Hendrik Hertzberg has some interesting thoughts on Barack Obama’s victory speech in Iowa. Summing up, Hertzberg takes the Rauchway line: Obama shouldn’t have been reading from a prepared text. Obviously, given that the stakes are so much higher for scholars giving talks, my analogy is a bit strained.
Still, I disagree with Hertzberg. But only because I thought the speech was electric. As I said to friends that night, John Edwards, when he spoke, made me proud to be a Democrat; Obama made me proud to be an American. If the words weren’t always transcendent, the delivery was. But, as Ezra Klein notes, Hertzberg, a former writer for Jimmy Carter, knows a bit about political theater and rhetoric.
The Edge of the American West 
11 comments
January 6, 2008 at 9:25 pm
urbino
I like Obama’s oratorical style, but I find it a little distracting, actually. I think it’s because it so obviously owes so much to MLK.
January 6, 2008 at 9:43 pm
ari
Your comment, Urbino, touches on something I’ve been worrying about the last couple of days. It’s already getting near to impossible for Obama to manage expectations about his public speaking. If he’s anything shy of JFK or MLK, then the critics will be able to say that he’s not on his game. That’s pretty tough, particularly for a candidate on the campaign trail.
And while we’re on the subject of politics, I also want to say here and now that yesterday’s Dem debate nearly confirmed a suspicion I had the other night: Edwards is angling to be Obama’s running mate.
Needless to say, I have no idea what I’m talking about. But when Edwards gave his post-caucus speech in Iowa, he went right after Hillary but said not a word about Obama. The pundits all harped on the fact that Edwards hadn’t congratulated the winner. But I thought to myself: “Who needs congratulations when Edwards is auditioning for the part of VP pitbull.”
It just made no sense that Edwards would attack Hillary when Obama had won. Unless, I thought, he wants to be VP. And after yesterday’s debate, this seems more likely than ever. At least to me. But I’m always wrong. And it’s too early to be worrying about any of this. Still, you heard it here first.
January 6, 2008 at 11:47 pm
eric
But the money quote from Hertzberg: “I’m pretty sure he’s going to win next Tuesday.”
January 7, 2008 at 6:54 am
Sandie
Ari–I think I’ll have to disagree with you on the VP idea (full disclosure: I’m supporting Edwards, but will be relatively content with any of the Dems who win). I think those people who have argued that Edwards attacked Clinton to try to make her irrelevant in the primaries are onto something. Knock Clinton out, and then it becomes a two-way race about change. Then the two candidates go mano-a-mano, displaying their differences in style and tactics. But what do I know?–I’m a European historian.
January 7, 2008 at 7:52 am
Luke
First of all… love the blog, guys. Thanks for what you’re doing here… it’s really a new model for “doing” history in the web.
Second… I’m hoping Edwards is angling to be Obama’s VP, even though my wife thinks the ticket would just be too dreamy to be true. His fire-breathing–while refreshing, important, and necessary–I just don’t think is viable nationally… but oh what a team they’d make. I think Richardson is clearly angling for VP, but I just see Horatio Sanz when I look at him, not all that experience he talks about.
What I’ve been trying to get my head around is how Obama can use the rhetoric of unity and optimism, and still successfully limit the influence of lobbyists, or engineer any kind of lasting change. That discordance has been my biggest problem with his candidacy, and was at the heart of Edwards’ earlier attacks on him. Power ain’t gonna give itself up, and Obama’s hopes that everyone would volunteer to sit at the negotiating table seemed more naive than the foreign policy questions Hillary had of him. Unless, of course, this is a campaign strategy… then, it’s brilliant (and there’ll also be space for Edwards to bring populism to the ticket, and for something really inspiring to happen). South Carolina should tell us much much more, and I suspect that Edwards will still take some pretty hard shots at Obama.
January 7, 2008 at 8:33 am
ari
Sandie may be right. Clearly that’s the most realistic alternative to what I suggest. Probably, given the givens*, a more realistic alternative than my original comment. Still, I can’t help but think that Edwards put nearly everything into Iowa. He has very little money, relatively speaking. And his organization, while spirited, apparently isn’t as effective as Obama’s. So, it seems possible to me that he’s willing to settle for number two. Again, though, what made this seem more probable was his speech in Iowa, where he attacked Hillary but said nothing at all about Obama. It just felt odd: to lose to an ascendant rival but then spend one’s time kicking another, fading, opponent. Of course, that doesn’t mean that Sandie’s wrong; he may just have been trying to get rid of HRC to set up a steel-cage grudge match with the Black guy the netroots doesn’t really like.
