The Obama Phenomenon and the 2008 Presidential Campaign

[Túrin Turambar]

He has some good ideas, but his record is painfully sparse for a serious presidential candidate.

The problem with running Senators for President in general is that they have voting records that can be picked over. For example, the ‘Kerry voted to not let American soldiers have any ice cream’ ads or whatever they were. In that sense, having a sparse Federal voting record can be an advantage.

Still, being Senators is a problem that both Hillary and Barack face. The last sitting Senator to be elected to the U.S. Presidency was John F. Kennedy, and that was a narrow victory against another sitting Senator. Senators usually loose to Governors and sitting or former Vice-Presidents.

We figured out a while ago on TORC that the ideal Democratic candidate would be a Southern Governor. Unfortunately, none is high profile enough to head a ticket atm, so a northern Senator it will probably be.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

One thing Obama has going for him (from the front page of todays' San Jose Mercury News):

Obama wins over tech-savvy supporters

Another thing that Obama has going for him is that while virtually all of the other primary Democratic challengers (including Clinton) were voting in favor of the Iraq war in 2002, Obama went on record as opposing the war at that time. The fact that he wasn't a senator at the time probably will work to his advantage, because I don't know that he would have been able to sustain that position if he was, but I think he will be able to make a lot out of that.

Here is a description of his book The Audacity of Hope:

ABOUT THIS BOOK
“A government that truly represents these Americans–that truly serves these Americans–will require a different kind of politics. That politics will need to reflect our lives as they are actually lived. It won’t be pre-packaged, ready to pull off the shelf. It will have to be constructed from the best of our traditions and will have to account for the darker aspects of our past. We will need to understand just how we got to this place, this land of warring factions and tribal hatreds. And we’ll need to remind ourselves, despite all our differences, just how much we share: common hopes, common dreams, a bond that will not break.”
–from The Audacity of Hope


In July 2004, Barack Obama electrified the Democratic National Convention with an address that spoke to Americans across the political spectrum. One phrase in particular anchored itself in listeners’ minds, a reminder that for all the discord and struggle to be found in our history as a nation, we have always been guided by a dogged optimism in the future, or what Senator Obama called “the audacity of hope.”

Now, in The Audacity of Hope, Senator Obama calls for a different brand of politics–a politics for those weary of bitter partisanship and alienated by the “endless clash of armies” we see in congress and on the campaign trail; a politics rooted in the faith, inclusiveness, and nobility of spirit at the heart of “our improbable experiment in democracy.” He explores those forces–from the fear of losing to the perpetual need to raise money to the power of the media–that can stifle even the best-intentioned politician. He also writes, with surprising intimacy and self-deprecating humor, about settling in as a senator, seeking to balance the demands of public service and family life, and his own deepening religious commitment.

At the heart of this book is Senator Obama’s vision of how we can move beyond our divisions to tackle concrete problems. He examines the growing economic insecurity of American families, the racial and religious tensions within the body politic, and the transnational threats–from terrorism to pandemic–that gather beyond our shores. And he grapples with the role that faith plays in a democracy–where it is vital and where it must never intrude. Underlying his stories about family, friends, members of the Senate, even the president, is a vigorous search for connection: the foundation for a radically hopeful political consensus.

A senator and a lawyer, a professor and a father, a Christian and a skeptic, and above all a student of history and human nature, Senator Obama has written a book of transforming power. Only by returning to the principles that gave birth to our Constitution, he says, can Americans repair a political process that is broken, and restore to working order a government that has fallen dangerously out of touch with millions of ordinary Americans. Those Americans are out there, he writes–“waiting for Republicans and Democrats to catch up with them.”

I think if he can translate that message to the campaign trail, it will be very attractive to the American voters.

[Cenedril_Gildinaur]

Ironically, Obama's biggest draw is his lack of experience. There are fewer votes for candidate Hillary to attack him with versus a more seasoned opponent. Hillary has to live down the whole Clinton administration AND the fact that a three week dead fish has more charisma than her.

