to become Johnny Bravo: he fit the suit.

I never said we didn't.


There have been plenty of times we've elected a person rather than policy. Anyone know what Dewey Eisenhower stood for before he was drafted into the Republican nomination in '52? Before him, the first Republican president, Abe Lincoln, basically got the nod from his party not so much for any of his policies, but because he was born in Kentucky and they hoped that if the Union came apart on the election of a Republican, he'd at least keep Kentucky from going South. Hell, Ronald Reagan was just the TV salesperson for conservative economic and military policy; as Bob Goldthwaite used to point out, giving him credit was like giving Ronald McDonald credit for a good cheeseburger.

The fact Bush got elected in the first place says people vote for personality more than they vote for policy. You forgot JFK though. Ohh, and don't forget good ol' slick Willy. Or how about Teddy, the other cowboy president? Sheesh.


So yeah, those of us smitten with Obama are taken with him not because of his specific policies, but because he seems to genuinely be a guy with a first-rate mind who is willing to listen to folks he agrees with and those he doesn't. Shelby Foote had a great bit on camera in Ken Burns' Civil War documentary. Foote pointed out that Americans like to think they don't compromise, but in reality our country is built on give and take and disparate views coming together. I think we've lost something of that in the last 20 years. I think Barack Obama is the best candidate in the current bunch for those of us who'd like to see it happen some more.
Yup, and Bush is a guy I could sit down and have a beer with. Ok, now I want to go vomit in a bag after saying that.