Surprise!

Barak Obama: "One good test as to whether folks are doing interesting work is, Can they surprise me. And increasingly, when I read Daily Kos, it doesn’t surprise me. It’s all just exactly what I would expect."

This rejoinder (well, okay, it's not a rejoinder) from Markos himself certainly surprised me: "Standard caveats aside (it's early, we don't have a set field, blah blah blah), it's hard to see how Barack Obama loses the nomination barring scandal or the mother-of-all gaffes."

Really? I dunno. I would have zero confidence in my prognostication abilities at this point. Meanwhile, this from Obama in the same article as the dKos-bashing seems sound: "I remember back in 2004, one of the candidates had made a proposal about universal health care, and some DLC-type commentator said, ‘We can’t propose this kind of big-government costly program, because it’ll send a signal we’re tax-and-spend liberals.’ But that’s not a good reason to not do something. You don’t give up on the goal of universal health care because you don’t want to be tagged as a liberal. People need universal health care."

To a good first approximation, Obama seems to be the sort of nominee you're looking for -- someone who's actually more liberal than his public image would suggest -- rather than, say, an unnamed senator from New York who's less liberal than her reputation (now that I think about it, this applies to both NY Senators, but whatever).

Comments

I don't want to defend DKos per se, but Obama's critique here seems lame.

If a group has some objectives it wants to accomplish, and if those objectives take time, then it is going to find itself saying the same thing for some time.

This is true whether it is the NAACP arguing for civil rights, or Jonas Salk working on the polio vaccine. I mean, that guy Salk just lost his ability to surprise after the third time he said he wanted to cure polio, you know?

So the DKos people have an agenda. And despite the elections, not all of their objectives are met. What does Obama want them to do now? Drop all those objectives and come up with new ones in order to remain surprising? Keep fighting for their objectives but never mention it?

This just seems like a pretty weak line of critique of a political movement.

Posted by kid bitzer | December 5, 2006 2:02 PM

A comment in that thread points out that in Dec. 2003 kos said the following- not a good sign of his prognostication skills:
It is clear that our nominee will be either Dean or Clark. No one else has a shot. Therefore, I will not criticize or point to criticism of either of those two candidates. Each one of those guys has his plusses and his cons, and each one of them can beat Bush. That's all that matters.
I sincerely suggest you footsoldiers in the Dean vs. Clark flamewars start reconsidering your tactics. Stick to being positive about your guys. Don't gleefully point to every anti-Dean or anti-Clark smear coming from a wingnut or mediawhore. You are doing their bidding.
We are all on the same team, and the time to "merge the tribes" is just a month or two away. We need to start coming together for the sake of the party and our country.

Posted by SP | December 5, 2006 2:06 PM

"One good test as to whether folks are doing interesting work is, Can they surprise me. And increasingly, when I read Daily Kos, it doesn’t surprise me. It’s all just exactly what I would expect."

Sure, interesting work is surprising. But important work is often unsurprising and routine. Novelty's great and all, but it's pretty transient.

I'm not a DKos super-fan, but it seems pretty clear that they're doing exactly what they want to be doing.

Posted by TW Andrews | December 5, 2006 2:11 PM

I agree with Obama re: DKos, which despite its elegant layout so often seems to be a human device for generating ever-more-virulent rhetoric than any real discussion or debate. But more interesting to me is what Markos says about Obama's chances. He thinks Obama would be "tough to beat in the general election, even against McCain."

I hope Markos is right, but I have to pass on what one acquaintance with a lot of political experience pointed out re: Obama, which is that neither California nor New York, both considered liberal states, have ever elected a black person to state-wide office. I don't know about New York, but I think he's right about California. Now, maybe that's just a fluke of candidates and circumstances (Tom Bradley really wasn't a great candidate for governor in California, for example)...or maybe it's a warning sign. But I certainly wouldn't shrug it off as a matter of no importance.

Posted by Kit Stolz | December 5, 2006 2:13 PM

There's a whole lot of "interesting work" being done at Daily Kos, although the Sirota-style harangues against DLC sellouts are the same week in and week out, that much is true. The site is reminiscent of the internet in general in that you need to be good at separating wheat from chaff to get a lot out of it.

