1. Seeing as how my post below is being taken as illustrative of the lack of energy with which Obama's announcement was received by lefty blogs, let me just clarify. I'm actually very excited about an Obama run; I certainly support him now over the alternatives, and there's a high probability I will end up supporting him through the process, as far as he takes it. I mentioned the comments of my in-the-know friend because I think the concerns he has are misguided given the level of political opportunity out there right now, particularly for a mold-breaking candidate like Obama should be.
2. I'm sufficiently impressed with him that I contacted the proto-campaign yesterday to see about volunteering. Even though I know this is a busy time for them, I'm a little disappointed that I haven't heard back yet, partly because there's been a lot of talk about netroots and emulating the Dean campaign, and partly because I tried to volunteer for Obama's senate campaign some years ago and was basically ignored. I hope they're more organized this time, and I hope that they manage to get netroots right -- particularly given the lukewarm response from lefty bloggers (my own post notwithstanding).
3. One other comment: as much as race is being downplayed in the discussions of Obama's political fortunes, I think it is going to be a treacherous issue for him. There's plenty of racism out there in 2007, regardless of the extent to which political correctness has sanitized public discourse, and in particular I think this will make it dangerous to trust polling data. And yes, I think this goes for the Democratic primaries as well as for the general election.
Hey, you got linked on Slate, that's pretty cool!
yeah, i was pretty excited -- although i was also a little disappointed with the context, as i explained above. oh well.
Paul, isn't Obama some kind of tabula rasa who by speaking of hope and other good virtues has invited us to project our own dreams of a more civil politics onto his candidacy? I have yet to see him present the sort of leadership that he seemed to promise in '04, and frankly I've found him a little condescending in his attempts to moderate the outrage of those of us who have found more than sufficient cause to be outraged. I get the sense that he finds such passions a little unseemly, and that annoys me. Personally, I have yet to find a favorite in the list of democratic candidates for 2008. I wish that there were not so many Senators in play... and that the non-senators on the list (Vilsack, Clark, and Richardson) were stronger candidates. I guess I'm still on the fence about Obama and I'd be interested in hearing you articulate who Barack Obama is to you and why you think he would make a good candidate and a good president.
i get the sense from your comment that you think it's a small matter to become a vessel for americans' hopes with respect to optimism and civility in american politics. or maybe you credit obama's success in this regard to the media, or to his race, or to prevailing winds, rather than to the man himself? personally, i think it's a tremendous rhetorical achievement on his part, and deserving of a little more respect than the conventional wisdom seems to give it.
it's true, obama hasn't exactly differentiated himself on every issue or led the charge against every evil thing that's happened in the past few years. but i agree with the positions i do see, and i think his wonkish, considered, conciliatory approach is refreshing, especially when compared with the attitude of the current president. actually it reminds me of the best things about bill clinton. every mistake i can think of in the bush era would have been avoided if the president had taken the time to listen, and been willing to compromise on the basis of that listening. maybe that's not your idea of leadership, but i think it will have a lot of traction. while outrage has its place, it's not a good basis for policymaking...
as to how he'll position himself on some of the major issues he's avoided so far, i can only say that i'll be watching closely. maybe watching him for the past few years has given me a measure of faith...
Obama is very talented, but I sort of agree with Alex. The Republicans have been so horrifically bad that any all-civility, all-the-time approach is just not appropriate for where things stand. I don't think he comes across as condescending on this front; I think it's more the case that he's so new to the scene that he has to do something to differentiate himself. But Edwards strikes me as having a more appropriate balance between optimism/civility/what have you and a lot of good solid criticism of the awfulness of the GOP. There's nothing shrill or unseemly in telling the truth about how horrible their policies are.
That's where I disagree slightly with your Clinton comparison, Paul. Clinton was the ultimate wonk, and always very considered on serious policy issues, but I certainly don't think he was conciliatory on the substance of the important issues, in which the current-day GOP simply does not warrant any sort of conciliation.
I do like his rhetoric, and have teared up at his oratory. I understand Barack's appeal from that standpoint. Nor am I an all outrage, all passion, all the time kind of guy. I'd like to see a more civil politics as much as anyone. Ultimately, that is the aim. But we're in an unusual moment, and I believe one that calls for outrage. I feel like Obama's sense of civility is analagous to the false balance that journalists seek when they interview one evolutionary biologist and one pentecostal preacher for a story on evolution. Bringing the two sides together is not called for when one side has been systematically trashing the constitution, bringing us to unnecessary war, increasing poverty, looting the government for the benefit of the rich and connected, seeking to dehumanize gays, tearing down the wall of separation between church and state, and numerous other acts. In the face of all of that, the only appropriate and reasonable response is moral outrage. Obama behaves as if both sides need to conciliate. That's what I find condescending. Buying into that is like saying that we're oppressing Christians because we do not allow sanctioned prayer in public schools, when in fact it that would be oppressive to non-Christians.
Naturally, I have no direct experience with Obama so I only know of him what I have seen in the media and the internet. While the man himself is certainly not the creation of the media, his image is to a degree. After all, there are many politicians who have used similar rhetoric recently and who have spoken brilliantly who have yet to grace the cover of Time and Newsweek multiple times. The media thrives on narratives and Obama presents a great one: the principled man who seeks to bring a new civility to our harsh, partisan times. It's a seductive story, and we've all felt its emotional appeal. I'd like to believe in it. But the media had him pegged as a presidential candidate literally minutes after his DNC speech and I did too. However, I never would have guessed that he'd spend two years in the Senate and then declare his candidacy. I'm a little disappointed in him for not waiting longer. I think that he'd be a great candidate and president at some point, but in 2008? We need a strong fighter for democratic principles and someone who can express moral outrage intelligently. Remember that address that Al Gore gave in 2004 with: "How dare the incompetent and willful members of this Bush/Cheney Administration humiliate our nation and our people in the eyes of the world and in the conscience of our own people. How dare they subject us to such dishonor and disgrace. How dare they drag the good name of the United States of America through the mud of Saddam Hussein's torture prison."
That's what's called for, not any form of conciliation.
Post a comment