Surely you know by now that John Edwards is suspending his campaign. As to the inevitable question, no, I have no thoughts on what this means for Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton. For the moment at least, I don’t really care. Because I just read this lovely post by Ezra Klein, in which the following graf appears:
And, finally, a word on Elizabeth Edwards. The first time I came to Washington as an adult, I came because she invited me. An avid blog reader, Elizabeth asked a handful of bloggers to come have dinner at their home in Georgetown. I’d just been hired by the Prospect, but wouldn’t start for months yet, and so imagined this a good opportunity to visit my new city. I remember standing on their porch, ringing the doorbell only to have John Edwards answer. I remember looking behind him, to the older women with short, spiky grey hair — Elizabeth, after a round of chemo. I remember John Edwards trying to have us convince her that her hair looked wonderful the way it was, and she needn’t color it. I remember the evident bond, and deep affection, their interactions displayed. But more than that, I remember how impressive she was, how quick and articulate and argumentative. It was her, not him, who made the biggest impression on me. He was the politician, but of the two, she was the political thinker, the one who devoured commentary and information, the one who conceived of their campaign as a product of the contemporary progressive moment.
Ezra is young. And he is gifted. And I despise him for both of those traits. (I also don’t know why I insist on calling him “Ezra,” as though we’re friends.) Beyond that, he’s a talented writer and thinker. Above all, he’s very sincere. Which is to say, although he’s well schooled in irony — like everyone else these days — he’s unafraid to write something heartfelt, even sappy. Like the above.
And on the day that John Edwards is leaving the national stage — to spend much more time with his family, I hope — sincerity is the way to go. I never supported Edwards in the primaries. Ahough I admired his policies, I was haunted by his 2004 debate with Dick Cheney. But I know that he made this a better race. And Ezra has nicely encapsulated why I’m going to miss John and Elizabeth Edwards so much. Because they, like Ezra, are unafraid to be sincere. And even a bit sappy. In an age of deep cynicism, such displays of public courage move me.
(Update: I should have linked to this, this, and this in the above post. They talk about Edwards’s impact on the race. And now that I’ve wiped my eyes, I’m already back to wondering if Edwards is going to endorse Hillary or Obama. And if such an endorsement will mean anything. Sick. And twisted. That’s what I am.)
(Update II: Eric, who just dropped by my office, insists that I should have said what follows in my original post. So I will. The thing that so captivated me about the Edwardses was their presence on the campaign trail at all. I hope that Elizabeth Edwards is going to live for many, many more years. But my understanding is that she may not. And so, every time I saw her being interviewed, or her husband giving a stump speech, I found myself thinking: how much time do they have left? And what about their kids? In the end, I was left with one of two conclusions: Either the Edwards candidacy was among the most self-indulgent episodes in American political history. Or it was among the most selfless. I believe that the latter was true. I think that John and Elizabeth Edwards genuinely care about this nation and want to make it better. And they devote themselves to that goal even though they might have very little time left together as a family. So now I’m starting to cry again just thinking about it. Thanks, Eric. You didn’t even leave me any tissues. Jerk.)
(Update III: I’ve been hoping, ever since I watched Edwards give his wonderful concession speech after the Iowa caucuses, that he’d end up as Obama’s running mate. Is there someone here who can make this happen?)
49 comments
January 30, 2008 at 1:31 pm
Suburban Guerrilla » Blog Archive » Tributes
[…] We’ll start with this one. […]
January 30, 2008 at 5:00 pm
urbino
I’ve been hoping, ever since I watched Edwards give his wonderful concession speech after the Iowa caucuses, that he’d end up as Obama’s running mate.
The rumor I read some weeks ago (can’t remember where) was that Obama had offered him the AG spot.
I agree with Yglesias about the salutary effect Edwards has had on the Dem race. With Rudy! also bowing out, I’m inclined to say he was the GOP’s equal and opposite reaction. As helpful as Edwards was in pulling the Democrats leftward on domestic issues, Rudy was equally damaging in pulling the Republicans rightward on rule of law issues (torture, Guantanamo, executive power).
One wonders if Romney would really have gone there on that whole doubling Guantanamo business if he hadn’t had Rudy! on his right flank; likewise on Mitt’s answers to the Boston Globe survey about executive power. Maybe he would have. Maybe that’s how he really feels. But I have my doubts.
