"Why Obama Matters"

Not to be outdone by the New York Times Magazine, The Atlantic's put Andrew Sullivan's new Barack Obama cover story up for free online. Andrew focuses on something that I think had largely dropped out of view as the campaign proceeds, the meaning of Obama's relative youth and freshness:

At its best, the Obama candidacy is about ending a war—not so much the war in Iraq, which now has a mo­mentum that will propel the occupation into the next decade—but the war within America that has prevailed since Vietnam and that shows dangerous signs of intensifying, a nonviolent civil war that has crippled America at the very time the world needs it most. It is a war about war—and about culture and about religion and about race. And in that war, Obama—and Obama alone—offers the possibility of a truce.

I think that's very true. In the course of highlight this difference between Obama and the others I think Andrew does wind up underplaying the systematic factors separating all the Republicans from all of the Democrats, but it is an important point. I would also add that while I think Andrew's approach to politician-evaluating is a bit more personality-driven than is wise, his approach is by far the most common one among swing voter types and the fact that independent-minded conservatives can find Obama compelling in a way they don't feel compelled by Clinton reflects a real virtue of his candidacy.

Comments

Hilary is not inevitable!

Ok, maybe she is, but we must act as if she isn't.

Posted by blah | November 2, 2007 1:12 PM

Anything written or said by Andrew "I Hate The Clintons" Sullivan should be taken with a bushel of salt. The man is positively deranged when it comes to the Clintons and it deforms and debases his writings on everything (including other politicians).

re: appearance on the recent Bill Maher show.

F

Posted by F | November 2, 2007 1:16 PM

From a certain perspective, there may be much to not like about Hillary, but Obama is worse. His policies are not too much different from Hillary's, but he makes too much effort to be nice to the GOP and the religious right smear machine.

His nomination will mean that the Dems have surrendered to the Republican decades old tactic of bullying, and they will be more emboldened than ever to block every move of the Obama administration, should some miracle lead him to victory in 2008.

Posted by gregor | November 2, 2007 1:19 PM

I'd rather have a president who is nice to the GOP than one who tries to act and sound like the GOP.

Posted by blah | November 2, 2007 1:20 PM

I think this is it in a nutshell. The vast majority of peopel pay little to no attention to actual policies and make choices based on their perceptions they feel about the candidate.

It doesn't matter that Hillary is basically a centrist (if this were 1952 she'd be Eisenhower) what matters is that people perceive her as a commie feminist cross between Gloria Stienam and Lenin. Obama can take positions well to her left and it doesn;t matter, you'll still find tons of seemingly conservative republicans who say "I just like that guy"

The truth is that if you remove the labels from issues the majority of the country supports the liberal position down the line, they just don't like liberals. But when they say that they really mean a specific image of liberals grounded in the vietnam era and the 70s. The majority of the country may have turned against the war, but that doesn't mean they liked the people who had been against the war all along, those were still blame America first evil dirty fucking hippies.

For your average middle of the road Baby Boomers Hillary will always represent protesters who committed the fatal sin of being right on the war too soon, feminists burning their bras and so on.

Posted by eric k | November 2, 2007 1:22 PM

Where has Obama, really, deviated from the Establishment?

Andrew Sullivan varies between pimping Obama and pimping Ron Paul.

If he were a little more honest, he would acknowledge that, of those currently running for president, there is only one other candidate who represents fundamental change (ie. Andrew's constant harping on a "transformative" candidate)

That other man is not Barack Obama, who is, frankly, saying nothing more substantive than "let America be America again." The other man is Dennis Kucinich. If Sully's going to gush about Paul, he should recognize that only Kucinich represents a similar break on the Democratic side of things.

However, he and others constantly go on about a man who is just speaking in platitudes. Obama's speeches, while motivational and uplifting, do not represent the sort of serious thinking and action we need in the current state of events.

Instead, Obama's statements, like claptrap from Reagan about letting America be America again remind me of nothing so much as this exchange:

Bruce Dickinson: Babies...before we're done here.. y'all be wearing gold-plated diapers.

Alan: What does that even mean?

Bruce Dickinson: Never question Bruce Dickinson! Roll it!

Posted by Greg | November 2, 2007 1:23 PM

And in that war, Obama—and Obama alone—offers the possibility of a truce.

But if the truce doesn't hold, it might be worse to have once had it. And a lot of people are going to take an Obama victory as "defeat" rather than "truce."

