wasn't the original "sister souljah" moment really the opposite of political courage, disguised as political courage? I don't mean that snarky, I really wonder what people think.

Do you believe in magic? or: Why Obama won.

Starting the discussion...

Why on earth should he spend political capital now just to make a point? Just when he is most vulnerable, yet so close?

The only thing that would attest to would be his utter stupidity.

I sure hope he doesn't do anything that might endanger the support of any key constituency. (And, yes, I hope he is courageous in pushing for a progressive agenda in the future, as president, when he is fighting from a position of strength, not weakness as now).

I am the fourth to comment on this thread. This moment is now etched into history, and as you read this final sentence, know that my impact is permanent. You may delete my post, but you cannot delete your memory. I am now immortal.

Yes, this is ridiculous. Obama's first concern at the moment is to knock Clinton out as quickly as he can. His second concern is to win the election.

The rest of it can wait.

I would think that Obama's track record of taking political risks related to reform in the political process would tell much. After all, that is the thrust of his message. In short, he doesn't have a good track record.

Here is some information: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sunil-garg/obamas-audacity-gap_b_84358.html

I'd say that Hillary Clinton certainly isn't the poster child for Political Courage.

So it's not Obama versus COURAGE.. it's Obama versus Clinton, who voted for the Iraq war and the Iran Lierberman/Kyl resolution.

Rather, my question is about his political courage. Obama obviously has the talent to move people, and at some point he's going to have to decide whether he's willing to use that talent to start persuading the American public of the value of liberal policies, not merely the value of coming together and "making change."

"Start"? He's already spoken at length about withdrawing from Iraq, moving towards universal health care, increased openness and transparency in government, rolling back the Bush tax cuts, and investing in alternative forms of energy. Sounds like a pretty good "start" to me.

Still, speaking only for myself, at this point I'd like to see some kind of Sistah Souljah moment in reverse: something that demonstrates his willingness to take political risks on behalf of moving public opinion to the left.

Like when he promised to personally meet with the leaders of Iran and Venezuela? Or when he stood in front of Detroit automakers and told them they needed to make more fuel-efficient cars? Or when he criticized the African-American community for not being more tolerant towards gays and Latinos?

I'm honestly confused, Kevin, as to what exactly you want from Obama here.

"if he's willing to take political risks now, it's a good sign that he'll be willing to spend political capital later"

Why would you want him to take political risks now, just for the sake of taking risks? That's stupidity.

Kevin, don't you mean a "John McCain moment in reverse" after his recent vote? Although I guess torture is now a conservative value so maybe you just mean a "John McCain moment" ...

For what it's worth, I think Obama's taken a pretty courageous stand on foreign policy relative to the only Democrats I've ever had a chance to vote for in presidential elections (starting in 2000).

You know I don't think he is hiding what the wants to do. Read yesterday's speech in Janesville. I think he laid out his economic proposals pretty well. It is not like he is hiding his positions or anything. His positions are very consistently those of a left center practical populist.

Frankly Kevin, I don't know what more you want him to do.

What the hell is Sistah Souljah moment in reverse?

Does he have to go and kiss GWB's ring in public in front of the cameras of all the major networks around the globe to show that he is really bipartisan?

Uncharacteristically Kevin is being very obtuse here.

"Obama obviously has the talent to move people, and at some point he's going to have to decide whether he's willing to use that talent to start persuading the American public of the value of liberal policies, not merely the value of coming together and "making change." The latter might get him elected, but it won't get him elected with a tailwind of public opinion actively in favor of implementing a liberal agenda."

Which is exactly why he won't do it, Kevin. Americans will always reject those who seek to implement "a liberal agenda."

Instead, you liberals will become increasingly dismayed by Obama, who when after he gets the nomination will become the new Master of Triangulation. It's his only hope of beating McCain.

Obama's first concern at the moment is to knock Clinton out as quickly as he can. His second concern is to win the election.

Meet the new politics. Same as the old politics. Personally, I won't get fooled again.

"he" not "the"

"Still, speaking only for myself, at this point I'd like to see some kind of Sistah Souljah moment in reverse: something that demonstrates his willingness to take political risks on behalf of moving public opinion to the left"

Do you honestly believe that Sen Clinton can move public opinion to the left? It seems the reason that you like Sen Clinton is her pragmatist ways of being able to get things done.

Why do you seemingly have different measuring sticks for the two candidates? Why not compare them both the same way?

The central question will not be answered before the election. Political courage? People don't go there before elections.

Historically speaking, Abraham Lincoln did not speak out forcefully and act forcibly against slavery until he could. The Abolitionists wanted him to take stronger positions and do more, but Lincoln waited until he could act with force.

What about the fact that Obama consistently and on high-profile occasions (e.g. the Los Angeles debate) refuses, unlike Hillary, to express sympathy with white working-class resentment of immigrants, attributing it to "scapegoating"? He also consistently says that immigrants should get drivers' licenses of some kind, which is surely right in policy terms but isn't popular.

at this point I'd like to see some kind of Sistah Souljah moment in reverse: something that demonstrates his willingness to take political risks on behalf of moving public opinion to the left.

Kevin, I think Obama wants to win elections not lose them. The American people are conservatives not liberals. People are attracted to Obama because he is a post-partisan uniter, not because he is a ideological leftist.

You want him to move left now to prove he's a liberal? Are you insane? Thats a great way to lose the election. I know Obama is great and everything, but he cant single handedly change what history has proven is the way to win an election. You be as liberal as a necessary to win the nomination, but then you have to be more centrist to win a majority of the voters.

I think this belief in Obama is getting out of control. He cant change the whole political alignment of the country. He's a politician, he doesnt have superpowers.

Might it not be better to do this at some later date? Maybe after getting the nomination, or maybe even after being elected?

I thought he had a mini version of the reverse Sister Souljah moment when when he stopped wearing his flag pin. It made the Fox folks crazy for a while. It certainly wasn't helpful with the middle voter. It was just the kind of small symbolic issue that took some political courage where none was required or expected.

I'd rather have a cautious progressive who gets elected than an progressive who wears his idealism on his sleeve and doesn't get elected.