January 30, 2008 at 5:13 pm
ari
I’ve maintained months that had Romney run as himself — or the self* that most closely approximates his — he would have had the GOP nomination locked up long ago. But I’ve been told by friends and colleagues that he would have been killed for his Mormonism. And that you can’t run as a pro-choice candidate in the Republican primary. The latter is almost certainly true. But I don’t know about the former. I grew up in a part of the country where Mormons were virtually unknown — beyond, that is, their ability to throw footballs with exceptional accuracy. So the Mormon question has never really meant much to me.
* A savvy tehnocrat, a skilled cruncher of numbers, a bean counter, a pragmatist, a social moderate, a hugely successful businessman, an able governor, a committed father and husband, and a man of deep (if outside-the-mainstream) faith.
January 30, 2008 at 5:29 pm
urbino
I have to say it’s hard for me to imagine how he would’ve won if he’d run as the guy who was governor of MA. Nigh impossibly, actually.
January 30, 2008 at 5:30 pm
urbino
“Nigh impossible,” that is.
January 30, 2008 at 6:11 pm
Jamie T.
As odd as it would be for an ex-governor of MA to win the Republican primary, it’s perhaps equally strange that McCain might win. For all intents and purposes, he is the Republican Joe Lieberman. It certainly is a weird Republican race.
January 30, 2008 at 6:30 pm
ari
Yes, as I say, my friends and colleagues have all made the same point you are, Urbino: a pro-choice, soft-on-teh-gayz, healthcare-providing governor of Massachusetts could not win. Much less a Mormon, who’s not even really a Christian.
But I’m naive, and thought, like Jamie, that this is one weird year for the GOP (read: they have no good candidates). I’m still not convinced that Romney is out of it, by the way.
January 30, 2008 at 6:33 pm
urbino
True, dat. Of course, the Republicans’ problem this year is that, basically, they have a primary full of Liebermans. There’s nobody in the race who’s with them on all their key issues, except maybe Romney, who’s something less than convincing on many of them.
I suppose if the Dem field were full of Liebermans, we’d be as listless as the Republican base is this year.
January 30, 2008 at 6:55 pm
Historiann
What are your theories (collectively) as to why Edwards never caught fire this year? He was my pick in terms of policy, but he never seemed to be able to break away. The media coverage–not enough, not fair, etc. the usual complaints–may be partially to blame, but there must also have been some failures either with the candidate, or his strategy, or both. It’s too bad–I think he struck fear into the hearts of both the Washington and Wall Street establishments, and I was looking forward to them all having to wear Depends at least for the rest of 2008…
January 30, 2008 at 7:21 pm
urbino
My “True, dat,” was aimed at Jamie T., though I agree with Ari, as well. In fact, I still think Romney will win it. If, that is, he snaps out of the personal funk he seems to have been in of late; his head doesn’t seem to be in the game.
That’s a really good question, Historiann. Really good. I was leaning Edwards early on, myself. I have no idea why he didn’t catch on better. I can only observe that his is basically a populist message, and populism hasn’t really been a winning strategy since . . . geez, I don’t know when. Jimmy Carter?
That, of course, is no answer at all. Why isn’t populism more popular? Historians?
January 30, 2008 at 8:40 pm
ari
I think we’re (royally speaking) all wondering the same thing. And I have no good answer. Instead, I’ve got a few thought fragments that might, but probably don’t, add up to something.
1) He was hurt by lousy coverage that made him seem unserious about his issues. The haircut story and the house story both made him look like a lightweight. The press portrayed him as dabbling in poverty as a campaign message; its wasn’t really something he cared about. Fair, unfair, whatever. It was what it was.
2) He didn’t do himself many favors four years ago. He wasn’t bad, I suppose, but he wasn’t very substantial at that time. Or that was my read of him. Lots of people I know remember the same debate I do. And they haven’t quite forgiven him.
3) For many voters, Obama became the candidate of change. Probably this was the thing that hurt him the most, especially as Obama managed to convince people like me that he’s a real progressive while also wooing big money.
