« Solidarity | Main | Lieberman For Veep » Obama's Speech11 Nov 2007 04:07 pm This seemed very strong to me. At times Obama's had difficulty combining a sufficient degree of partisan outrage against George W. Bush with an articulation of the idea that merely returning to the pre-Bush status quo isn't good enough. At the Jefferson-Jackson dinner, he threaded the needle pretty nicely: What's more, "if we are really serious about winning this election, we cannot be afraid of losing" is a nice sentiment. Comments (24)
The Alan Parsons intro music? "Eye in the Sky."* That's Cheney's tune! *Hard to tell exactly where it cut off. Might have just been the "Sirius" lead-in to "Eye." 
To me, this proves once more that contrary to what some pundits have been saying, Obama has ran a strong campaign - almost as good as Hillary- perhaps stronger by the end of it. The problem isn't the campaign which has maintained the proper tone and timing, but the impatience and insatiability of the punditry and the media which must have a story to comment upon. Last but not least, he's been as impressive today in Meet the Press. And I totally agree with his substantive positions; it's been a long time since I ve been so enamored by a candidate.
To me, this proves once more that contrary to what some pundits have been saying, Obama has ran a strong campaign... I like Obama also. But he has benefitted greatly from Edwards attacks on HRC's credibility. I'm not sure he or his campaign had a clue before Edwards showed them he had to attack her fatal weakness. If he stays on the attack, he'll win Iowa. If he retreats to his BS message of hope, he loses.
It's awesome... but it's also weirdly unsatisfying. He says stuff like he wants to be President so he can stand in the long line of Democrats (a la Jefferson, Jackson, FDR) who called their country to serve a higher purpose. But he doesn't illuminate what the higher purpose is. Other than "change". But change to what? Why? Bush took broad steps to reorganize the country around hypercapitalist and security-state principles. Obama is saying I'm going to reorganize it into something else but what's the unifying idea behind that change? That's the rhetorical piece he needs to get. He wants to raise the minimum wage. He wants to end the war in Iraq. He wants to protect the environment. He wants to have universal health care. This is all great stuff. What unifies it? And what principle guides it? And what's at the top of the priority list? Priorities matter a great deal with Presidents. With Edwards, you know what his organizing principles are-- making America a fairer society economically. Its more important with him than the war in Iraq, and more important than the environemnt. Although both of those things matter too. With Hillary Clinton you know her organizing principle-- consolidating her own power. What is Obama's? In his speeches, I never get a sense of what at the end he stands for beyond change itself. Not that change is a bad thing. Change is a great thing. But the other candidates are offering change (of varying degrees) too. So we gotta know... change to what? why? So far I get the sense that we need change so we can plan for the future. I think planning for the future is great. I've got, you know, a savings account and whatever. But I'm not sure that sells well. Also, the speech is sort of about Hllary Clinton all the time. But he's such a good speaker that it covers a lot of that up.
It's awesome... but it's also weirdly unsatisfying. He says stuff like he wants to be President so he can stand in the long line of Democrats (a la Jefferson, Jackson, FDR) who called their country to serve a higher purpose. But he doesn't illuminate what the higher purpose is. Other than "change". But change to what? Why? Bush took broad steps to reorganize the country around hypercapitalist and security-state principles. Obama is saying I'm going to reorganize it into something else but what's the unifying idea behind that change? That's the rhetorical piece he needs to get. He wants to raise the minimum wage. He wants to end the war in Iraq. He wants to protect the environment. He wants to have universal health care. This is all great stuff. What unifies it? And what principle guides it? And what's at the top of the priority list? Priorities matter a great deal with Presidents. With Edwards, you know what his organizing principles are-- making America a fairer society economically. Its more important with him than the war in Iraq, and more important than the environemnt. Although both of those things matter too. With Hillary Clinton you know her organizing principle-- consolidating her own power. What is Obama's? In his speeches, I never get a sense of what at the end he stands for beyond change itself. Not that change is a bad thing. Change is a great thing. But the other candidates are offering change (of varying degrees) too. So we gotta know... change to what? why? So far I get the sense that we need change so we can plan for the future. I think planning for the future is great. I've got, you know, a savings account and whatever. But I'm not sure that sells well. Also, the speech is sort of about Hllary Clinton all the time. But he's such a good speaker that it covers a lot of that up.