Obama reminds me of Kennedy. I'd like to see a candidate with more governing experience, frankly. I'm not worried that he might screw up like Bush, because Bush actively doesn't care about getting policy right, but even though Kennedy's heart was in the right place he made some pretty serious mistakes that a more seasoned hand might have avoided. But we could certainly do a lot worse than to elect Obama.

Posted by Steve | December 5, 2006 2:17 PM

Carl McCall was NY comptroller in the 90s. Although he lost governor to Pataki in '02 in a blowout.

Posted by SP | December 5, 2006 2:17 PM

neither California nor New York, both considered liberal states, have ever elected a black person to state-wide office.

I don't know what qualifies as a "state-wide office," but Carl McCall was elected twice as our State Comptroller, even though he failed to beat Pataki for Governor in the post-9/11 election.

Posted by Steve | December 5, 2006 2:20 PM

Swiftboating is never a pretty sight, but the swiftboating of Candidate Obama would be especially ugly.

Obama's perceived as being pretty centrist, as noted. But he really is pretty centrist--for good or for ill.

Gore/Clark '08

Posted by Ed | December 5, 2006 2:20 PM

Obama thinks he can win by being Republican-lite (as does Hillary. It's a mistake, because by running away from liberal positions, he will be convincingly portrayed as being unwilling to stand up for what he believes in.

If you won't stand up for what you believe in, why should people think you will stand up for America?

Posted by Max Power | December 5, 2006 2:28 PM

oh yeah - Gore/Clark '08. One of those two, at least.

Posted by Max Power | December 5, 2006 2:29 PM

Primary success depends quite a bit on media coverage-- candidates who "gain traction" in the media tend to see that support spill over to the polls. How will the media treat candidate Obama? I can't see them putting him through the ringer as much they will Hillary or really any other candidate. I personally think it'll be just like they treated candidate Deval Patrick this year-- uniformly adulatory coverage, resulting in the complete failure of the opposing candidate's dirty negative attacks, ending in the first black (governor of Massachusetts/Democratic presidential nominee). After that, though, it's a whole different ballgame.

I know that liberal bloggers scorn at supposed appeals to the disaffected moderates disgusted by partisanship, but I think this is the real deal. Lieberman didn't inspire people, Obama can and will-- I think a lot of people who aren't very into politics would go out and vote for a candidate Obama.

Posted by AP | December 5, 2006 2:30 PM

I'd love to believe it, but can someone remind me how a black man named B. Hussein Obama gets elected president in our real life United States of America?

Posted by max | December 5, 2006 2:45 PM

"when I read Daily Kos"! No wonder Kos wasn't insulted.

Posted by noah | December 5, 2006 2:46 PM

an unnamed senator from New York who's less liberal than her reputation

I guess it depends which reputation you're talking about. If you listen to Rush, Hillary has a reputation as the farthest-left of the far-left loony liberal lefty moonbats. On the other hand, if you read Daily Kos, Hillary is slightly to the right of Sam Brownback, exceeded in her unabashed wingnuttiness only by Joe Lieberman.

Posted by Steve | December 5, 2006 3:31 PM

I've actually been fairly surprised by the lack of virulence at Dailykos lately. People seem to have chilled out a bit, certainly most of the front page posters. Kos himself can still produce a nice rant every now and then, but even he seems to be mellower than he used to be. There's a lot more virulence at MyDD, where they run blurbs by Sirota and full posts by mini-Sirota (a/k/a Matt Stoller). Obama is not above criticism, but MyDD seems to run completely over-the-top Obama-as-hateful-sellout screeds at least a couple times every week.

The swiftboating of Obama would be pretty sickening, but I think in this case it might get so sickening that the press and the electorate might actually turn on it, bull-conner-using-the-hoses-on-the-evening-news-style. Wishful thinking? Maybe. But the good news for us here would be that it would actually fit an existing storyline of conservative thuggishness that would make it easy for lazy reporters.

Posted by JP | December 5, 2006 3:36 PM

Yes, B. Hussein Obama might have a hard time. (And it is hilarious to see the supporters of the opponent of G. Felix Allen object to "B. Hussein Obama".)

HOWEVER, I think JP is exactly right - lazy reporters already have the "Republicans are racists" storyline set up. I would expect it played in the media, oh, over three minutes. No matter how bullsh*t it is in reality.