4) Obama and Hillary had huge wallets; he did not. Obviously, this is related to the point above. But I’d love to know the expenditures for the various campaigns. I’m pretty sure that Edwards, because his funds were limited, <emhad to go with a strategy of winning Iowa and then using that momentum to move foward. He didn’t and he didn’t.
5) Being a trial lawyer, although he’s on the side of the angels, isn’t an easy sell. Most people distrust lawyers, particularly those that are especially litigious. And he made his money winning lawsuits. I think the companies he sued, from what I know, had it coming. But again, that’s not an easy sell
6) There is, in fairness, a disconnect between his personal narrative and his campaign platforms. This is distinct from the unfair news coverage though related. But again, it is what it is.
7) He made some mistakes early in his campaign. The haircut story, again totally unfair though it was, emerged from a silly mistake on his part. He paid for the haircut out of campaign funds, if memory serves, which made nothing into something.
8) He’s not a very successful politician, at least in some ways. He left the Senate after one term. And likely would have lost that seat had he fought for it. But he didn’t fight. Which, again, doesn’t fit his campaign message (sorry to blur the lines).
9) Who knows? Really, I’m more struck than ever this cycle that trying to pick who’s going to win an election before the fact is just about impossible. He seemed like the right guy at the right time. But people just didn’t fall for him. Why that was is anybody’s guess. Because, I’d wager, all of the reasons above only register for a tiny fraction of the electorate. Or a tiny fraction of a tiny fraction: those people who vote in the primaries.
10) I wish I had a 10. This list would be more elegant that way.
January 30, 2008 at 8:41 pm
ari
I don’t have a clue why eight above turned into a smiley face with sunglasses. But it’s making me want to close down the blog.
January 30, 2008 at 9:14 pm
urbino
Having your #8 turn into a smiley is worth it, just for that remark.
January 30, 2008 at 9:21 pm
urbino
I tend to think 3 & 4 are the main culprits. I have my doubts about 5-7. The infamous 8* is a very good point, but I frankly doubt it occurred to many people.
*I was once in a jazz vocal group called “The Infamous 8.” Think Swingle Singers meet Yngwie Malmsteen. Heady stuff.
January 30, 2008 at 9:22 pm
urbino
Also, I still think there’s another really important factor not on your list. I just don’t know what it is.
January 30, 2008 at 9:25 pm
ari
Also, I still think there’s another really important factor not on your list. I just don’t know what it is.
Serious scholarly careers have been built atop much less than this. Serious careers of all kinds, as I think about it.
The Infamous 8
If you have CDs, we’ll sell them in the gift shop. Right out front.
January 30, 2008 at 9:36 pm
urbino
Maybe it’s this, which is closely related to your 3: people are put off by the anger that’s sort of inherent in populism, and with Obama offering a much more optimistic vision of change, Edwards’ message seemed that much more — and unnecessarily — angry.
Maybe?
January 30, 2008 at 9:38 pm
ari
Urbino, go look at the end of the thread on the SOTU. Check out my last comment. And click the link.
January 30, 2008 at 9:39 pm
ari
And also: maybe. Maybe anger turned off the electorate. I honestly have no idea. This is certainly the weirdest campaign season I’ve seen.
January 30, 2008 at 9:41 pm
urbino
Done, done, and done.
January 30, 2008 at 9:50 pm
Historiann
Good points–personally, I don’t see where there was a disconnect between his life and his politics, though I can see that his wealth was used against him. But–he made that money himself, he didn’t inherit it! I just don’t get how inherited wealth and privilege gets praised (even by Democrats) while they’re rolling over the guy who did it himself.
I don’t know about the anger issue, either–it seemed to work really well for Howard Dean 4 years ago, at least until people had to go caucus or vote for the guy. I think anger still plays well with the Democratic base–or at least with me. It seems like many Democrats are wary of both Clinton and Obama precisely because they don’t cause the same establishment panic that Edwards did.
But–you’re right. In the end, the guy may be a good enough candidate for statewide elections, but he’s only won one election in his life. And that debate in 2004 was beyond depressing…how could anyone NOT win against a guy who had approval ratings in the 30s even then?