Obama's devotion??? to the center-left is crystal clear????????? HUH? Maybe his devotion to the mindless adulation of the center-left and to the image of center-left but not substance.

Contrast with Senator Clinton. From an article in Politico by Mike Allen today:

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) trashed an array of corporate interests in an economic speech in Ohio Thursday, vowing that as president she would go after oil, credit-card, insurance, pharmaceutical, investment, and loan firms.

Delivering a major economic address ahead of the Buckeye State’s crucial March 4 primary, Clinton also slammed Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) as a lightweight, declaring: “My opponent gives speeches, I offer solutions.”

“My opponent says that he’ll take on the special interests,” she said in her prepared remarks. “Well, he told people he stood up to the nuclear industry and passed a bill against them. But he actually let the nuclear industry water down his bill – the bill never actually passed.”

No, riffle, for us left-liberal independents, as opposed to center-liberal mush, it IS Obama vs. Courage.

Right now, Courage still wins and I still vote Green.

On Iraq, DaveWoo and all, as Kevin has pointed out, since actually getting elected his actual Senate record on Iraq is the same as Clinton's. And as Mendell's bio of Obama pointed out, his antiwar stance of 2002 had overtones of political calculation to it.

Dan Robinson - bullshit. Truman signed off on integration of the Army in 1948, even with his own party facing the Dixiecrat split. John Adams beat down Federalists' war pressure with France knowing it might make some Federalists, like Hamilton, indifferent to his re-election.

Of course, there are stupid "profiles in courage," too, like Ford's advance pardon of Nixon.

MsComment: Nice HuffPost piece.

Do you think Clinton is liberal. She belongs to the DLC, the conservative faction of the Democratic Party.

Talking about using courage for liberal ends. Obama is in favor of campaign finance reform. He has promised he would campaing with public financing at the general election if his Republican opponent did the same.

Al,

Why then is he considered the progressive candidate if he isn't a liberal? I realize that the word liberal has been demonized and is now considered an insult but the person with the most liberal voting record is Barak Obama. He was against the Iraq invasion which is considered a liberal view. (of course that doesn't explain Ron Paul but I digress)

Al:

You are dead wrong, as usual. In poll after poll, most Americans favor liberal positions, such as universal health care, a woman's right to choose, more progressive taxes and a smaller military. Unfortunately, the right-wing has a louder propaganda machine. So, they get more air time, relative to their numbers. You better get used to being in the minority, chump. Eight years of George W. Bush has guaranteed that it will be two decades at least, before conservatives win back Congess and the White House, in my opinion.

TCD

"The easy guide to being a good commenter"
Step 1: Actually READ Kevin's post
Step 2: THINK about it for a moment
Step 3: Post your comment

'start persuading the American public of the value of liberal policies'

Basically I've heard Obama say that liberal values ARE American values, that 'most' Americans don't favor huge economic inequality between the rich and the middle class/poor, that 'most' Americans favor healthcare for all, that 'most' Americans believe in offering a helping hand to those that are less fortunate, that 'most' Americans favor diplomacy over waging wars. Obama makes this equation of American values = liberal values often and this has contributed to his attracting immense support from all demographics.

There seems to be a parallel between Dems who criticize Obama for not being liberal enough and Reps (like Limbaugh and Coulter) who criticize McCain for not being conservative enough.

After all, if he's willing to take political risks now, it's a good sign that he'll be willing to spend political capital later.

The risk is that until at least 2013 McCain would continue the good work of George Bush.

You want Obama to flirt with that?

The "popular anger" candidate morphed into John Edwards who in attempting to diferentiate between himself and Obama's change messages went down that road.

Those candidates don't win elections.

Obama has championed changed in terms historical and hopeful and innovative: basically the American brand. And that resonates with people who are angry and with people who are dissatisfied moderates and people who are dissatisfied conservatives. He's taken a progressive-liberal agenda that is essentially like HRC's and made it platable to deep red America. They don't like his ideas, his big governement, or think liberalism is the answer. But they like the fact that he's appealing to them as American's first.

That is essentially the heart of why Obama has done so well. It's why Regan did so well. He has realized that in cloaking his progressive proposals in jingoistic terms he will sublty ratify them while at the same time connecting emotionally to those Republicans who like the jingoism but not the policy.

It's something most people haven't gotten in the desire to mock him as some messianic voice.

You know, I've been wanting to say this all day, and you just gave me a good reason to: I'm an Obama supporter, and I support him because I'm angry as hell.

Not to be shallow about it, but I consider myself a "Toby Ziegler liberal." I believe that government can be a place where people come together, and where no one gets left behind. We all do. We all have to -- that's what we're fighting for. Hillary tells us it can't happen; Republicans are Republicans, and she's who she is, and she'll grind them into mush, and we'll all celebrate. Well, maybe she's right. Maybe not. But if that's really the best we can do, we ought to just all go home now. Really, I'm ready to, because I'm TIRED. I'm not tired of "partisan bickering." Partisanship is good. We should have lots of it, because it signifies public disagreement, and public disagreement fuels democracy. I'm tired of eight hundred executive orders being rescinded every four years because we can't even build consensus about the basic functions of our democratic institutions. I'm tired of feeling like any victory liberalism is a triumph of tactics, not persuasion. I'm tired of listening to conservatives scream about how government can't work, only to hear liberals agree! Maybe they're all right. I don't know. Maybe government really can't do anything. But this year -- THIS year, when everyone but a 30%-sized rump of America is up for grabs, persuadable, LISTENING -- if we can't do it this year, we should all just go home, because we're no longer trying to lead a great nation to become greater; we're just trying to win at a game that I, for one, am rapidly losing interest in playing.

So, maybe they're right. But maybe they're not, and I want to find out, and, as fate and historical circumstance would have it, for me to find out, Barack Obama has to become president. That's why I'm voting for him.

Obama needs to get out in front and stop taking credit for ideas that he's snagged from Clinton and Edwards - he needs to make them bigger, better, and they need to have real impact.

Big things. Big changes.

Real change, not just talk about how he'll cuddle up to Republicans.