But pick him apart she will. Those who remember the whole "Willie Horton" saga remember that it was Gore who ran the first Willie Horton advertisement while trying to beat Dukakis in the primary. Bush Sr. merely used the weapons handed to him by Dukakis' Democrat opponents.

Obama is fameous, but not known. The primary will fix that.

The other appeal they both have is minority status. Hillary will no doubt try to pretend Elizabeth Dole never existed and campaign as "the first woman to try to win the nomination of a major party for President." Obama will not be that foolish, since Jackson and Sharpton came first and no smart candidate wants to tie those albatroses to his neck.

Obama's glitter will wear off as soon as his voting record gets more analysis, and there is pre-senate records to analyze. He served many years in the state legislature.

I am sick of people talking about how historic an Obama candidacy is, considering how for years people were talking about how Powell could win, and before everyone saw that she was just another stinking neocon people even talked about a Condi run - which would be a double whammy as she is black AND female, and would run as a Republican were she not tainted by being so close to Bush Jr.

[yovargas]

...the fact that a three week dead fish has more charisma than her.

I always thought she was a good speaker.

I am sick of people talking about how historic an Obama candidacy is

Historic in the sense that it might actually happen. Those others you mention did not.

[MithLuin]

I remember people saying that "Americans just aren't ready for a black American Idol winner" 3 or 4 years ago. People who say such things are generally idiots. The country, by and large, will be ready for whatever is coming. Granted, whoever said that was probably in a small minority, but still. That kind of thinking is defeatest.

The goal of becoming 'color-blind' is admirable - people shouldn't be judged by being lumped together. But at the same time....blindness isn't really the goal. It would be....foolish...to write off someone's cultural roots, to deny them that that made any difference or that that matters to them. I think they should be the ones to determine what it means and what it's worth - but I think I should respect that determination. I would not want someone to tell me that it "didn't matter" who my family was or what my faith is. It most certainly does! But maybe not in the way they were implying . Thus, I don't think the goal is for 'race' to be a non-issue, but rather, for cultural diversity to be respected for what it is.

Personally, I don't find it my goal to put someone in the White House just because it would be novel. We haven't had a president from Hawaii (and aren't likely to), but that's not a reason to elect one. And yes, every president but one could be labeled a male WASP, so I can see why people would like some variety - but not novelty for the sake of novelty. Make sure the pool includes all the best candidates (regardless of background), and then select the best person. If you make the pool big enough, you're bound to elect someone novel eventually.

Strangely enough , I don't see any reason a woman couldn't be president. Many, many other countries in the world have had democratically-elected women leaders. Yes, this was in the past 100 years, but still, it's really No Big Deal. Some of these other countries are considered 'oppressive' towards women by Americans. I don't think Americans bat an eye when women are elected to the Senate or the House. Make jokes, maybe, but it's hardly a shock to the system. All politicians are subject to ridicule.

I do not want Hillary Clinton to be the next president. It has nothing to do with the fact that she is a woman, and everything to do with the fact that she's Hillary Clinton. But she has a lot more name recognition going for her than Obama does, so I think it likely she'll beat him in the primary. He may fizzle out early, like Dean did. It would be a shame - he seems interesting.

But not being registered with a party, I don't vote in primaries. So, I'll just wait and see who makes it through that gauntlet, I suppose.

[nerdanel]

It would be....foolish...to write off someone's cultural roots, to deny them that that made any difference or that that matters to them. I think they should be the ones to determine what it means and what it's worth - but I think I should respect that determination. I would not want someone to tell me that it "didn't matter" who my family was or what my faith is. It most certainly does! But maybe not in the way they were implying . Thus, I don't think the goal is for 'race' to be a non-issue, but rather, for cultural diversity to be respected for what it is.