January 30, 2008 at 9:55 pm
ari
I should be clearer: I see no problem with wealthy people caring about poverty. My point was just that the spurious press coverage stuck because the stories seemed rooted in something odd. And, by the way, I wonder if the oddity was, at least in part, that he did make his own money. People get noblesse oblige; it’s a recurring phenomenon throughout US history. But this was something different. And maybe people didn’t buy that the self-made man kept caring about the little guy. Honestly, though, even as I type this it feels so strained that I’m worried the comment is going to split into tiny pieces and take out an eye.
January 30, 2008 at 10:08 pm
urbino
I feel the same way about my theory. Really, I’m just flummoxed by the whole thing.
January 31, 2008 at 6:54 am
Galvinji
Am I still banned for my Plantagenet pedantry? I hope not.
I think anger still plays well with the Democratic base–or at least with me.
I don’t think anger turns off the electorate per se; after all, there is plenty to be angry about. But it doesn’t play well with the media, and aren’t most people’s impressions of political candidates shaped by the media? Why else would anti-war Republican voters support John McCain of all people?
As a corollary to Ari’s #1 and the discussion immediately above this, I think Edwards’ themes (and the presence of Obama, who gets great press) led to less, and misleading, media coverage. I don’t think our political media covers microeconomic issues well (and this point has been made by people who are better informed than I).
Also, perhaps Edwards’ themes didn’t fit the usual narrative of the self-made man (sic) in American politics — the usual narrative is that the self-made man offers business competence (e.g., Ross Perot, Michael Bloomberg, or, in a minor key, the pre-Presidential campaign Mitt Romney), not concern for the little guy.
January 31, 2008 at 8:22 am
ari
You have long since been unbanned, Galvinji. Your status is: “exalted.” As ever.
January 31, 2008 at 8:24 am
paul
What are your theories (collectively) as to why Edwards never caught fire this year?
Prof. Kelman mentions it as point one on his list: as I saw elsewhere, if he had dropped out every day, he might have gotten some press coverage, since he got more for that than for anything he did or said.
It was a bad time for him to run, when he had two candidates bidding to be The First [Woman|Black Man] to get on the general ballot (is that actually true or should it be couched as “in modern times?”). The monolithic media loves its narratives and a simple anti-poverty/pro-people message wasn’t interesting in a race that is more about celebrity than substance. I hate to use Rusty Limbaugh’s “the media” as a catch-all but the big news organizations don’t do a lot to contradict the idea of groupthink/lockstep.
And the mysterious smiley face came from the juxtaposition of the number 8 and the close paren. 8)
January 31, 2008 at 8:36 am
ari
Hi Paul. Thanks very much for your comment, which seems right to me. Also: I’m Ari. Undergraduates call me Professor Kelman; everyone else calls me Ari. Finally, here’s Yglesias with what he presents as one of the eternal verities:
The interesting fact here is that neither policy shifts nor messaging shifts trump the basic fact that the core constituency for a southern white dude is moderate-to-conservative white men. This is one of these things that everyone kinda sorta knows, but that often seems to drop out of the picture when it’s being discussed.
And while I think that the above is too simple by quite a bit — as does Yglesias, I’m nearly certain — there is something to what he says. Something powerful if the press only depicts the candidate as a “southern white dude” while covering his opponents as, to use Paul’s words, “The First.”
Edwards was, in other words, a combination of stale old news (Southern white dude) and unwelcome new news (an aggressive populist with an angry anti-corporate message designed to drive the establishment crazy).
January 31, 2008 at 9:45 am
bitchphd
It was a bad time for him to run, when he had two candidates bidding to be The First [Woman|Black Man] to get on the general ballot
This is it, entirely. And no, it’s not actually true–but what we have are the first “electable” woman (i.e., tons of money, name-brand recognition b/c of her husband, the inchoate feeling that she could, actually, handle the white house [since she’d been there before]) and the first “electable” black man (i.e., he’d been a senator, he’s light-skinned and patrician, he doesn’t have a “black” accent).
Plus Edwards doesn’t have the flash and charisma of either Clinton or Obama–part of their flash is that whole “first” thing, but part of it is just coincidence (although, not–in the sense that if they didn’t have it, neither of them would be doing nearly as well as they are; they’d be the “vanity” candidates, like Mosley Braun or Pat Schroeder.)