Peace keeping and Insurgency training for our armed forces. More Peace Core funding. More AmeriCore. Bring our Coast Guard back up to strength. Bring our National Guard back to guard our nation instead of off on adventures.

Real changes in how America does business, not just window-dressing.

I'm with Kevin -- I don't see Obama tapping into any kind of anger whatsoever.

What he's tapping into is people's desire for a candidate who's different ... one that at least presents himself as a DC outsider willing to change the way politics are done ... and one whose message seems to come from the heart, rather than from a focus group.

Basically, in no way is he voicing the anger some feel -- he's voicing people's desire for a government that works.

Granted, it could all very well be smoke and mirrors, but I've got a decent Bullshit-O-Meter and it has yet to go off.

As far as him taking risks, as of now there's no way he can. Getting the nomination doesn't lend itself to that, nor will running in the general (if he gets the nod).

I agree, though, that it would be nice for him to take a riskier stand on an issue -- say, advocating for a single-payer health care system, rather than leaving health insurance companies in the mix with a mandate system. Just not sure now is the time.

The "popular anger" candidate morphed into John Edwards who in attempting to diferentiate between himself and Obama's change messages went down that road. Those candidates don't win elections.

I don't think popular anger did Edwards in. I think being the third wheel did Edwards in. If Obama didn't throw his hat into the ring, I don't have much doubt that Edwards would be ahead of Clinton at this point.

"Start"? He's already spoken at length about withdrawing from Iraq, moving towards universal health care, increased openness and transparency in government, rolling back the Bush tax cuts, and investing in alternative forms of energy. Sounds like a pretty good "start" to me.

...But he's done none of this in Congress. He talks a good game, but his program suggestions are all short-ended.

nepeta the values you call liberal are American values. Americans have talked a good conservative game for a couple of decades now but consistently if you get down to brass tacks, most Americans, even most Republicans, "don't favor huge economic inequality between the rich and the middle class/poor, . . . favor healthcare for all, . . . believe in offering a helping hand to those that are less fortunate, (and)... favor diplomacy over waging wars." That is why Obama is so damn appealing to independents as well as a lot of Democrats and some Republicans. He is telling them exactly what they think a politician should be telling them. It isn't magic.

People want change from the corruption. Obama is just another mediocre pol who emerged from the cesspool of Illinois politics. Read the article referenced by MsComment. Anyone thinking Obama is about change or anything but Obama and power needs to do your homework.

...But he's done none of this in Congress. He talks a good game, but his program suggestions are all short-ended.

To be fair, what you are describing is not actually the work of the legislative branch, it is the purview of the executive, so a lack of accomplishment here is not really an indictment.

(And for the record, I am not a supporter of any candidate right now. When my candidate dropped out, I decided to sit on my hands - other than casting my secret ballot - until we have a candidate. I decided that I didn't want my support to be analogous to a bee flitting between flowers.)

My major complaint with Sen. Obama is his no change foreign policy. He believes in, supports and wants to use American power pretty much the way it has been used for the past fifty years. Other than that, Sen. Obama is guilty of the same inaction and acquiescence Sen. Clinton practices and what I have accused Edwards of. Barack did not lend his charisma and national celebrity to join with Nancy Sheehan or lead an alternative anti-war movement. He has not led the displaced poor of New Orleans back to their city. He did nothing to alert the nation to the housing bubble in 2005 and 2006. To be fair, no national politician did any of these things, but that makes it easy to question the legitimacy of Sen. Obama's sincerity and ability. He seems to be like all those other national political leaders. Our support requires the audacity of hope that Sen. Obama will make good progressive changes as President Obama.

"say, advocating for a single-payer health care system..."

Mark D,

Agreed. I don't know what happened to the single-payer plan. Excuse the ignorance, but did any Dem candidate propose single-payer? I can only guess that both Clinton and Obama simply don't see single-payer as being realistically possible given insurance industry clout and the 'socialized' medicine accusations that would follow any such proposal. Sadly it seems we're stuck with second-best healthcare plans because of political realities and commonsense concerns like what happens to the insurance companies in such a scenario? I'd like to see a single-payer plan put in place that was competitive (e.g., a Medicare-type plan) with the insurance industry and let it suceed or fail on its merits rather than get a program going with the for-profit insurance company middlemen still raising costs.

Abraham Lincoln was an Illinois pol. Harry Truman was just another pol from a corrupt Kansas City machine. Hillary Clinton is a Clinton. There is plenty of corruption around, Chrissy. There are no "pure" politicians and I wouldn't want one as President if there were.

Why don't you talk up Hillary instead of engaging in the politics of personal destruction? Are you afraid?

Geez, I dunno. I am not excited about either Clinton or Obama. In practice neither one is exceptionally likely to effect radical change: they would inherit a situation much like the one Bill Clinton inherited, with a small (if any) majority in Congress and powerful forces arrayed against them. The chances of anyone turning into FDR in this context are small (but then, so were the chances that FDR would turn into FDR).

I will vote for Obama in the Texas primary because, wherever they differ, he has edged a little bit left of Clinton, and because he talks straighter on the issues, and because she had her chance to establish a national health-care system in 1993 and failed abysmally.

Take this contrast in the candidates' issue statements on immigration (at the Washington Post):

Clinton:
My top three priorities ... are to ensure that comprehensive immigration reform includes toughening security at our borders, placing stronger restrictions or sanctions on employers, and providing a path to earned citizenship for people who have been living and working in the United States lawfully.

Obama:
We need to work in a bipartisan way to achieve comprehensive immigration reform. First, on security, comprehensive reform has to mean gaining operational control of our borders by using better technology, improving infrastructure, and making smart choices about where we deploy resources on the Southern and Northern borders. These actions can strengthen our security while discouraging people from taking the risk of crossing the border illegally. Second, at the workplace, we need a simple, but mandatory electronic system that enables employers to verify the legal status of the people they hire. Third, we need to bring the 12 million undocumented people out of the shadows. We need to be realistic about the fact that they are here, we can't deport them, and they have become an integral part of our society. We need to give this population a chance to pay a fine, to have provisional status in the country, and to get into the back of the line for citizenship.