You know, I hear a lot that the goal is not "colorblindness," but at some level, I think it is. You are correct that family, faith, and cultural roots do "matter" to who we are. However, I think it would be foolish to assume anything about one's family, faith, or even their cultural roots based on their skin color.

tinwë made an important point when he highlighted that Obama's perspective and experiences will have been different, as a descendant of a black African and a white American who was raised in a white middle-class family, than an African-American who was raised by two (black African-American) parents. I agree with you that it should be for Obama to determine what his multiracial heritage means to him, which is why I think "colorblindness" - assuming nothing about what it does mean to him, and allowing him to write on that blank slate - is in fact the ideal. Phrased differently, colorblindness does not mean denying that each of us accumulates different life experiences and a different identity in part thanks to our race and cultural heritage. Rather, it means not making assumptions based on the color of someone's skin about what their life experiences and identity are. (And, it means not making assumptions about fitness for federal office based on skin color.)

It is obvious that given 100 white Americans, 100 black Americans, 100 Hispanic Americans, 100 Asian Americans, and 100 Native Americans, you will have five populations reflecting an entire spectrum of different perspectives. Key word: spectrum. You're not going to have five populations presenting five different, discrete perspectives - an obvious point with respect to the 100 white Americans, but one that is sometimes obscured vis-a-vis the other populations by an insistence on "seeing color" in the name of acknowledging diversity.

[Cerin]

I haven't really understood all the fuss about Obama. It seems like media-manufactured buzz to me, because I remember there was all sorts of buzz and predictions about his convention speech before he even made it. The media set him up to be a sensation and has treated him like a sensation ever since. But really, what's so sensational about him? He's an intelligent, thoughtful politician who happens to be African American. Is it simply the fact that he's been successful as an African American in this country that sets him apart?

I was thinking the reverse of yov this morning, that people would be less resistant to the idea of voting for a woman for President than for an African American at this point.

[Lidless]

It would be a sad state of affairs for the US that out of a population of 300,000,000 the last four presidents would be Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton, and we would be talking about four different people.

[yovargas]

Did you see that speech, Cerin? I don't follow politics that well, but while watching him talk, and knowing little else about him, he made an enormous impression and just looked like the man who should be President. That one speech made such an impression on me that I still feel that way when I hear his name, despite knowing little else about him. I'm pretty damn cynical when it comes to politics so if I'm feeling that way, I'm sure I'm not at all alone.

[Cerin]

I do recall seeing the speech, yov. Perhaps my expectations were unduly raised by all the pre-speech hype, but it didn't strike me as being that out of the ordinary.

I'm a little apprehensive for reasons similar to those tinwë expressed. I think all the media hype is pushing him forward too soon.

[ToshoftheWuffingas]

Can he deal with the hatred that any Democratic incumbent generates? Is there any evidence of his delegating skills? Is he a candidate like Clinton who can work with Congress? Can he count on a wide based campaigning force loyal to him? What would be his attraction in the South? I'm not especially referring to colour here, more the North/South divide. Can he actually mobilise the black and ethnic vote, something that helped Clinton? Would the blue collar vote come out for him?
Those quotes from him posted earlier sounded like the most waffly platitudes but politicians are addicted to them.

[Túrin Turambar]

A lot depends on the Republican candidate of course. Being a northern hardline liberal (both Obama and Clinton have some of the most liberal voting records in the senate) is not exactly helpful to winning the South and Midwest. The last three Democrats to win Presidential elections have been from the south, and the northerner who won before that was a moderate who leant conservative.

On the other hand, winning a third term is very hard for any party. Given that the Bush Presidency has not been too successful the Democratic candidate will start at an advantage.

[Cerin]

Given the dismal record of Senators being elected President (I think Kennedy was the only one in recent history?), I'm surprised the ones with Presidential aspirations don't run for governor instead.

[axordil]

Didn't Shirley Chisholm try a campaign for the Democratic nomination in 1972? That would have been the first woman (and I believe the first black) candidate for a major party nomination I know of.

Obama has a tremendous amount of buzz, and I'm told he has a lot of personal presence (something the last two Dem. nominees lacked). I'm not sure that's the same thing as charisma, but it represents two of the building blocks of that elusive attribute, two Hilary lacks. And a truly charismatic candidate would be pretty awesome right now...

I take it for granted that both Hilary and Obama are very bright people, capable of surrounding themselves with competency. I also take it for granted that neither is as liberal as some on the right would want people to believe, nor as centrist as they themselves would like to make it seem.