January 31, 2008 at 10:10 am
Sandie
I’m pretty disappointed by Edwards’ departure from the race, and now I’ve become one of those “undecideds.” I don’t seem to fit the alleged Edwards demographic–I’m only half-white, female, and not-southern, not working class–but I was attracted to the fact that he actually mentioned poverty, mentioned the corporate stranglehold on American politics.
I DO blame the media for his lack of traction (and everybody above has stated many of the reasons why the media ignored him). One reason people have missed is Edwards’ putting the issue of media concentration and corporate control of the media on the front burner. He basically said that the American press wasn’t telling American’s the truth about anything because they’re too beholden to corporate interests–not a message the media wants to hear. I blame them also for the meteoric fall of Dean in 2004–how many times did we have to hear about/see “The Dean Scream?” Why is Dean so angry? Why is Edwards so angry? Why can’t we just all just hold hands and get along?
Hmmm…looks like I have some anger issues too!
January 31, 2008 at 10:18 am
bitchphd
I have to figure out who to vote for now. Ari, wanna convince me to go Obama rather than Clinton?
January 31, 2008 at 11:05 am
bitchphd
You know, now that I’ve read the linked pieces, they don’t make me sad–they make me angry. Where was all this attention to how great Edwards was when he was still in the goddamn race?
January 31, 2008 at 11:24 am
Galvinji
I think you answered your own question above, at 9:45 am.
I’m not sure I’d call Clinton “charismatic,” though. It seems to me her appeal is that she works hard to understand people’s issues and concerns (e.g., her upstate NY “listening tour” in 2000). She’s a mediocre public speaker. She is, however, well known to both the public and the media, which makes it easier for her to attract attention from the (lazy) media.
In contrast, by all accounts, Edwards — at least in person — is a fairly charismatic guy; one would have to be to have achieved his level of success in his profession.
January 31, 2008 at 11:55 am
bitchphd
Her voice is somewhat monotone when she speaks in person. She is, however, really charismatic; most people who’ve met both of them say she’s much more appealing than her husband, and I mean, think about it: she got a *lot* of attention as first lady. Compared to Laura or Barbara Bush? Nancy Reagan probably got as much attention, and surely Jackie Kennedy and Eleanor Roosevelt, but by and large first ladies are pretty much “meh” in the public mind.
She’s certainly not mediocre. People tend to hold very strong views of her; there are very few Americans who are indifferent to her.
January 31, 2008 at 4:19 pm
ari
B, I’m not going to try to convince anyone to vote for Obama. But I’ll be happy to share some of the reasons why I’m going to. So, here’s a list of the issues that matter most to me in this election. A list I’ll be able to consult years from now for a barometer of how wrong I got everything. Also: said list is in the order that the issues pop into my head, so please don’t get annoyed if health care is number 7 or something.
1) Foreign Policy — From the Iraq issue to the team he has put together, Obama outperforms Hillary. He’s not perfect (this will be a recurring theme), but he’s very good on these issues. And this point is number one for a reason: this is what the president actually does. In short, foreign policy is the president’s single most important job. And Hillary has been wrong too often for my tastes, particularly on the issue of Iraq.
You’ve raised the point, here and elsewhere, that anyone hoping the next president will immediately end the Iraq war is nuts. And also that what the candidates say now may not be reflected in their policies once they’re in office. Both of these points strike me as totally right and very important to remember. But, Hillary is deeply invested in the Iraq conflict in ways that Obama is not. That matters a great deal to me.
At the same time, Obama, because of his name (perhaps silly, I know), the color of his skin (again, perhaps silly), and his multi-national heritage will help the US’s image abroad. This point seems potentially unfair to me, as this country was more popular internationally under Bill Clinton than at any time since before Vietnam (right, Eric?). Still, Obama, because of what I’ve mentioned above, has more upside (another recurring theme, as you’ll see below). Particularly because the Iraq debacle, more than anything else, is killing this country’s image. And Hillary, I don’t think, will be as good on that issue as Obama. Starting to repeat myself now, so I suppose I’d better move on.
But, before I do that, here’s one more thing: I suspect but don’t know that Hillary will be better at putting together an effective diplomatic corps. This is one area where having Bill around, plus her own extensive experience in Washington and abroad, really matters a lot. That said, I don’t know that I’m right. But I have a strong hunch.