That is a choice, not an echo. Clinton is about toughness on illegals and employers, and about getting citizenship for those with green cards, who are hardly the problem. Obama is about smarter security, forestalling illegal hiring instead of just punishing it, and actually addressing the (vitally needed) illegal population's needs. Again and again, he will at least talk about things that don't seem to register with Clinton; she offers safe teflon-coated options that placate conservatives.

Chrissy,

Hillary also takes large donations from the very same companies and she says lobbyist are welcome in her administration. Obama does not.
Hillary also thinks it’s AOK to rent out her mailing list to a company that happens to be one of her biggest contributors. What's that about?

Kevin, the clueless wonder boy:

...something that demonstrates his willingness to take political risks on behalf of moving public opinion to the left.

Dumb Drum.
Why do you think The Big Shrill has spent the last 7 years trying to triangulate the center?

Because she, like Barack, and like anybody else who has been awake the last 14 years realizes that the L word is a torpedo. Repeat after me: Lose liberal ships sinks ships.

WTF is wrong with you? You don't have your teeth on a substantial issue here. But you do have your thumb up Crissa's ass. And it looks like she is enjoying it very much.

.... I've heard Obama say that liberal values ARE American values...nepeta at 2:05 PM

...For those of us with the "audacity" to hope for change and reform in Illinois, Obama has been a disappointment. Obama's actions in Illinois, as opposed to his rhetoric, have repeatedly put personal political expediency and partisan politics before change, principle and reform, and audacity seems only appropriate when there is no political risk to him. At the end of the day, it may be unrealistic to think that Obama would challenge the status quo in his home state and his actions may very well be an example of the old adage that "all politics are local." Yet, that thinking reduces Obama's expansive vision to one where change in Washington becomes the panacea for our nation's problems and where Obama only means what he says in a tiny sliver of land on the East Coast, and that doesn't feel like change, unity and certainly not audacity. One thing seems certain -- voters would do well to take a peak at who from Illinois is on Obama's bandwagon to D.C.

You got your Sista Souljah moment right there.

Rather, my question is about his political courage.

I don't know why you would question Obama's political courage but not Hillary's.

The vote over Iraq is a great example. Yes, he wasn't in the Senate at the time he came out against the war, but he was running for the Senate and his was still a lone courageous voice. He could've lost any chance of being elected by saying what he did -- and what's more, he didn't budge. Meanwhile, we've seen numerous examples of triangulating from Sen. Clinton which strongly suggest to me that her willingness to compromise for political expediency knows no bounds.

And what about the recent (as in just the other day) telcom companies immunity vote? Both were in the area, campaigning for the Potomac primaries. And what happens? Sen. Obama shows up to vote for the amendment that would strip the companies of immunity, and Sen. Clinton doesn't show up at all. Guess she wants to be able to argue it either way further down the line.

So where is all this concern about Obama's political courage even coming from? Is it really a "toughness" argument?

Personally, I'm beginning to think -- looking at their campaigns -- that Obama is the kind of guy who may seem less tough than he is because he makes it all look so easy. While Clinton, because her campaign is in such disarray, comes out looking tougher when in fact she's just brittle and losing control.

Aren't we all frustrated, angry, and yearning for something better? Aren't we all disgusted and hoping to regain our past greatness?

In my experience, there's not an awful lot of "hope" and "optimism" on display from his followers, but a LOT of venom and anger. How does Obama atrract that?

What drives us to so badly want to find a better way is that the here and now sucks.

Obama has championed changed in terms historical and hopeful and innovative: basically the American brand. And that resonates with people who are angry and with people who are dissatisfied moderates and people who are dissatisfied conservatives. He's taken a progressive-liberal agenda that is essentially like HRC's and made it platable to deep red America. They don't like his ideas, his big governement, or think liberalism is the answer. But they like the fact that he's appealing to them as American's first.

That is essentially the heart of why Obama has done so well. It's why Regan did so well. He has realized that in cloaking his progressive proposals in jingoistic terms he will sublty ratify them while at the same time connecting emotionally to those Republicans who like the jingoism but not the policy.
Rhoda's quote sums Obama-mania up very nicely. He sells liberalism to people who wouldn't ordinarily support these policies.

Rhoda's got it right. The angry young black man tag will not win you a nomination much less a General Election. People are furious at the partisanship and self-interest that has demoralized this country for the past twenty-years. Just because they are not demonstrating in the streets about it -doesn't mean that the anger isn't real and palpable. Right now it's being channeled in a positive direction.

You want to see the anger unleashed - wait until Denver when Hillary tries to steal the nomination.

The first test of whether Obama has presidential political skills is whether he can win the nomination.

Perhaps smarter people than he can already determine what his attempt to win the nomination tells us about how he will exercise his political skills if elected. But perhaps not and many complaints are of the "He is different than I would like" school. Random.

The frustrating thing is that the Obama propaganda is contrasted to the Clinton propaganda, when it is clear that no one knows what Obama will be like as president, or what the "objective circumstances" will dictate/allow if he is elected, and anyone who pays attention knows that Clinton has no history of "partisan" success in changing the country and there is no chance she will have the power to do anything significant unless the "objective circumstances" allow it. But the blather continues as if it were otherwise.

The poor thing is getting an M.S. in "Future Studies" (??) from the University of Houston??

I didn't know that Houston offered "Future Studies," or that it was, indeed, a "science."

Wouldn't she be better off getting a degree in Hotel Management, like the gay blond northern-European-looking heavy-accented Mexican fellow in his 20s who manned the front desk at the hotel there when I checked in years ago?

The WORST HOTEL I HAVE EVER STAYED AT--gruesome beyond compare. The maids' and janitors' cigarette ashes on the floor of my room, their "clubhouse" room at the end of the floor...the icky tattered bits of tin foil insulation around the sink's pipes...the worn TV cabinet with doors that wouldn't open enough to allow you to watch except from one, limited location...the room door that closes leaving you in the hallway the instant you check on something out there (with your keys on the bed)...the weird architecture of the closet with bizarre dead space above it...the front desk's misdescription of the total cost for two nights and their "hotel management" policy of cheating people who just show up at the front desk...the fact that, despite my request, I was given a room on a low floor on what was probably the only occupied floor of a tower of 10 stories or so...and, WORST OF ALL, the phone that stank of the maids' and janitors' HORRIBLE BREATH and that I had to WASH AND WASH AND WASH.