I personally would have a very hard time working for a Hilary campaign. I would almost certainly vote for her, as I do not see anyone on the other side whose positions resemble mine in the slightest, but it would be a lesser of two evils thing. Obama, while I don't agree with all of his tactics or rhetoric, is not beholden in the same way Hilary is to the DLC "GOP-lite" approach. That gives him an edge in my eyes, as does the fact that he doesn't have her personal baggage: no one should start a campaign with a bedrock 25% of the population not just opposing you but LOATHING you.

[Túrin Turambar]

Obama certainly carries less baggage – he has escaped, for example, from involvement with the start of the Iraq War. This is where his sparse record will pay off, as others have already noted, and it may reduce somewhat the negative effect of being a Senator.

What’s the chances of the nominee being someone entirely different to Hillary and Barack?

[axordil]

What were the chances of Bill Clinton in 1992? It's always risky predicting this far out.

[TheWagner]

What’s the chances of the nominee being someone entirely different to Hillary and Barack?

What were the chances of Bill Clinton in 1992? It's always risky predicting this far out.

This is a very different situation than in 1992. In 1990 at this time, Gulf War I was just starting, and it was clear that the political landscape was going to be greatly altered (for good or for ill) over then next 18 months. After the initial success, it looked like George I would be unbeatable in 1992, and that whomever the Democrats ran would be just trying to beat the spread.

Of course, the collapse of the US economy, and George I's refusal to do anything about it (he kept insisting that it was fine, which it was: for rich people!) sent him from one of the most popular to one of the least popular presidents in a matter of months, and leaving a few Democrats who wished that they'd tossed their hats into the pool regretting the fact that they did not. After all, both lost (even if Gore really won), and having lost once, they are forever tarnished.


This time, the Dems are going into this knowing that they've got an excellent chance of winning, which means that the biggest and most promising guns will be running. Really, the only obvious alternative to Obama and Rodham-Clinton is John Edwards, the Democartic Veep nominee last time. Gore might run again, as might Kerry, but the party will be reluctant to push them, even if so many people know think that the country (and the world) would be in so much better shape if either of these two were currently president.

What really will decide it is fund-raising. Obama and Rodham-Clinton will reap in the bucks. Edwards will get stronger backing from the party old-guard: as a white southern male, they will think that Edwards has a chance of getting some people who might be disgruntled with the Republicans, but who are too bigoted to vote for a woman or a black man.

Another thing that Obama has going for him is that while virtually all of the other primary Democratic challengers (including Clinton) were voting in favor of the Iraq war in 2002, Obama went on record as opposing the war at that time.

This is very true, and as things deteriorate further and further over the coming months, Rodham-Clinton and others will have to spend more time defending their vote and trying to explain that they did not really vote for what Bush did: Bush, in fact, greatly over-stepped the bounds of what the Congress approved. However, politics is like humor: once you have to start explaining yourself, then you are in real trouble.

Obama was speaking at anti-War rallies in 2003. Now, this will outrage the "my country right or wrong!" crowd, but none of those people would ever vote for anyone with post-Cro-Magnon African ancestry, anyway.......

The fact that he wasn't a senator at the time probably will work to his advantage, because I don't know that he would have been able to sustain that position if he was, but I think he will be able to make a lot out of that.

Jon Stewart said it best: the Democrats took the last election by sneaking out of the room while the proverbial mom berated the other brother for burning down the garage. The 2006 vote was anti-Republican, yes, but it was also anti-incumbant. As the international situation and the US economy deteriorate over the next two years, this will only increase. Moreover, as a lot of the reasons for this are (will be) due to factors that are now out of the hands of a single senator, Obama really would do well to present himself as the outsider. In another 6 years, he will appear to be another Beltway Insider.

I think if he can translate that message to the campaign trail, it will be very attractive to the American voters.