2) Pocketbook Issues — For all of the clutched pearls one sees about Obama’s views on social security, I think he and Hillary will be virtually identical on fiscal policy of all kinds. Which is to say: not as progressive as I’d like. But still capable. I should note, also, that I don’t know enough to make informed judgments about these sorts of issues. Other than to say that the president’s actual impact on the economy’s performance probably isn’t very great. At least not during the period of his or her term in office. Still, neither will extend Bush’s catastrophic and unfair tax cuts. And that’s enough for me.
3) Women’s Issues — Again, I expect that the two will be so similar, for the most part, that I don’t really know how to address this question in any meaningful way. Both have near-perfect records, despite the insane rantings of the head of NY NOW (as noted on your blog and elsewhere). I could get into a whole thing about how much Obama did during the reproductive rights fight in South Dakota. But I feel totally confident that Hillary has done as much in other fights at other times. I just don’t have the examples right now. So, let’s just call this one a tie and move on if that’s okay.
4) Children’s Issues — The same as above, I think, though Hillary probably has the edge here because of her years of advocacy. In other words, although I’d expect their policies to be very, very similar, she deserves credit for the work she has done in the past. And my dad, who really knows this area of policy incredibly well, thinks she’d be the best president the nation has ever had. All of that said, I wonder if this part of the discussion is flirting with a gendered reading of her candidacy that I’d just as soon avoid.
5) Other Domestic Issues — One area that I used to think was a clear win for Obama was what I’d call the urban question (not meant in a coded way). His background as an organizer, and his attention to urban problems — including a focus on Katrina that only Edwards bettered – is huge. And because the nation gets more and more urban as time passes, and because urbanites often doesn’t have a powerful advocate at the highest levels of government, this really matters. But, Hillary would probably be excellent here as well.
Then there’s the Supreme Court, another area that demands too much speculation. They’ll both be great. It’s a wash.
6) Health Care — They’ll be close enough that I can’t really tell the difference. And on this issue, as with Iraq, what they say now and do later may totally different. Because of that, there is one thing that stands out for me: who will be better able to wrangle with Congress. And that’s too speculative for my tastes. Or, I should say, it’s too speculative for this section. But I will talk about a related issue below. So stay tuned.
7) Rule of Law — Obama, I think, is clearly better here. The habeas lawyers have come out for him in great numbers, he’s a Constitutional scholar, and he abhors secrecy. None of that, particularly the last point, is true of Hillary. I don’t want to be misread here, so let me say that I think that she’ll be much better than the horror we’re enduring now. But Obama will be even better than that. And, as I’ve noted here and on other blogs, this point is nearly as important to me as foreign policy. Actually, it probably is as important to me. And this is a big win for Obama.
8 ) The Environment – One more time: they’ll both be great, relatively speaking, though I think Obama, in a speech he gave in California two years ago (I can’t find a link), expressed a much more expansive reading of the problems we face, including talking about the relationship between urban areas and pristine landscapes. It was really very good.
9) Labor — This is a joke, I think. Hillary’s decision to hire Mark Penn and her work on the WalMart board make me very skeptical that she understands or cares about organized labor at all.
10) Other Stuff — Okay, here’s where we’re (if anyone else is still reading) crawling onto some very squishy ground. I know that. But you asked for my views, so here goes. Obama has more upside. I buy into the idea that he could be a transformative politician. Like Reagan (sue me). Race matters, of course. A lot, if you ask me. I still think that the racial inequities are the single biggest domestic problem this country faces and a byproduct of our original sin, slavery. I know that Obama is not the descendent of slaves. But he is black. And that matters to me. Someone is going to call me bigoted. Whatever. I’ll fight back then. But, I’m also thrilled at the prospect of having a woman president. So, to this point at least, the “other stuff” remains close.
But then there’s this: Obama is of a totally different generation from Hillary. I’m so incredibly tired of the incredibly tired baggage of the Vietnam era. I’m also quite tired of the culture wars. Or at least of how those wars are fought in Washington and the media (which is to say, without any nuance). Obama will at least try to move us beyond that. Whereas Hillary needs those fights in order to triangulate on issues. Related to that, Obama has the potential to reach younger voters. Actually, the data so far suggests that he’s doing this. This is no small thing in a nation of young cynics and ironists, people who have no faith in or understanding of the importance of government.
