What Obama's Victory Stands For

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 09:08:14 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

According to E.J. Dionne:

Change, particularly generational change, was also at the heart of Barack Obama's victory over Hillary Rodham Clinton and John Edwards. . . . Obama's theme of ending partisan divisions by reaching out to independents and Republicans may be an enduring legacy of the evening . . .

According to David Brooks:

[Obama] talks about erasing old categories like red and blue (and implicitly, black and white) and replacing them with new categories, of which the most important are new and old. He seems at first more preoccupied with changing thinking than changing legislation. . . Obama is changing the tone of American liberalism, and maybe American politics, too.

It was not a victory for progressive policy seems the conclusion but for unity and tone. It is ironic to me that John Edwards and Joe Trippi claim to be on the winning side last night. If Brooks and Dionne are correct, the big SUBSTANTIVE loser last night was John Edwards. Brooks writes: [More...]

He’s made John Edwards, with his angry cries that “corporate greed is killing your children’s future,” seem old-fashioned. Edwards’s political career is probably over.

Edwards' message of being a Fighting Dem for progressive values was defeated. Hillary's public image, created by a horrible Media, was defeated last night. I lament both defeats.

Obama's victory was one of style and tone over substance. Can he make it a substantive victory come next November? That is his challenge.

< On To New Hampshire | New Hampshire Debates Saturday Night >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

What Obama's Victory Stands For | 63 comments (63 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Sadly (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by Same As It Ever Was on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 09:46:14 AM EST

I think Obama is actually the candidate least about "change." When has extreme partisanship characterized the posture of the Democratic Party in recent years? His is a politics of personality.

Can it win? Absolutely. I don't think substance is necessarily required in the general election. In fact, it may be a hindrance. If substance were a prerequisite, George Bush would not be President right now.

Is it good for the country in the short term? Perhaps, if he is a successful President.

But for the long term it would be a disaster as the terms of the national debate will remain firmly entrenched far to the right of where it should be.

How would he achieve a successful Presidency (4.00 / 4) (#4)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 09:48:44 AM EST

if he has no mandate for a specific agenda?


Seriously (none / 0) (#20)
by Jgarza on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 10:54:54 AM EST

he hasn't even won the nomination and you have decided he will be a terrible president. you are ridiculous. I dont uderstand how someone can't have style and substance. He is running on universal health care, ending the war in Iraq, all the important stuff. how will he not have a mandate for that.

Jeralyn even stated that his policy is the same as all the other dems.. so he does it with style, or platitudes and the cynics call it.

Why is that bad?


Mandate (none / 0) (#23)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 11:12:22 AM EST

Are you familiar with the term.


Talex is not even familiar with the phrase (5.00 / 1) (#60)
by Molly Bloom on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 06:06:36 PM EST

gracious in victory much less mandate.


: Hmmmm. Intentional (none / 0) (#61)
by oculus on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 06:09:48 PM EST

misuse of the English language as disguise?

BTD, if Obama plans to depend (none / 0) (#38)
by MarkL on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 12:14:27 PM EST

on moderate Republicans, then he will have to give them something. What will it be? Abortion rights? Gay marriage? If I were a Republican giving Obama advice, I'd say that making a compromise on abortion that will peel away the moderate Republicans would be the single best way of winning their good will.
Do you agree?


In that event, I would only not vote (none / 0) (#39)
by oculus on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 12:15:58 PM EST

for him in the general election, I would work very hard to defeat him.


I'm speculating on what he (none / 0) (#43)
by MarkL on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 12:27:38 PM EST

could do as President, not how he'll campaign.
I think my logic is correct---Obama will have to offer moderates something. What will it be? Social Security privatization is probably the most likely option, especially since his advisers favor it.
He should be pinned down on these questions NOW.


: Agree on the pinning down now. (none / 0) (#45)
by oculus on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 12:29:00 PM EST

All power to BTD trying to do so.

Abortion (none / 0) (#40)
by BDB on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 12:22:03 PM EST

If Obama caves on abortion, I stay home. I'm sick of male politicians using my rights to win moderates. Plus, if he's willing to do that, then as far as I'm concerned he'd give anything else away, too.

I know I said I'm a partisan and support even Dems I don't like, but that supposes that I get something out of it. For Dem presidents, it's judges. Even if they get nothing else done, I at least get better fricking judges. But not if they cave on abortion.

If Obama caves on abortion, he's dead to me.