But, I suppose ALL THAT PALES FOR MS. ROBINSON against the possibility of her having to face the various rapists, killers, dog shooters, muggers, and assorted gangbangers who populate the campus of the University of Houston and that part of town.

Really, the perfect city for the elder Bushes. Oh, well, I guess the poor generally keep to their part of town.... Oh, wait they don't--it's fancy house, fancy house, crackhouse apartment house, fancy house, fancy house, shotgun shack... pretty much all over Houston.

Delightful!!

I don't know why you would question Obama's political courage but not Hillary's.

Because the snake lady doesn't have a chance of educating those who Drum considers in need of it. Obviously the minds of that America are closed to her. No educating effects can flow from her to them. That's as clear as a rattlesnake's rattle. That's why Drum only makes the argument in this particular direction. He has no choice.

"My major complaint with Sen. Obama is his no change foreign policy."

brojo,

I don't know how you can say this. In the interview he says he will start one-on-one dialogue with Iran. He suggests organizing a conference of Muslim countries and the US to discuss the many problems in the area: Iran, Iraq, the Palestinian/Israeli quagmire.

Although Obama did not 'lead' an antiwar movement he did give at least one speech to an antiwar rally. He was firmly in the anti-war camp, unlike Clinton.

How can he lead the dispossessed of New Orleans back to their city when they have nowhere to live? He talks in the interview of what he would have done about New Orleans, starting with the fact that action to repair levees should have taken place long before the hurricane hit, evacuation arrangements should have been made earlier and sufficient to evacuate all residents that needed to leave, and finally a plan for reconstruction that would have avoided the enrichment of private contractors.

He speaks about the housing bubble and how the Fed should have been alert to what was happening and taken action much earlier. He says the Fed fell down on its oversight responsibility, mostly because of a lack of political will.

brojo, I can only keep repeating, listen to the Reno Gazette interview and then come back to me with your criticisms if you don't find the answers you're looking for.

Chrissy,

All well and good, except that nobody really believes what HRC says anymore (see last few days of Rasmussen national tracking poll). Each week she does something to show that she simply wants to win at any cost (see the "incendiary" quote in MSM today).

She continues to hold to her view or personal entitlement, the big-state/firewall strategy, politics of division, and continues to shoot herself in both feet (sometimes simultaneously).

Obama's ability to take risks and move the political culture further to the left will depend on how many Congressional seats the Democrats win in the bargain. IMHO, one of the strongest rationales for the Obama candidacy is his ability to drive strong voter turnout, which translates into a lot of down-ticket wins for the Democrats. If I were a GOP strategist looking at the coming tsnunami, I'd be scared shitless.

Among other things, the argument that Sara Robinson uses that there is no cult for Obama is just absurd. She employs a strict definition of religious cult, and points out that Obama's following doesn't feature enough of the characteristics of religious cults to be such a cult.

But the claim has always been that there's a personality cult around Obama, and the criteria for there being such a cult are obviously going to be looser. I should think that a prominent distinguishing feature of such a cult in the political arena is that the followers of the cult believe, far, far past what is rationally warranted, that what the leader says is true is, in fact, true.

From my point of view, one of the best examples of Obama's followers falling into such behavior is their slavish repetition of Obama talking points on the issue of change, and how it is likely to be wrought.

Many -- likely most, I'd guess -- of Obama's most ardent followers are people who not very long ago vehemently argued that the absolutely critical thing our Democratic leaders should do is "stand up" to the Republicans and "fight back". This was certainly a signature issue of Howard Dean's campaign, and many of Dean's most loyal devotees have made their way into Obama's camp. These same followers typically savaged Kerry for failing to "fight back" when he ran in 2004, and used that as a basic reason to oppose his running again in this cycle. Moreover, many of this camp to this very day cannot castigate the current Democratic members of Congress enough for backing down to the Republicans.

Yet, simply because Obama has indicated that he's going to introduce a "new politics" appealing to "bipartisanship", and "reaching across the aisle", suddenly these same tongues are stilled. Suddenly, this is the exactly right thing for Obama to do, and for us to embrace.

When you turn on a dime on some of your most strongly held convictions, and argue vehemently in one direction one day, and then, after your leader has pointed the opposite way, argue vehemently the other direction, that is a sign of a cult, I should think. And if you don't want to call it a cult, but, say, "pink peonies" instead, then we will all be much, much better off if we can get rid of the damn pink peonies, because they can destroy our politics.

I agree with Sara, and not Kevin: "This could hardly be farther away from my view of the Obama phenomenon. "Repressed fury"? "Scary"? I don't see that at all. "Change on a scale that much of the status quo should find terrifying"? I don't think there's anyone on the planet who's terrified of Obama."

Obama has absolutely tapped into my "barely repressed fury" at what has happened to our country, and, frankly, given me "hope" that we can recover our nature as a nation. I think highly of Hillary and will happily vote for her if she is the nominee, but Obama is the one who has allowed me to dream of a great future for our country.

In my experience, there's not an awful lot of "hope" and "optimism" on display from his followers, but a LOT of venom and anger. How does Obama atrract that?

Two things:

1) Start reading threads and cataloging your experience. Because "my experience" is that there are plenty of Hillbots spreading shit through the blogosphere. Also take a walk over to Hillaryis44.com and see if you can sneak a post in. I got my censored because I talked McCain down as someone who was against ERA and MLK day. Fuck that. These snakes deserve stepping on.

2) Just because somebody supports Barack on the web doesn't mean they have to behave like him. That's ridiculous idealism. Just as some of us enjoy kicking McCain's ass online, so too we enjoy kicking the snake lady and her acolytes around. Nothing wrong with that. She's earned it. They have too.