On the plus side, being Obama's VP (or even VP candidate) must be the most plum job offer in politics, so he'll have his pick of candidates.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | November 2, 2007 1:25 PM

Also, F is 1,000% correct on Sullivan's CDS (Clinton Derangement Syndrome)

Posted by Greg | November 2, 2007 1:27 PM

Classic Sullivan narcissism. Who cares about hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis, or thousands of American soldiers. What matters is how the candidates make me feel.

Disgusting.

Please get back to flirting with McArdle to meet your intra-Atlantic post quota, Matt.

Posted by lemuel pitkin | November 2, 2007 1:32 PM

And in that war, Obama—and Obama alone—offers the possibility of a truce.

I think your stipulations about Sullivan's approach are correct (esp. 'personality driven'). Either Edwards or Obama can offer the 'possibility of a truce'. Very sad that neither of them is the frontrunner.

It's often said that we get the leaders we deserve. I think that overstates things a bit - we didn't quite deserve W Bush; we don't deserve a creaky, goofy, rube goldberg electoral system which facilitates people like him gaining office. But, in a way, we don't deserve either of these two dem challengers to win, which is why they probably won't. We don't deserve a better press corp. because we buy what the current one sells us and don't demand better. The 'tabloidization' of the US political press is not a convenient overstatement but rather just plain accurate. The US political press sells envy and resentment above all. Both Obama and Edwards are really too good - in terms of character - to get reasonable press coverage and get footholds. Edwards has already been dispatched, and Obama will 'get his' as well. Unless you are obviously tainted, our press will pull you down if they can - it's what they do. They aren't 'vetting' (as they'd like to believe they are); they're tearing down. Good people without obvious major flaws are a vacuum, as far as they're concerned. Pretty sick. And we buy it. Pretty sick.

Posted by jonnybutter | November 2, 2007 1:32 PM

"I'd rather have a president who is nice to the GOP than one who tries to act and sound like the GOP."

While this is certainly true, why not shoot for the moon? There's another candidate out there who looks like a Republican and wants to govern boldly from the left.

This is going to be the best election cycle for Dems in a generation. Take full advantage.

Posted by Petey | November 2, 2007 1:38 PM

"Anything written or said by Andrew "I Hate The Clintons" Sullivan should be taken with a bushel of salt."

I love how both Sullivan and Marty Peretz are such big Obama fans.

It just goes to show how personal antipathy can be a stronger motivating force than policy for intellectually sloppy pundits.

Posted by Petey | November 2, 2007 1:41 PM

I agree with lemuel pitkin (great name, by the way). Sullivan makes up his own narrative about politics, which is only loosely connected to reality, and then asks how that narrative makes him feel.

I mean, isn't it just a tad hyperbolic to say that we are in a nonviolent civil war? Sullivan was similarly overwrought and emotional in his support for the Iraq war. I like to read his blog for entertainment value, but I'm definitely not going to consult him about which candidate to support.

Posted by Jim W | November 2, 2007 1:41 PM

Re: "I'd rather have a president who is nice to the GOP than one who tries to act and sound like the GOP."

Personally, I'd most like to have a president who drives the GOP into a frenzy of impotent, sputtering rage.

Posted by Jim W | November 2, 2007 1:45 PM

Since Sullivan doesn't allow comments on his site, its nice of Matt to allow people to vent on this article and author.

Agree with those above who say Sullivan loathing of all things Hillary Clinton makes this writing extremely suspect and really dishonest.

Posted by jenniferm | November 2, 2007 1:47 PM

On "Real Time" last week, Andrew called Hillary "Cheney in a pantsuit."

I'm pulling for Obama, but Andrew's fascination with him is somewhat disquieting, and his vitriol towards Clinton makes me increasingly more comfortable with the prospect of her as nominee.

Posted by SoCalJustice | November 2, 2007 1:57 PM

...a nonviolent civil war that has crippled America at the very time the world needs it most.

Keep in mind that this "civil war" is essentially a political tactic used to win elections. The only time truces are offered by Republicans are when it is politically expedient. Its intensity waxes and wanes to the extent it is believed that it works to win elections. Sully pretends not to realize that Democrats (and more broadly, "the left") tried to have a truce for 15 years, and Republicans only started thinking it might be a good idea when they lost. Sully also pretends not to realize that he was a dedicated proponent of this "civil war," and bears personal responsibility for the atmosphere he finds to disquieting now that conservatism is on the decline.

As for the world needing America, it seems to need us less and less thanks to conservative policies.

Posted by Kiril | November 2, 2007 2:02 PM

Sullivan likes: Obama's relative youth and freshness

well, duh.
/snark off

Sullivan is an ass. On many levels. Shun him.