: He'd lose California in a heartbeat. (none / 0) (#41)
by oculus on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 12:23:39 PM EST

If you look at actual numbers (none / 0) (#42)
by Jgarza on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 12:25:57 PM EST

His base is self described as VERY LIBERAL. Seriosly BTD your analysis of Obama supporters from a poll not meant to predict ideology is wrong and misleading and you should correct the record.


: Heh (5.00 / 1) (#46)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 12:35:06 PM EST

Wrong and misleading?
So he did not garner Independent and GOP support?
He did not split Dems with Clinton?
I am telling you right now, if you persist in attacking me I will proceed to start attacking you.
I suggest you go cool off in an Obama diary at daily kos for a while.

Obama (none / 0) (#24)
by tnthorpe on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 11:13:27 AM EST

has voted present or missed votes when he could have led many times. I'm not convinced of his convictions, which is a problem since he wants to make his campaign about the content of his character. Right now his candidacy seems blandly utopian to me.


He missed (none / 0) (#25)
by Jgarza on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 11:27:14 AM EST

Kyle Lieberman and has admitted it was a mistake. The present votes were part of a strategy by people like planned parenthood. I tend to think it is a good idea to take PP advice on votes for choice.

Compare the missed vote on Kyle Liberman, to JE not even showing for a second term in the senate, no one missed more votes then him, and when he did vote, on say Iraq, he was pure DLC. Looking at Iowa data his support was the most conservative. Looks like Iowa saw past JE style to the substance.
Compare missing K/L to showing up and enthusiastically supporting it as in the case of Clinton.

Obama issued a statement against it, but to you crazy Obama is conservative crowd it will never be enough.


Is there any "there" there in Obama. (none / 0) (#27)
by kindness on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 11:37:52 AM EST

Obama's whole message is about unity and coming together as a nation.

Let's look at the problem of partisanship. Has it been the Democratic party that's been driving this?

After 8 years of Repubs hanging Clinton every chance they got, 6 years of (bush43) repubs publicly proclaiming progressives to be traitors because they didn't support a gestapo state & unlimited empire building....I'd say it isn't the Democrats nor the Democratic Party that's gotten us into the mess we're in now.

If Obama thinks the Republicans are going to roll over and allow his MLK platitudes dominate the election, Obama is more naive than I had thought. Repubs are going to pound him like grains of wheat through a mill. Then they will proclaim that only a Republican can save the nation.

Get used to it. It's not that I don't think unity is bad, it's just that I think it isn't Democrats who have created this mess and problem & the repubs won't let Obama's current message be the one that leads a national campaign. As soon as they have their candidate chosen, they will all kill a well meaning Obama.

Hillary isn't my preferred choice, but at least she know it's going to be a street fight and is willing to take it to the other side. I'm not convinced Obama see's that one coming.


Street (none / 0) (#33)
by Jgarza on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 11:57:36 AM EST

fighter Hillary Clinton didn't roll over and let him make MLK platitudes and he still beat her. So if we are making this argument, his strategy was more successful.


If You Think Clinton (5.00 / 2) (#36)
by BDB on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 12:09:14 PM EST

threw even 1% of the punches the GOP will throw at him, you're living a dream. The Clintons have gone easy on him. There hasn't been a single negative television ad. There hasn't been months and months of Tony Rezko(sp?) or some other alleged scandal. The most they said is that he lacks experience and voted present in Illinois. The Republicans will do that just clearing their throats.

Nothing that has come or will come out of this primary season will be anywhere near as bad as what the GOP will throw at him. If you think the Muslim email campaign is bad? Guiliani's guy is already testing the follow up - "Obama says he's a Christian," e.g. he's really just a Muslim infiltrator posing as a Christian. Racist offensive crap, but it's only the beginning.

All you have to do is look at what they did to John Kerry (unless you really believe his Vietnam service was a betrayal of this country), Al Gore (unless you really believe Gore is a serial liar), and the Clintons (unless you really believe they killed Vince Foster), to see the GOP strategy and in those campaigns they had stronger candidates. This year they have no chance at winning except to try to destroy Obama and depress turnout. Obama may continue to get an easy ride from the MSM (fingers crossed), but the GOP is going to show you what a negative campaign is really about.


well then (none / 0) (#44)
by Jgarza on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 12:28:26 PM EST

if they are going easy on him, i guess they aren't that great of street fighters after all.

Seriously i know Clinton's are going back to the electability argument. That just seems like a laughable strategy for someone who just lost an election.