Frankly0, I think each candidate comes to the table with different rhetorical skills. Dean was a fighter, while Obama is more cordial in the way he attacks his opponents and uses, "hope" as a way to reach some voters that aren't interested in policy discussions.
For people that are high information voters, they recognize a candidate that can bring new people to liberal positions. That's something the Democratic party hasn't had in a long time.

Sen. Obama talks of talking to Iran. The US ought to open relations and drop the atomic weapons development argument used for continued belligerence towards Iran. There is no need to negotiate. Talking of talking means Sen. Obama accepts the established theme Iran is some kind of enemy to the US. That is not a change in US foreign policy. I do not want to go into more criticism of Sen. Obama, but I will address New Orleans and the housing bubble by saying Sen. Obama's criticism of others is not a demonstration of great leadership.

I believe there is some pent-up rage within a certain group of the electorate. Rage directed at the Clintons' proclivity to subordinate principle to ambition and aspiration. Bill Clinton's utter failure to leave a functioning progressive agenda after his 2nd term occurred because of his personal, irresponsible behavior. He knew very well that any misstep would take on magnified proportions. Some of his non-vetoed legislations stuck in the craw of many a progressive supporter. The Telecommunications Act and Welfare Reform act come to mind most prominently. Hillary's inexplicable (in consideration of her NY constituency) vote on H.J. Res. 114 (AUMF) is now coming home to roost. Her cynical reinterpretation of her motivations are cause for derisive dismissal, especially in light of her subsequent support for the Kyl-Lieberman resolution. Another major concern for this voter is her intransigent, pandering position vis-a-vis the Israel/Palestinian issue. I'd prefer not to have her in control of our foreign policy. Having said that, there is no question that I would vote for her over McCain.

"Repressed fury"? "Scary"?

Generally I would agree with Sara, but would substitute "tapping into repressed fury" with tapping into our intense frustration. The other factor is rekindling a sense of possibility that moves people out of apathy and feeling my voice doesn't count. Special interests and money have been dominant too long. Hillary thinks she has to play that game in order to get things done - I'd like to see a chance to get public opinion back in the equation.

Try stepping away from the computer. You are going blind. I watched his victory speech in Madison WI.

He talked about America being fed up to see all their money going to fight a war we should have never had. Then went on to a laundry list of things America is mad about being denied.

I give you credit. You seem like you actually looked at the Obama record.

That makes you 1% of the blogoshere. Everyone says the same crap. No Substance. Look at the bills he has sponsored. Look at the bills he passed as an Illinois Senator. Then tell me about no substance.

And you want more anger. You think Illinois would send an empty suit to Washington, at least in the Senate, and not a Republican District like Hastert ran in.

We gave you mopes Durbin and Obama. We know substance. And we know that Obama tapped that anger when he ran.

And his very first speech in the Senate was condemming the vote fraud in Ohio. Yes, his first speech was to challenge the system that put Bush in place.

Is that enough anger for you. Sure Edwards can talk angry 24/7. How many delegates did that give him.

Besides, Edwards sounded like a pissed off Gomer Pyle. No one bought it.

...the "change" his audience cheers for is the feel-good U2 variety, not the mad-as-hell Howard Beale variety.

There's a reason why that is working Kevin. The country has heard enough anger and venom from intolerant right-wing freaks for way too long. Emulating that angry style on the progressive side hasn't worked very well this time. Edwards tried going Che Guevara and he really didn't get anywhere with it. I think it inadvertently and unintentionally projects too much of the negative, stern, angry daddy shit we've seen from the GOP and people just aren't responding to it. If Obama's style is rock-star like and it works, then so be it.

I think Obama is more of an artist than a sound engineer. The public wants an artist, not a technician, and especially NOT an angry, stern, judgemental, authoritarian, daddy OR mommy.

"I say in speeches that a plausible mission of artists is to make people appreciate being alive at least a little bit. I am then asked if I know of any artists who pulled that off. I reply, 'The Beatles did.'"
Kurt Vonnegut

Finally, from Cousin Vinnie, a grown up response. Most of the comments here on both sides of the debate are disturbingly naive. So was the original post for itsimplicit demand for instant gratification. Kevin, FDR campaigned for a balanced budget in 1932. He didn't start his fireside chats until he was in office. It's going to take patience and a lot of continued effort, including relentless pressure on the very people we elect, to dismantle the right wing superstructure that's been built up since 1964.

I, too, am a furious Obama supporter.

- I'm furious at the Republicans who have dominated the political discourse for 30 years

- I'm furious that the most successful political move by a Democrat in my adult life was an impeachment acquittal

- I'm furious at Democrats who call their candidates and reps. spineless cowards at the drop of a hat

- I'm furious at Democrats who think our agenda is so unpopular that we have to force it on the country through bloody struggle

- I'm furious at Democrats who think that they could succeed politically if only it weren't for media, opposition, and voters

I'm tired of being furious. I want to start working on getting stuff done.

This is, of course, Obama's appeal.

Sara Robinson feels 'Repressed fury' so, since no one really knows where Obama stands, she imparts her own feelings on to him and assumes he has the same feeling. Its a great tactic. He is everything to everyone. Its going to get him nominated.

I think a snap shot of Obama's lack of toughness was seen when he broke down like a school boy when Red Dud Dowd made fun of his ears. You would thank at his age that he would be mature enough to ignore school yard jabs like that.

OBAMA: You talked about my ears. I just want to put you on notice: I'm very sensitive about -- what I told them was, ''I was teased relentlessly when I was a kid about my big ears.' "

DOWD: We're just trying to toughen you up.

"nepeta the values you call liberal are American values."

Yes, corpus juris, that is the point that Obama makes and that I was trying to elucidate.

The only thing that is scary is that we just got through with 31% Bush riding roughshod over our constitution and American values for the past 8 years.

We're understandably afraid that Obama could command a much higher approval rating, and "run with it" in an unpleasant direction.

But relax.

Big Money does not like Obama. So that ain't gonna happen.

He's one of us

Sara Robinson feels 'Repressed fury' so, since no one really knows where Obama stands, she imparts her own feelings on to him and assumes he has the same feeling.