If he can keep this up, Obama will take Iowa and then the Democratic nomination and then the White House. He's certainly got my vote.
Obama benefited and probably will benefit from Edwards' attacks on HRC. But in all probability the different strategy is part of the different strategic position. Obama was in second place in shooting distance two months before the first ballot was cast, Edwards was third and in a much more urgent need to gain some ground. I also think that Obama - with all the issues concerning his youth and inexperience surrounding him- understands that going on an attack mode or essentially switching his strategy - like Edwards has done two or three times by now- carries the risk that he will come off as too anxious and too flaky. Look at it this way. We say that HRC has ran a strong campaign because she has ran as a frontrunner - until the last debate- she didn't make mistakes and she hit back with efficiency when attacked. Moreover she didn't shift her strategy. Less noticeably, Obama didn't shift his strategy either. He also kept at it. He cashed the attention and the enthusiasm surrounding him into money, he built his recognition and positive id and only slowly and gradually became more aggressive towards Hillary with a tone that I think is correct. He doesn't try to demolish her, he's trying to show he's better suited. Last but not least, he also fought back against charges of inexperience and when Hillary tried to shook him up he held his ground. Perhaps he could have done better, but by keeping his ground he made the point that he wasn't a shooting star as well his shooting distance. So, right now he's in a very good place and if the last speech is any indication, he has calibrated his positioning very well for the final stretch of the campaign.
"if we are really serious about winning this election, we cannot be afraid of losing" That's an interesting thing for Obama to say, because all we seem to hear from Obama's side about Hillary is that she shouldn't be nominated because that will make the Republicans mad and energize them to come out and vote, so we should nominate someone other than her to prevent such a fate. It seems to me that the afraid to lose / please don't get the GOP mad crowd is following Obama, not Hillary.
My name is Mark in Houston, not Mark in Houstonq. I have never heard of that city.
Closing sentences: Hillary: Barack: Hillary talks middle-class. Barack knows how to pick the best from both sides. Hillary just tries to combine it all into one? Everybody talks change. Hillary tells you what you want to hear from a president. etc? PS: I am not a fan of the minimum wage as it often helps the poor middle-class, middle-skilled more than the really poor or low-skilled. In fact - it implicitly promotes more people needing social welfare? It promotes illegal immigration? Often I think that scrapping some welfare for the middle-class and the rich (farm bill) and redirecting it to the very poor would yield better results than a minimum wage? Better wages at schools in poor neighborhoods can however serve as a good 2nd best - but it will have its costs too.
Hugo:
This appears to be one of the few high profile Obama speeches that isn't primarily about a narrative. It really is more like an Edwards speech, in that he's not really telling a story (as in, say, the Selma speech). I'm a big fan of narrative over laundry list, although it's a bit harder to work in the partisan red meat (which his speeches have in the past been missing) into the former format.
I'm a big fan of narrative over laundry list. Obama needs to drop the narrative. He needs to understand it's not about him. It's about the people who he wants to vote for him. And it's about attacking the assholes who have been screwing those people for the last seven years. Obama needs to tell people who he is by showing them he will address their issues and defeat their oppressors. Get off the narrative, for Christ's sake. And drop that phony Southern preacher act. He's a freakin' Harvard lawyer for Christ's sake.
Is the blogosphere becoming the new MSM-Washington Consensus crowd. MY, who I sincerely respect, it seems, is parroting the talking points about Obama's JJ speech. Yglesias says Obama "threaded the needle pretty nicely," regarding his ability to deliver substance with a message of hope. While Carpetbagger says "Obama is now trying to strike a balance, threading an ideological needle." While like minded people may come to similar conclusions, employing the same metaphor and exact language suggests something else. For my money, the titans of the blogosphere talk tough about specific policy, but are just as likely to get swept away by great narrative as their more corporate forebearers. To me, Obama's speech was a typically vacuos endeavor, more about winning plaudits for speech quality than saying what needs to be done. More importantly, bloggers reflexive agreement on Obama's "winning" quality raises questions about the netroots. Are they truly committed to reforming America according to the best policies or are they merely party loyalists, unwilling to truly push the vessel in the right direction?