: Clintons Will Never Be as Hard on a Democrat (none / 0) (#58)
by BDB on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 01:22:01 PM EST

You honestly don't seem to understand partisanship. The Clintons will never pull out all of the stops against Obama because he is a democrat. They will go more negative on him now, but they will never go to Defcon-One because if he's the nominee, they're going to support him. They will hit him, but they will never do what the GOP is going to do.
I know Obama supporters hate the Clintons and think Hillary is teh evil and everything, but honestly, I don't understand why it's so hard for you to see that there is a difference - a huge difference - between Republicans and Democrats.

If your argument (none / 0) (#30)
by tnthorpe on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 11:43:14 AM EST

is that none of the Dems are as progressive as they ought to be, I think you're right.

I'm not interested in making the perfect the enemy of the good here though, since any Dem is preferable to any of the Repubs.

Still, which is the real Obama, the man who voted against the 2005 bankruptcy bill or the man who also voted against capping interest rates at 30% or the candidate who accepts big money from the finance industry?

I'm not saying he's conservative, but he hasn't got a strong record of progressive leadership and seems, as most pols are, simply opportunistic.


That depends upon the composition of Congress. . . (none / 0) (#54)
by Same As It Ever Was on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 01:15:45 PM EST

I suspect he will have long coattails if elected. Though I have no evidence of it. But there's no need for a specific mandate if he wins convincingly. He can claim whatever mandate he likes.


: As W did re 2004 election. (5.00 / 1) (#56)
by oculus on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 01:19:40 PM EST

Keep saying it and people eventually come around.

Definitely Not A Victory For Progressive Policies (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by MO Blue on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 09:48:40 AM EST

Obama has been promoting right wing talking points for the last couple of months. IMO this sends a clear message to the DC pols that they can safely discount what Progressives have been advocating and still win. Not the way I would like to see the politics in this country moving.

Well (4.50 / 2) (#5)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 09:49:25 AM EST

Keep fighting.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.


A preview of your message to come? (none / 0) (#10)
by andgarden on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 09:57:18 AM EST

Yep (none / 0) (#13)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 10:05:55 AM EST

In a way, Obama's win has energized me.

We need to find a way to give him his props while holding him to account.

Maybe ther blogs can regain their footing now that the primary wars are all but over.


It will be difficult. (3.33 / 3) (#14)
by andgarden on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 10:08:54 AM EST

He has a pack of McCarthyite defenders at Daily Kos and elsewhere.


: Well (none / 0) (#18)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 10:19:27 AM EST

Then it won't find its way.

Yes (none / 0) (#26)
by Jgarza on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 11:29:50 AM EST

without you who is going to stop him from saying crisis and admitting that democrats lost in 2000 and 2004. Whatever will he do without you.


Is there something wrong with you? (none / 0) (#31)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 11:55:26 AM EST

One would think you would be happy today.

You are very strange.


: I'm extreamly (none / 0) (#49)
by Jgarza on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 12:42:47 PM EST

Happy that the best candidate is for the time being winning.
What I'm dismayed and disappointed in is the neuvo punditry that is the blogosphere, and in this case you in particular.
Lets look at the facts:
Barack Obamas support was more liberal and better educated, then Edwards(whose was conservative)and Clinton.
What that tells me is "we's" concerns are were ridiculous attempt by blog punidts to redefine liberal as being anything other than Obama.
Guess what you called Obama conservative for saying crisis, for not including mandates, for defending himself against criticism.
I said all along that this was an attempt to redefine liberal as not being Obama. The numbers lend a lot of support to me. Liberals don't feel the way you do.
What is yoru reponse to evidence of you being wrong. Rather than admitting you were wrong, you choose to write an obituary for progressives. it's sad, republcains dont know what to make of Obama, but you just gave them, an argument to claim it as a victory for themselves.
The facts show that it is a victory liberals, trying to spin it as something else is damaging to liberals.

no, he can't. (none / 0) (#1)
by cpinva on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 09:24:40 AM EST

should he actually win the democratic nomination, the republicans will once again occupy the oval office come jan. 2009.

the nasty reality, that no one wants to talk about, because it is so nasty, is that the nation will not, at this point, elect a black man to the white house. especially not one with his nearly complete lack of legislative experience.

the republican noise machine will have a field day with sen. obama.

WDFO? (none / 0) (#16)
by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 10:17:52 AM EST

not one with his nearly complete lack of legislative experience.

What are you talking about? He has more time in elected legislative office than either Hillary or Edwards.


not in congress (none / 0) (#59)
by cpinva on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 02:03:02 PM EST

he doesn't. that's where national and international policy is made. not in some podunk state legislature.

not to mention all the years sen. clinton spent being the final advisor to her husband, and her experience in the watergate investigations, when sen. obama was still in knee pants.