DougMN:

Yup. And among his conservative supporters say that "I don't agree with him on every issue, but..." And Kevin doesn't doubt Obama's center-left credentials. (Me neither!)

Obama is the ultimate Rorschach candidate.

Kevin,
I think you're misreading Ms. Robinson's post. She's saying that Obama's FOLLOWERS have "Repressed fury" and demand "Change on a scale that much of the status quo should find terrifying", DESPITE the fact that Obama has been "cool" and "vague" about change. Obama has no need to be radical. Simply by promising to pull the country back to the center, he's promising a huge amount of change.

no one really knows where Obama stands
I swear to St. Valentine this is the stupidest fucking meme on the blogosphere.
Please explain to me why you do not know his positions.

The best definition of anger I have ever heard is this: Anger is the "Haaaaah" energy that rises when something needs to change. So yes, some anger is in the mix...but that was a while back. I think people had given up, grown demoralized, cynical, apathetic (does this mean they repressed the anger? or lost it?), and his approach has woken them back up to healthy possibilities.

Oh goody... Uncle Elmo the little boys pal just showed up to talk to himself for half a dozen posts or more. Right on time!

Folks, want to see a working example of insanity? The don't respond to him!

Just skim his crap as it comes up. It is deliciously nutso shit. Every now and then, sit back and muse at what sort of illness sits on the other side of those posts. Got to be fat, snaggle-toothed, and sub-100... right?

compared to hillary he is ....

Agree with franklyO and would also include as a sign of the personality cult the tendency (so well demonstrated here) of cult followers to take any questioning or criticism of their leader personally and react as if they had been personally assaulted and lash out. They become so caught up in the identity of their leader they feel they are being criticized when their leader is.

Ah, the paralysis of over-analysis, something akin to a Democratic fetish these days. We have here a centrist-Democrat (appealing to a "conservative Democrat" such as myself) that is successfully running an extraordinary campaign. More than any other candidate. He is bringing in an amazing amount of energized voters, increasing the appeal of the Democratic Party, redrawing the political demographics, generally elevating the political dialogue (within an agreeable amount of political reality), and here we are bitching about the results. Sigh, only Democrats....

Guess what? Barack Obama is pretty much a centrist Democrat, despite the disingenuous "liberal" rating. In his speeches, his positions on issues, his general "style" of campaigning, point to a pragmatic sense of governing, I'll venture. But his appeal between his opponent and McCain and Clinton is embarrasingly simplistic: he is the post-modern candidate which people want to see mob the country forward intackling the countries problems. The fundamental baggage that a Hillary Clinton or a John McCain brings to the table ("experience") is a source of fatige for those who are tired of the standard battle-crys of the old political order. They Aden looking for a pure liberal candidate, and neither am I. Basically, it's about a post-modern candidacy.

Now, I will surely be attacked over the simplicity
of this appeal. It's fine, I'm just stating it like it is. Additionally, I laugh when I read about those who argue over politicians based purely about the issues: those people dont understand the realities (whether you agree with them or not) about the combinations of appeal that voters decide up for a candidate in the booth. You guys didn't think that past President voters could recite their specific record, did you? Let's not deny voter reality...

Still, speaking only for myself, at this point I'd like to see some kind of Sistah Souljah moment in reverse: something that demonstrates his willingness to take political risks on behalf of moving public opinion to the left.

I don't understand this argument at all. Doesn't it make more sense to move public opinion to the left by making fairly progressive ideas sound like totally reasonable, centrist positions that will unify the country? Haven't republicans succeeded for the past 20-odd years by making very conservative policies--abolition of the estate tax, for example--sound like completely reasonable ideas (get rid of the death tax!)?

I like Obama, but I don't really see him tapping into popular anger at all.

He's tapping into the stronger popular anger at the way politics and policymaking work, more than the rather weaker anger of isolated disjoint groups at particular policies. This is, of course, fairly common (running against Washington is so universal that even the quintessential insiders do it.) He is particularly effective at tapping into that anger, which is why some of his strongest support is in groups that are otherwise not usually particularly mobilized. Whether he can follow through and actually produce change in the things he taps into anger at is, of course, an open question: many politicians tap into anger at either particular policies or general features of the political system, far fewer make any substantial changes to those things once they are in power.

Ron Paul taps anger.

Obama taps wishful thinking.

First, want to say I agree broadly with the comments of LynnDee, Memekiller, corpus juris, dan robinson, Doc, urban legend, and ao.

Second, I very much liked Sara Robinson's post. Think she has it right. I don't see the anger as much as I see the intense longing for political change. But agree that anger and disillusionment are there, for most Americans paying attention.

Third, I am puzzled by Kevin's professed need to hear more from Obama on policy.

Sara explains why that way lies madness (first, having to explain enthusiasm, or political fervor, to liberals who still do not get it):

"The energy of Obama's rallies scares the hell out of reason-bound, well-educated liberals; but it's nothing new to anyone who's spent time in the overheated revival-meeting atmosphere that conservative politicians have used to rouse their voters for decades. Stirring up their base in exactly this same way is how they won. Our chronic inability to move people like that is why we've continued to lose.

"Hillary is going the old route, with more plans and promises. And she's losing. Obama is trying something that's new to Democratic politics -- but that also has a proven track record when it comes to raising and consolidating truly transformational movements. In fact: that kind of change simply does not happen unless you've got this kind of committed mass movement."

If you want Carter, Dukakis, Mondale, Kerry, and electoral defeat, by all means go the old route with the same old wagon. It's so, you know, familiar and (we're told) safe.

Me? I'm ready to chance the new. I trust my instincts.