Also related: we don’t need a Clinton restoration. Two Bushes and then two Clintons just stinks in my view. Is this unfair to Hillary? Maybe. But she wouldn’t be where she is without a bit of nepotism. So I don’t think it’s unreasonable to think that my distaste for dynastic politics can be held against her. I could be wrong, of course.
Also also related: Obama has the potential to create a new, potentially more vibrant, Democratic coalition. Having said, that, this is also the riskiest part of his candidacy. But that risk begins to flirt with questions of electability. And like Sifu Tweety, I’m not going there. Or I would have supported Edwards from the get-go.
Returning to Obama, not only might he mobilize young people, and black people, but his soaring rhetoric, for me at least, is inspiring. Symbols matter a great deal to me. Words matter a great deal to me. And his use of both reminds me of, dare I say it… No, I’m not going there. I refuse to tempt the fates. I’ve just thrown salt over my shoulder. I will say this, though: I’m a sap. The original post that prompted this comment makes that clear. But my sappy side wants to be able to believe more deeply in the idea of this country, and the reality of this country, than I have in some time.
There’s even more stuff. But I honestly can’t imagine anyone made it this far. So I’m signing off for the moment and will respond to additional comments.
January 31, 2008 at 4:33 pm
bitchphd
Hm. This doesn’t help at all! Because while I agree with you about Obama being *probably* better in terms of Iraq, the diplomatic corps thing (which I’ve been thinking of as, Clinton’s got her husband’s experience to help her put together a solid experienced group of advisors, etc.) matters, too. Obama, I agree about Habeas, and that’s a really strong point in his favor. But the idea that Clinton would be better on kid and family issues, including education and parental leave and maybe work hours and all that quality-of-life stuff, well, I can’t help it; that’s huge. I feel like all that “boy” political stuff has always gotten so much attention and we have a chance to get a woman into office who really *gets* women’s issues (and I tend to bundle up kids issues with women’s issues, which okay, maybe I’m sexist, whatever). Although welfare reform was rather crappily done, so…. And the fact that Obama–rightly or wrongly–is the “change and new morning!” guy in the public mind does matter to me, too.
Shit, maybe I’ll flip a damn coin or something.
January 31, 2008 at 4:41 pm
bitchphd
Of course, Clinton also voted for the goddamm bankruptcy bill, didn’t she? Which was absolute shit for families. Hm.
January 31, 2008 at 4:46 pm
urbino
But the idea that Clinton would be better on kid and family issues, including education and parental leave and maybe work hours and all that quality-of-life stuff, well, I can’t help it; that’s huge. I feel like all that “boy” political stuff has always gotten so much attention and we have a chance to get a woman into office who really *gets* women’s issues
The problem H. Clinton faces on those issues, however, is that the president can’t really do much on them without congressional help, and the congress is, presumably, still going to be overwhelmingly boys. In the case of GOP members, he-man woman-haters (or at least he-man Hillary-haters).
On dealing with congress, in general, which Ari touched on, I think Obama has a big advantage. First, because the GOP and their base don’t harbor an unholy hatred for him. But second, because he has the ability to do what Reagan did — go over their heads to the American people; and I just don’t see Hillary being able to do that very well. She’s just never going to be sufficiently popular, and she doesn’t have the rhetorical chops.
January 31, 2008 at 4:56 pm
ari
Crap, Urbino touched on the point I really meant to make in my conclusion: a popular president, without significant scandalous baggage, can actually rally the people. He or she can lead, in other words. And if that happens, there could be real change in this country. Obama, then, might actually get people fired up, get them to care about politics again. He might, to borrow something others have said, community organize the whole nation.
Can you even imagine such a thing? It’s all speculative, I know. But your vote could be the difference between it happening or not. No pressure, B. But the fate of the world rests squarely on your shoulders. All you have to do is the right thing.
January 31, 2008 at 5:07 pm
urbino
a popular president, without significant scandalous baggage
I think Obama is going to accumulate some scandalous baggage between now and election day. At least, there are some things about him that Hillary hasn’t really exploited thus far, that I’m sure the GOP will, if he wins the nomination, and those things have the potential to seem scandalous to a not insignificant portion of the electorate.