Illinois podunk? (none / 0) (#62)
by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 08:34:14 PM EST

Its the fifth largest state for crying out loud.


: I know. I read the "podunk" remark (none / 0) (#63)
by oculus on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 08:42:31 PM EST

somewhere else today and couldn't resist throwing it in here. Of course, my mother hailed from Metropolis, Illinois, but that's a different matter.

Change (none / 0) (#6)
by Slado on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 09:54:37 AM EST

was the big theme last night and ultimately I think Clinton is being saddled with the legacy of Clinton and Bush.

I think in the back of poeple's minds they see another Clinton presidency of more of the same. That is not realistic and I don't think it's true (I think Hillary will be a worse president then Bill) but it's an easy assumption to make.

We have not had a president or vice president in Washington without the last name of Clinton or Bush since 1980. That is something that Hillary has working for her and against her and right now the against it part is winning.

Edwards is done so now who will his supporters vote for in NH? I think they will break for Obama and put him over the top.

Democrats rode the "we need change" platform to victory in 2006 and that same feeling is pushing Obama to the top now. Even more so since the 2006 congress didn't change anything moderates, independents etc... now realize the only way to get change is to put somebody new and fresh in the Whitehouse.

Stop worrying about the details and trying to pick apart who is the bigger candidate of "change".

Obama is not named Bush or Clinton so he will be that candidate before Hillary and it may be enough to get him the nomination.

Obama will be (none / 0) (#8)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 09:55:59 AM EST

the next President of the United States.


: Yep (none / 0) (#19)
by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 10:19:29 AM EST

I agree.

Great Post BTD (none / 0) (#7)
by glanton on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 09:55:24 AM EST

Style over substance indeed.

But Brooks, himself very much on board with corporate rulership, is only engaged in wishful thinking when he writes:

He's made John Edwards, with his angry cries that "corporate greed is killing your children's future," seem old-fashioned.

For his own immediate political purposes, Edwards of course needed to win Iowa. But his finish of a strong second indicates that Edwards' substantive message (as opposed to Obama's cult of personality style) will not be going away any time soon.

It won't be going away, BTW, because it is true.

That message (none / 0) (#9)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 09:56:56 AM EST

is gone for this cycle.

UNLESS, ironically and implausibly, Hillary adopts it.

Do not expect Obama to do so.


Yes, gone for this cycle (none / 0) (#15)
by glanton on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 10:13:17 AM EST

But not gone.

I have to admit it makes me a little sick these people crowing about Obama's win: this far into the game and the only thing they can say about him is he's "inevitable" or he represents "hope," etc.

But hey, good thing for the GOP that the Dems are doing this to themselves. With their horrible record over the last seven years, and their rag-tag cadre of candidates, their political aspirations ought to ber dead level zero. Instead their nominee will be living at 1600 Penn, nominating at least two Supreme Court justices, doing nothing about Health Care, and in all likelihood starting another war.


: well (none / 0) (#17)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 10:18:45 AM EST

I hold out more hope for Obama than you do.

Hillary could move left on trade, (none / 0) (#47)
by MarkL on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 12:38:07 PM EST

IMO. That could help get Edwards supporters (and would please me too)


Left, meaning anti-NAFTA-type (none / 0) (#48)
by oculus on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 12:41:44 PM EST

agreements? Didn't NAFTA pass during Bill Clinton's admins.?


Yes, but that was not Hillary, of (none / 0) (#50)
by MarkL on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 12:57:47 PM EST

course. There's no way she could go as far as Edwards; however, she HAS been against some free trade agreements, and she could emphasize the reasons she opposed those ones in order to show that she is judicious on the subject.


Maybe she'll give Bob Shrum a call (none / 0) (#51)
by andgarden on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 01:03:37 PM EST

::shudder::


According to NPR just before the (none / 0) (#52)
by oculus on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 01:03:38 PM EST

Iowa caucuses, all the Dem. pres. candidates were mouthing support for tightening up free trade agreements, keeping jobs in Iowa (too late), etc.


: Well, Hillary is on record as (none / 0) (#53)
by MarkL on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 01:05:47 PM EST

opposing some free trade agreements. Not sure about Obama.

Clinton will (none / 0) (#57)
by Same As It Ever Was on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 01:19:55 PM EST

she will have no other choice. And she can pull it off... who is more partisan on the Democratic side than the Clinton machine.


Down TIcket (none / 0) (#11)
by BDB on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 10:01:39 AM EST

I know the CW is that Clinton hurts people down ticket, but what is Obama's effect. If he can work with Dems and Reps. alike, what is his argument for getting other Democrats elected? Under his theory, it shouldn't matter, right?