Posted by Al | December 5, 2006 3:55 PM

Should read above "every" three minutes, not "over". Sorry.

Posted by Al | December 5, 2006 3:56 PM

1. Nobody put a gun to the Republicans head and told them to become the party of Wallace voters.

2. "Gore said he invented the internet"

3. [deleted]

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | December 5, 2006 4:02 PM

"The swiftboating of Obama would be pretty sickening, but I think in this case it might get so sickening that the press and the electorate might actually turn on it, bull-conner-using-the-hoses-on-the-evening-news-style. Wishful thinking? Maybe. "

It is wishful thinking. Blacks have won a grand total of 4 Senatorial races and 2 governorships, spanning a glorious 3 states (not counting reconstruction).

Obama would not be "swiftboated". The atttack will be against black Americans as a whole. It will be against Ludicris, Terrell Owens, Allen Iverson, and OJ Simpson. It will be about violent crime. There will be stories about violent gangs moving into the suburbs. The appeal will not be a crass one to openly racist bastards. It will be to the passively racist majority - the people who think blacks are fine in theory, but would rather not experience them personally.

Obama has no prayer in a presidential election. Still, it might be good for him to run. Our nation needs at least one more big lesson about race. We won't be able to stop it while it's happening, but we might see it in retrospect. When we see that we elected a clearly inferior candidate based only on race, we won't be able to deny what we still are. But after 8 years of Bush, we might not be able to afford a civics lesson.

Posted by Njorl | December 5, 2006 4:16 PM

Clark has no chance of going anywhere in '08. I have great confidence in my prognosticative accuracy on this point.

Posted by live | December 5, 2006 4:20 PM

It's a miracle, cause I was just trying to figure out where I read that Obama quote about Kos. You saved me at least 1/2 hour of searching at minimum, probably much more. Thanks.

Posted by artappraiser | December 5, 2006 4:24 PM

neither California nor New York, both considered liberal states, have ever elected a black person to state-wide office.

Without doing any research, my guess would be that you can probably say that about most states, blue or red.

Posted by SoCalJustice | December 5, 2006 5:33 PM

So is this BHO's Sister Souljah comment?

Posted by DougMN | December 5, 2006 5:41 PM

lazy reporters already have the "Republicans are racists" storyline set up. I would expect it played in the media, oh, over three minutes. No matter how bullsh*t it is in reality.

Seeing as how it isn't bullshit, maybe it'll only take two minutes. The GOP is thought of as the racist party because it is the racist party. Everybody knows that.

I'm open to Njorl's prognostications. I just think it would be a tricky tightrope for the Republicans to walk, and still keep their true colors under the radar.

Posted by JP | December 5, 2006 5:45 PM

"Obama would not be "swiftboated". The atttack will be against black Americans as a whole. It will be against Ludicris, Terrell Owens, Allen Iverson, and OJ Simpson. It will be about violent crime. There will be stories about violent gangs moving into the suburbs. The appeal will not be a crass one to openly racist bastards. It will be to the passively racist majority - the people who think blacks are fine in theory, but would rather not experience them personally."

You know, I hate to say this, because I hate to give credence to the argument (can racism be called an argument?) as a whole ... but this angle would never work on Obama, because he isn't "black" the way rappers and football players, for the most part, are "black."

Obama may share a genetic link with those black people, but remember that he is truly African-American - the son of a well-schooled African immigrant and a nice white woman from the heartland. He doesn't share - directly, genetically - the legacy of slavery and discrimination that American blacks have suffered from, but that also means that, for many people, he doesn't carry with him the perception of laziness and criminality that many less-educated Americans have about American black people. Instead, he can (and does, though I doubt for this reason) play up his immigrant heritage - something that should work as a plus, as most Americans think of immigrants as hard working ... and the child of such an immigrant as the embodiment of the "American Dream."

It is a completely silly way to differenciate between people, of course, but it happens....regardless, I think that line of attack would go nowhere. And if Obama can keep his cool (he has so far), I think the attackers are going to have a tough time - it is hard to go to battle with someone who stubbornly refuses to see you as the enemy.

Posted by anti | December 5, 2006 5:48 PM

Also, what's wrong with Ludacris?