We'll see. Everyone has been wanting Obama to draw Clinton's blood. But that would make him even more open to the "look at those big, bad, mean, (black) men who have been piling on me!" that Clinton has resorted to of late. With Obama's current strategy, she doesn't get to call him angry. She doesn't get to call him scary. And she's revealing herself to be the parsing, disingenous, pandering politician that she is. Not that there is anything wrong with that.
Good speech by Obama, one of the better I've seen him give. I find him compelling and I trust him. If he's the nominee, great. Now watch Edwards' speech. Not nearly as polished, despite its familiarity (you've heard it before, basically). But I still find it more compelling, for all that. Why does Edwards seem to do well among independents and shallow-Republicans? Because he doesn't pussyfoot; he says things like 'the system is rigged'. That bothers some commenters here, who think he's a demogogue. But it's not demogogery if the system actually *is* rigged (as of course it is).
More importantly, bloggers reflexive agreement on Obama's "winning" quality raises questions about the netroots. Are they truly committed to reforming America according to the best policies or are they merely party loyalists, unwilling to truly push the vessel in the right direction? translation: people are complimenting someone other than my preferred candidate, so they must be mindlessly parroting what others have said and not seriously concerned about the future of America.
"if we are really serious about winning this election, we cannot be afraid of losing" This phrase is especially cute coming after Obama's not-so-subtle gay bashing event while chasing votes in South Carolina.
Am I the only one that caught the halo 3 reference?
This is pretty transparently Obama trying to show he can be tough enough to satisfy the more militant wing of the party. I don't think it works for him. It's not his natural style and doesn't play to his strengths, which are about coolness not heat. But I'm glad that he seems to pull it off passably. He'll need to show he knows how to attack if he wants to win the nomination.
What's more, "if we are really serious about winning this election, we cannot be afraid of losing" is a nice sentiment. It is indeed. My martial arts instructor used to say, similarly, "winning is not the same thing as 'not losing'".
That last sentiment, that Matt called "a nice one," makes no sense. If you're serious about winning, because you think it's important, then you should indeed be afraid of losing. That's especially true if you believe you are running for president, or supporting a candidate, on behalf of the disenfranchised and impoverished--people who can't afford to have a bad outcome. Where this leads, in terms of which candidate to support, is an open question....though I will say, as a Clinton supporter, that Obama supporters speak out of both sides of their mouth on this one. Obama himself, in this quote, takes it as a call for brave policy and unflinching non-triangulation. But then I read, only about 100 times a day, that we should eschew Clinton because this or that (untrue or out-of-proportion) claim about her will be used against her, i.e. that we should be entirely tactical in our choice of a candidate. I think that Obama and Clinton are, in the end, pretty similar but they've come to it differently. Clinton is what people think she is: a consummate politician who gets to policies by triangulating (as if there were any shame in that, in a democratic polity) between what she wants by conviction and what she thinks is possible according to the constellation of forces at the moment. Obama is so open, not just nominally but genuinely, to argument (in the good discursive sense) that he's willing to concede points that are substantively lousy (according to consensus Democratic values) just to honor the apparent power of the argument. It's law school, dragged out into the political realm. I think Clinton would give us more reliable outcomes, but even if you think Obama would, please don't imagine that it's because he is bringing more substantive conviction to bear on the issues. I've done a lot of listening, and I don't hear it, however well he comes across.
Comments closed November 25, 2007. |
Search
Subscribe to this blog by Email Books by Matthew Yglesias
Recent Comments
Recent Posts
Weekly Archives
Categories
|
Copyright © 2007 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
| 
Heads in the Sand
To me it sounded like he had perhaps been listening to John Edwards, in a good way.
Posted by El Cid | November 11, 2007 4:27 PM