I'm not trying to be snarky. I was thinking about this last night. Obama's turnout is remarkable. If he can keep this up, he may be building a movement. But how long does the movement last? Is it transferrable to other Democrats? That may depend on whether he can get anything done as President. If he is a wonderfully successful president, passing lots of popular progressive programs, then that probably helps Dems generally. But can he do that with what Congress is likely to look like in his first term?

He is above politics (none / 0) (#12)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 10:04:45 AM EST

And thus his help comes only from coattails it seems to me.

His message is not going to help in the argument downticket.

But that maybe more effective. I do not know frankly.


: Nobody (none / 0) (#21)
by eRobin on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 11:01:41 AM EST

is above politics. Anyone who has the approval of David Brooks should make the country very nervous. I'll restate here what has become my desperate mantra: Obama is running right to get elected.

Obama's ability to generate turnout (none / 0) (#22)
by Maryb2004 on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 11:05:38 AM EST

for himself without generating a huge Republican backlash turnout can create downticket Democratic wins in 2008. via TPM the final turnout numbers for last night were 239,000. That's ... incredible.

In a state like mine where every statewide election is within a few points, huge turnout for a Democrat at the top of the ticket is what you need. Yes, some of those voters may split their ticket but I'd take that risk any day over the scenario of low turnout.

The real test is whether he gets pro-Democratic turnout to the polls in 2010. And that depends on what he does in office his first year.


: He'll Win in 2008 (none / 0) (#32)
by BDB on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 11:57:21 AM EST

Unless he screws up in the GE (which I can really only see happening against McCain) or something comes out about him after he's the nominee that we don't know, he'll win in 2008. But a movement built around a person instead of ideas only lasts so long as the person is popular and/or successful. This is the Republicans' problem right now with Bush.
As you say, can Obama turn folks out in 2010 if he's not on the ticket? I think that's a big question. When Republicans obstruct his agenda can he successfully push back or will he take the blame for failing to do what he promised, end partisanship (I can tell you right now what David Brooks and David Broder are going to say)? This one worries me most because what he is promising is essentially impossible, there can be no end to partisanship because people strongly disagree about things.
If I'm a Republican, it's great that Obama wants to hear me out on taxes, but after about the 50th time I don't get what I want or I only get a little bit of what I want, I'm probably going to support someone who actually agrees with me. Similarly, it's great if I'm a Democrat that Obama can get Republicans to compromise to get some healthcare reform or some energy sanity, but eventually I'm going to get tired having to settle for small steps when what I want are big changes.
My biggest fear - other than some sort of buyer's remorse with some breaking news right after he secures the nomination - is that he's building a house of cards and it's going to come tumbling down on him in 2009.
I think Obama is our greatest hope for a serious realignment, I understand why people find him inspiring. But I think he's also our greatest risk at a possible failed presidency and I don't think the democratic party or the country can afford a failed presidency.

What exactly are Dionne and Brooks saying (none / 0) (#28)
by koshembos on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 11:39:44 AM EST

<blockqoute>Obama's theme of ending partisan divisions by reaching out to independents and Republicans may be an enduring legacy of the evening</blockqoute>

I respect Dionne, but his statement must be a sadistic joke.

Obama is changing the tone of American liberalism, and maybe American politics, too.

I actually respect Brooks intellect, not his politics, but believing that some empty slogans will change the sociology of politics borders on hallucination.

What this country badly needs is several high caliber intellectuals whose voice is widely heard and who opine on politics without the intellectual melt down our two distinguished media guys manifest.

To me, of the Dems, he's the least offensive. (none / 0) (#29)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 11:40:24 AM EST

If I had to vote Dem, he'd get my vote.

if you want to help dems (none / 0) (#34)
by diogenes on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 12:04:57 PM EST

If you want dems to win in congress, they'll do it a lot easier with Obama on top of the ticket than with Hillary on top of the ticket.

: So, you don't think Hank Aaron's (none / 0) (#35)
by oculus on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 12:09:00 PM EST

endorsement of Hillary Clinton will turn the tide?

Check out the comments to Obama's (none / 0) (#37)
by oculus on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 12:11:50 PM EST

speech at "comment is free." Those Brits are much, much more realistic than we.

: why cant we elect (none / 0) (#55)
by Jgarza on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 01:16:24 PM EST

people like lap dog tony blair, and xenophobe Maggy Thatch, yeah lets be just like the Brits great idea.