It's hard to say. The bigotry card will be strong: the Republicans still can play it as the "pro-marriage" and "anti-immigration" cards showed in the elections two and a half months ago. Obviously, a little subtlety is required, but they will do everything that they can to play upon many white American's fears of blacks. Sad though it is to say, it is still very real: witness the numerous reports of black rioting throughout Louisiana that were taken for granted as true, and not simply by Fox News.

The upside is that this will not cost votes: these people already vote Republican. However, the real question is, will it inspire unusually high voter turnout among this crowd, and will Obama's charisma inspire high enough voter turnout elsewhere to compensate for and overcome this?



Just to add my two cents, I actually am fairly impressed with Obama. He is very intelligent and knowledgable, and the arguments that he articulates indicate an excellent ability to think critically. His priority is for the greater good rather than the good of particular groups (which separates him from many Democrats as well as nearly all Republicans) and that he actually speaks in terms of decades to come rather than "now." I actually voted from him for senator (I am quick to vote Green or other 3rd Party, just to provide context, and there was not even a danger of Obama losing, as his opponent was Alan Keyes!) My only real knock on him is that he seems to be fairly religious!

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Good post, T_W (and nice to see you here). But as for you final point, that might be a knock on Obama for you, but it will likely be a strength for him, particularly in the general election if he does manage to get the nomination. One the things that I like about him is that he manages to emphasize his faith without cross the line of the separation of church and state (unlike some members of the religious right, including Sen. Sam Brownback, who along with Hilary Clinton formally announced his candidacy today). The fact that a very unreligious person such as yourself would nonetheless vote for him I think it is good demonstrate of how across the spectrum his appeal could be.

I do agree with you that the Democratic nomination is likely to come down to a three-horse race between Edwards, Clinton and Obama. I would be very disappointed if Kerry tried to insert himself into the race. But I really think that he shot himself in the foot with his ridiculous "joke" about the stupid people going to Iraq, just before the 2006 election. I thought that moment really encapsolated Kerry's lack of appeal. As for Gore, I don't think it is likely that he will run, but if he does, he would be a force to be reckoned with.

[Angbasdil]

Obama is new. He's different. He's shiny. The media just loves things that are new and different and shiny. And so does the public. For a while. So while it lasts the media can get a lot of easy stories that grab people's attention without all that expensive and annoying research and stuff. They just point and say "Hey! Looky there! Something shiny!" and BOOM they got viewers.

Eventually the shine will wear off and somebody will have to tell us what this new kid is actually made of.

As for myself, I like what he says, and I absolutely love the way he says it. But I'm more concerned with what somebody actually does. And I'm not sold on Obama yet. Nothing negative yet, mind you, just not a lot of positives there either. Mostly just safe easy slightly left-of-center positions. I want to see him take a stand on something that might cost him.

I think that the big factor in '08 that everyone is overlooking is the netroots. There's a huge and highly motivated contingent of progressive Democrats that have figured out how to use the net to organize, raise money and generally bypass a lot of the traditional political infrastructure. They have become the Democratic base, and are well on their way to becoming to the Democratic Party what the religious right has been to the Republicans. There are five liberal political blogs that I read every day, so I think I have a pretty good feel for what the netroots is thinking, and let me let you in on a little secret. The netroots don't like Hillary Clinton. She's too quick to triangulate and equivocate and run to the center. She was too slow and is still too squishy in coming out against the war. They just don't trust her to take a progreesive stand on principle when there's a political price to pay. They're not sold on Obama yet either. So far, Edwards has more netroots support than anyone, but it's still very soft support. They're being very cautious. But whoever gets the netroots solidly behind them will have gone a long way to getting the nomination.

[Primula Baggins]

We must be reading some of the same blogs, Ang.

The netroots are a force to be reckoned with, but the mainstream media and the party power structure don't seem to realize that yet. I've been really impressed by the organizing MoveOn has done in my own town.

The Internet is a tool anyone can use to make an end run around official channels of information. That can be scary, but if the official channels lie a lot or ignore the obvious, there is not much else to do if you want to understand what's going on.

Also, YouTube is going to be even more huge in '08 than it was in '06, and in '06 I think it helped shift the balance of power in the Senate at least.