And Luke, the best I can offer, what I’ve been telling myself, is that Obama likes to talk nice but apparently plays to win. At least that’s what people in his organization all say. But that’s not to suggest that I don’t have worries about a candidate so willing to use Republican talking points to make hay. On the other hand, and I’m hardly the first person to write this, elections are won and lost based on how independents vote. And Obama, in Iowa at least, but also in Illinois, has proven himself able to mobilize independents. This is not a small thing. Not that I want to distill much more important questions down to an argument about electability.
And if this is your first comment, thanks so much. We appreciate the kind words. Really, we’re quite fond of praise.
January 7, 2008 at 9:43 am
BEW
Great blog!!
Ari, You mention that “Of course, that doesn’t mean that Sandie’s wrong; he may just have been trying to get rid of HRC to set up a steel-cage grudge match with the Black guy the netroots doesn’t really like.”
I thought most of the blogs were for Obama. Even the blogs that tried to be neutral have jumped to Obama. The best example would be Kevin Drum becoming an Obamite/ian Friday morning.
Paul, you mention that Obama unity/optimism rhetoric could be just a brilliant campaign strategy. I think if this were true, he would really lose popular support if he wins and actually has to do things that normal politicians have to do. After all, he will have gotten the prize by showing that he is above the fray.
I am also bother by the whole unity thing. The only thing that keeps me optimistic about Obama is that, right now, it looks like the Democrats will get 60-61 seats in the Senate and they will gain more seats in the House. If the we can get 60-61 seats in the Senate, not counting Liberman, we won’t have to worry about the unity rhetoric as much.
I also wonder why Obama doesn’t apply his famous unity/optimism schtick right now to Iraq. I am sure he could easily convince the Republicans that they are wrong. I think it would take 2-3 days to convince Chemy, though.
January 7, 2008 at 10:04 am
ari
When I talk about the netroots, BEW, I don’t really mean the bloggers. I mean the huge number of deeply skeptical progressives, their readers, who see Obama as far too centrist for their tastes. Sandie, for example, may be one of these people, but I really don’t want to speak for her. But I can speak for myself. On the one hand, I worry, as noted above, about Obama’s willingness to parrot Republican talking points. On the other hand, I tell myself he’s being a smart politician. And heaven knows that the Democratic Party can use as many of those as possible.
As for such huge gains in the Senate, shhh. Don’t jinx what seems like a good situation.
And finally, thanks for the comment.
January 7, 2008 at 12:24 pm
urbino
I agree with Sandie on Edwards.
As for Obama, if I’m reading him right, I think Eric is on the right track — though I would suggest Ronald Reagan as the precursor, more than TR. Obama’s goal, like Reagan’s, seems to be to use the presidency to shift the entire debate in America; to change the nature of the discourse; to give us a different conception of ourselves as a nation than the one we’ve had for the past 20 years or so. How? By doing literally that — shifting the debate, changing the discourse, offering a different conception. The catchphrase for Reagan-watchers was “the medium is the message.” The catchphrase for Obama may be “the message is the agenda.” That is, his agenda isn’t primarily a legislative one, but a rhetorical/psychological/cultural one, in that order. From what I can tell, he figures that if he changes the way we think of ourselves and the way we talk, better legislation will follow.
That’s all what I think he’s doing, but it’s still an early working hypothesis.
January 7, 2008 at 12:38 pm
Ben Alpers
Amanda Marcotte has a great post up about another clue as to what Obama’s about.
TV Guide asked the candidates what their favorite TV shows were. Obama’s answer was potentially pretty significant and impressive (as odd as it feels to write that about an answer to a question from TV Guide about television shows).
Clinton said Grey’s Anatomy.
Edwards said Law & Order.
Obama said The Wire.
On the other hand, this may just be sophisticated dog-whistle politics for progressives.
January 7, 2008 at 1:27 pm
Wire Blogging « The Edge of the American West
[…] 7, 2008 in Uncategorized by ari Okay, now I’m really smitten. Commenter Ben Alpers notes that, when asked about his favorite television show, Barack Obama responded: The Wire. Ben […]