Posted by JP | December 5, 2006 5:53 PM

Obama reminds me of Kennedy.

God help us.

Posted by Jackmormon | December 5, 2006 6:51 PM

So Barak Obama is the principle audience of Slate's knee jerk contraianism.

Posted by Rob | December 5, 2006 7:46 PM

Barack Obama's blackness is skin deep. He was raised by whites his entire life, in Hawaii and Thailand, and first visited Kenya after he graduated college. His background is actually more hippie than American black. He kind of adopted the whole black thing when he was a community organizer in Chicago. It's a testimony to his charisma and political abilities that he has so effortlessly stepped into the mantle of the "great black hope". It's no critcism of Obama to say that, he is remarkably at ease in his own skin and has enormous intelligence, ease, and communication skills.

But it's kind of a shame that he may take the place of the true "great black hope", namely Cory Booker, a man who comes from a background that is about as civil rights as you can get, is deeply intelligent and has enormous integrity, and is also something of a hero as an individual. The up and coming generation of African-Americans has some great potential leaders in it.

Posted by MQ | December 5, 2006 8:49 PM

I'm intrigued by the fact that Obama imagines that, by saying the Democrats aren't open to people of faith, he's doing something "surprising." David Broder couldn't be so unsurprising.

Posted by david | December 5, 2006 9:15 PM

MQ: Fuck you. It doesn't matter if one of your parents was white. If you have a darker shade of skin than white America, it matters in how people treat you. I'm sure Obama's crushed, having his "blackness" questioned in Matt Yglesias' comments section.

In any case, I'm glad to see that Matt quoted the part about universal health care. Certain liberal bloggers have had a tendency to take one or two "centrist" lines out of Obama's speeches, and ignore everything else he said.

"I don't think that George Bush is a bad man. I think he loves his country." You've probably heard this Obama line before. He uses it as a preface to a 20-minute critque of the Bush administration, its policies, and its governing philosophy. But all Atrios and MyDD hear are the first two sentences.

"Secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into the public square." You've most likely heard that line too. It was somewhere in the middle of a lengthy speech denouncing the Religious Right for claiming ownership of moral values, defending the separation of church and state, pointing out that we're not a monolithic Christian nation, and advocating more dialogue between people of different faiths and no faiths. It also had these lines:

"I am not suggesting that every progressive suddenly latch on to religious terminology - that can be dangerous. Nothing is more transparent than inauthentic expressions of faith. As Jim has mentioned, some politicians come and clap -- off rhythm -- to the choir. We don't need that.

"In fact, because I do not believe that religious people have a monopoly on morality, I would rather have someone who is grounded in morality and ethics, and who is also secular, affirm their morality and ethics and values without pretending that they're something they're not. They don't need to do that. None of us need to do that."

But again, all Atrios, Ezra Klein and The Huffington Post heard was that one line about "secularists." The boys at MyDD worked themselves into a frenzy on the topic, literally just making up right-wing straw arguments and claiming Obama had said them. Matt Y and Nathan Newman actually took the time to sit down and read the text of the speech, and both wrote blog posts saying, "Hey, this isn't that bad."

It's just weird, this reaction. His positions on issues, or the vast bulk of what he says, doesn't seem to matter.

I think it's partly a few things. First, I think a lot of netroots types had hopes and expectations in '04 that Obama would be the Second Coming of Paul Wellstone. Then when he turned out not to be, their reaction was, "He betrayed us!"

I think it's partly the whole tribal thing. Obama either doesn't get - or else gets, but is wary of - the netroots movement and the unwritten rules of engagement with it. He wrote a diary on DailyKos a year ago basically saying, "I agree with your goals, but the tone on here may turn some voters off." Oh no! Obama's a concern troll! He dissed the blogosphere with an argument it's always found irritating! It becomes about his perceived respect of the group, more than where the guy stands on stuff.

Not that particular stands on issues don't legitimately annoy people (his declining to sign onto Feingold's censure resolution or appearing with Lieberman before the CT primary seemed to irritate a lot of bloggers). But the fact that these positions become all one hears about on liberal blogs, I think is driven by the first two factors.

Posted by Chris | December 6, 2006 4:05 PM