Nonetheless, I don’t think there’s nearly as much as Hillary already has, given the right-wing madness of the ’90s, and I think he can overcome it, put it behind him, and become the Democrats’ Reagan.
January 31, 2008 at 5:20 pm
urbino
I was just surveying the Super Tuesday poll numbers over at TPM. For all his splash thus far, they certainly look bleak for Obama.
January 31, 2008 at 5:23 pm
ari
I don’t even know what “scandalous baggage” means. And I wrote that. Baggage made from the skins of endangered species? God, that’s just terrible writing.
Self-flagellation aside: you’re right. Drugs, his church, being black, Republicans will spin all of these things — and more — as scandalous. And try to make baggage from them.
January 31, 2008 at 5:29 pm
urbino
Yeah, the church thing is going to be a major focus for the GOP, I think, if Obama gets the nomination.
January 31, 2008 at 6:04 pm
ari
Yes. It will. I’d like to thnk that we’ll then have a national discussion about church and state and the nature of faith. But I’m doubting it. Also, here’s Chris Hayes on why Obama’s the right choice. Via Yglesias.
January 31, 2008 at 7:59 pm
bitchphd
You guys rock. I seriously want to be talked into voting for Obama. It’s weird. I just *want* to want to vote for Clinton, if you know what I mean, but I feel like I shouldn’t.
Or maybe that’s my internalized sexist self-loathing speaking. I don’t know!!! Ahhhh!
January 31, 2008 at 8:14 pm
Galvinji
On dealing with congress, in general, which Ari touched on, I think Obama has a big advantage. First, because the GOP and their base don’t harbor an unholy hatred for him. But second, because he has the ability to do what Reagan did — go over their heads to the American people; and I just don’t see Hillary being able to do that very well. She’s just never going to be sufficiently popular, and she doesn’t have the rhetorical chops.
I think this is key — and this is (and the Iraq war, and civil liberties) are why I would vote for Obama if my state’s primary matters. (I would probably have voted for Edwards.) It seems to me that a lot of the criticism of Obama’s rhetoric of bipartisanship misses the point — he is not relying on the goodwill of his partisan opponents, but rather acknowledging his opponents while redefining the center. That is, he is providing rhetorical cover for people to agree with him. (At least, I hope that is what he is doing by repeating nonsense such as the “social security crisis” line while offering the same solutions progressives like.)
I’d like to think that we’ll then have a national discussion about church and state and the nature of faith. But I’m doubting it.
I can only imagine what such a discussion would look like. I wouldn’t think it would be pretty. On the other hand, any of the likely GOP nominees (I’m thinking here of McCain and Romney) are going to have religious issues themselves.
January 31, 2008 at 8:37 pm
urbino
That is, he is providing rhetorical cover for people to agree with him.
Exactly. Well put.
On the other hand, any of the likely GOP nominees . . . are going to have religious issues themselves.
True, but the GOP will use religion to link Obama with political extremism — even “anti-American” extremism. I don’t think he’ll be able to do anything similar to them. Whatever else it may be, Mormonism could hardly be more pro-America; and McCain’s POW status immunizes him. McCain’s religious issues are the kind that, let’s face it, churchgoers are quite used to winking at among their own. Romney’s, not so much, but he’s saying the right things on all their political issues, so they probably won’t care.
January 31, 2008 at 8:58 pm
ari
It won’t be either of the nominees who’ll say anything about Obama’s church. They won’t have to. That’s what 527s are for. And veep candidates. McCain or Romney will just politiely shake their heads and say, “What can I do? Politics is a nasty business.” I promise this will happen. And it will be particularly galling if it’s McCain, given his ostensible stance on reforming campaign finance. Oh, my brain hurts just thinking about these things.
Also, Obama did really well in the debate tonight. Really well. As did Hillary. They were both excellent. And civil. Good stuff.
January 31, 2008 at 9:11 pm
urbino
So I’m reading. I was at work, so I didn’t see it.
You’re right about the 527s, I think, but I’d bet actual currency that McCain or Romney will bring it up, too.
January 31, 2008 at 9:14 pm
ari
I doubt Romney will do it, for the reasons Galvinji suggests, but you’re probably right about McCain.