Kevin, yes, you are off base. I feel exactly the way Sara does, and I know why. It's because I watched as the Bushies stole Florida. It's because no one let the 2000 election play out appropriately, in the House, and the Supreme Court politicized itself shamelessly and tarnished its reputation for a generation. It's because Bush and the Reeps in Congress played hardball without a mandate, from the beginning through today. They really don't give a shit. It's because I marched in the first anti-war rally in the Bay Area that was so crowded people couldn't move from one end of Market street to the other, and saw it reported as a sparsely-attended fringe event. It's because I have been against the war, even in Afghanistan, from the beginning, and watched with dismay as John Edwards, when running for vice-president, got cornered by an interviewer into saying our repsonse to 9/11 was a war not a police action - everything has gone downhill from there, as it was 1) not the right response as surgical strikes would have been more successful than what we have now and 2) left the country open to Reep demagoguery. It's because Condi Rice ignored that memo with the detailed title and hasn't been held to account - really, no one has, in spite of the 9/11 Commission. It's because watching TV during Katrina put me in a serious funk, maybe depression, for months and it hasn't really gone away in spite of my efforts to help there. All I want to do is cry, Not in my name! Technocratic micro-solutions just don't do it, right now.

Signed, Lifelong Democrat over 60

Oh, psychologist, your petty thin skin cracks me the fuck up. I'm a grunt so I guess that makes me stupid, but fat and snaggletooth? Please, I'm a stud...

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/2744/1334/1600/stud.0.jpg

...something that demonstrates his willingness to take political risks on behalf of moving public opinion to the left.

You mean like this:

Over 150 nations have signed the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty. It pains me that our great nation has not. But in the autumn of 2006, there was a chance to take a step in the right direction: Senate Amendment No. 4882, an amendment to a Pentagon appropriations bill that would have banned the use of cluster bombs in civilian areas.

Senator Obama of Illinois voted IN FAVOR of the ban.

Senator Clinton of New York voted AGAINST the ban.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-rees/clinton-obama-and-clust_b_84811.html

But the claim has always been that there's a personality cult around Obama, and the criteria for there being such a cult are obviously going to be looser.

Well, no, a personality cult (more popularly, "cult of personality" and, in critique's beginning with Marx's from which the term stems, "cult of the individual") is not any more loosely defined than a religious cult (in fact, its probably more tightly defined, having fewer different competing definitions in serious use.) However, like the religious sense of cult, its usually not used in any well-defined, meaningful sense, but more often as an empty pejorative. When used, however, in a meaningful sense, a cult of personality is a system through which mass media and the instruments and public power are applied by a leader in power to foster a heroic image of that leader (often involving ritualized public displays of praise.) Such a cult is very much a cult in the general sense (as outline in Marc Gallanter's Cults: Faith, Healing, and Coercion), employing the same mechanism of boundary control, creating tension and setting itself as the only relief of that tension, etc.

It makes no sense to refer to Obama as having a cult of personality in the meaningful sense. The attachment of that label appears to be a fairly routine use of the empty pejorative, which is generally applied to any popular figure the speaker doesn't like. Popularity isn't a personality cult.

Kevin,

Obama has tied the cost of the Iraq war and the money we are spending there into our current economic problems and inability to adequately invest in infrastructure and provide good jobs.

Who else is willing to say that very unpleasant truth?

The World's Foremost Authority weighs in. Thanks for clearing that up.

Personally I and and 90% of the rest of americans don't give two shits about all the left right nonsense. What we want is a hearty dose of competance in the executive branch and the congress for that matter as well.

He's tapping anger in the most positive way, Kevin, by providing a positive direction for its considerable energies. Rather than promising to crush the bastards who've done this to us, he's promising to take us forward, to get health care and other things taken care of on the power of anger transformed. Does that make sense? While I'm not above wanting to put all the Administration figures in prison, I appreciate the way in which he turns my anger back into pride that we can get something done--and I think he means tangible things, as well as "unity" alone.
Ok, I confess I'm a Buddhist. But this is how I see this working.

Kevin, wasn't Sara refering to the people attracted towards Obama's candidacy as the scary ones -not Obama himself? I.E. all of us who are fed up with the rightwing, or center-right stuff that has been on offer for so long. We are the ones calling for change. Obama hopes to ride that discontent into office. Then we will see if he can/will use it to enact change.

brojo,

I agree that Iran isn't an enemy of the US but it is a given that most people support the rationale of nuclear nonproliferation as a means to reduce the risk of nuclear war. Unfortunately, that rationale doesn't really address the fact that those countries that already have nuclear weapons also increase the risk of nuclear war. There has been movement to reduce arsenals in the US and Russia, the two biggest arsenals in the world but this isn't enough. The next step has to be banning nuclear weapons entirely. Otherwise, the NPT just preserves the status quo, and obviously makes not possessing nuclear weapons a clear security threat for those countries that don't have them.

As to New Orleans, Obama just took office in Jan 2005. I don't see how one can expect a junior Senator to greatly affect what amounted to executive policy decisions rather than congressional legislative action. Neither Clinton nor Obama is an economist. What was happening with banks, lenders, derivatives bundlers, etc. is really not under the purview of the US Senate.

A link in which Obama discusses his views shortly after Katrina:

Obama on Katrina, 9/11/05

This bears repeating:

Obama's ability to take risks and move the political culture further to the left will depend on how many Congressional seats the Democrats win in the bargain. IMHO, one of the strongest rationales for the Obama candidacy is his ability to drive strong voter turnout, which translates into a lot of down-ticket wins for the Democrats. If I were a GOP strategist looking at the coming tsnunami, I'd be scared shitless.

This is primary reason I'd prefer to see Sen. Obama as the Democratic nominee in November than Sen. Clinton.

"His domestic policies aren't even as progressive as Hillary Clinton's"

Not hardly. It's amazing that these assertions are made by important commentators without doing the necessary homework.

Clinton says she will strengthen labor unions. Pass the Employee Free Choice Act. That's it. It's OK by me, because I think she will do everything she can, and that is a critical first step. But more progressive? The power of labor is the core value of progressivism. Obama, besides the Free Choice Act, expressly will attack the Kentucky River cases designed to undermine the movement fundamentally, and even more, will try to ban permanent replacements in strikes. In addition to massively strengthening consumers against credit card companies, these are fundamental power shifts -- one hell of a lot more important than which of two different approaches that are both intended to achieve the common goal universal healthcare insurance, with one arguably better than the other at achieving that purpose, but with both supported by genuine experts in the field and with ample time to reconcile the differences after the election is won, is better.