Posted by Hypatia | November 2, 2007 2:11 PM

That "non-violent civil war" Sullivan hypes hyperbolically, is one that he is a willing and enthusiastic participant. Motivated by his unnatural hate for all things Clinton, nothing he says or does is rational. Seldom is so much promise in a human being so absolutely wasted.

Posted by Houston Bridges | November 2, 2007 2:20 PM

Have the people attacking Sullivan for hating Hillary Clinton ever stopped to think that there are plenty of good reasons for antipathy towards her, starting with the 3,500 brave American servicemembers who are gone from this earth because of her 5 years of continued support for the Iraq War, as well as the thousands more who will die there and in Iran when she is President because she is a right-wing hawk who has never had the guts to oppose a war?

Really, on that issue alone, I think Hillary Clinton's approach to politics is disgusting. Before you accuse people of being "hateful" towards Hillary Clinton, why don't you try to establish that such hate is unjustified?

Posted by Dilan Esper | November 2, 2007 2:20 PM

Andrew's approach to politician-evaluating is a bit more personality-driven than is wise

I love reading Andrew's blog, but you just nailed a great point about him. Sometime his Hillary-bashing gets a little bit tedious and I end skipping over it to get to his more "reasoned" blogging..

Posted by chris | November 2, 2007 2:26 PM

"Have the people attacking Sullivan for hating Hillary Clinton ever stopped to think that there are plenty of good reasons for antipathy towards her, starting with the 3,500 brave American servicemembers who are gone from this earth because of her 5 years of continued support for the Iraq War, as well as the thousands more who will die there and in Iran when she is President because she is a right-wing hawk who has never had the guts to oppose a war?"

Sullivan and Peretz despised both Clintons long before 2003.

Posted by Petey | November 2, 2007 2:27 PM

Saw Sullivan on Maher and all I can say is that Sullivan is Peggy Noonan in a pantsuit, someone we are expected to take seriously but who actually is as fluffy as a six-week old kitten.

Posted by Rihilism | November 2, 2007 2:30 PM

"there are plenty of good reasons for antipathy towards her, starting with the 3,500 brave American servicemembers who are gone from this earth because of her 5 years of continued support for the Iraq War"

Good to know that it is all Clinton's fault and her responsibility alone.

If you read Sullivan's blog with any regularity (actually even if you read it once a week), you will see nothing, but nothing of Clinton hate. Period. Which makes the motivation of Sullivan's article on Obama (which is the topic of this thread, BTW) very relevant.

Posted by bs reader | November 2, 2007 2:33 PM

"Civil war," my sweet Aunt Fanny.

Thirty years ago, a small group of winger billionaires set out to destroy Constitutional government and replace it with authoritarian rule (See the Lewis Powell memo, Cheney and Addington's minority report for Iran Contra, PNAC, etc.)

Their strategy was to fund the infrastructure of what HRC aptly called the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy*. All the usual suspects in movement Conservativism: AEI, the Federalist Society, et cetera, et cetera. These are the operatives who define the boundaries of acceptable, "serious" discourse today.

Having matured, the Conservative movement first attempted a coup against Clinton, and then finally achieved their goal with Bush's seizure of power in Florida 2000.

The Constititional mayhem and destruction we have seen since then -- putting the President above the law; the theory of the unitary executive; the trashing of the Bill of Rights; destruction of the ability of government to function at all -- These are all the results of the winger billionaire's authoritarian project come to fruition under Bush.

This narrative is, by now, conventional wisdom. There has indeed been a Civil War, albeit of a Beltway-based and very well-funded Conservative movement, and its front organization, the Republican Party, against the Constitution and the American people. (This has nothing, nothing at all to do with refighting the 60s, or boomers, pace Sullivan.)

And so our goal should not be to "end" the Civil War by ratifying the gains of the Conservative movement and allowing it to consolidate its hold permanently: I want a legitimate, legitimately elected Constitutional government back, and I don't want to live under authoritarian rule. I want the people to be sovreign, not the oligarchs.

I want clawback:

Clawback of everything that the Conservatives took from us, clawback of our rights as citizens under the Consitution, clawback by not having our votes stolen, clawback by making the criminal justice system work the same way for everybody, clawback of Bush tax cuts, clawback for rebuilding a middle class by the restoring the differential between the rich and the rest of us to some sort of sane differential.

If clawback be "civil war," let us make the most of it.

* Funny how nobody ever asks HRC about that, isn't it?

And, make no mistake, the VWRC

Posted by lambert strether | November 2, 2007 2:35 PM

Obama's policy positions and his record in the Senate (and in Illinois state politics) have been strongly and consistently progressive. Yet he is able to engage in civil discussion with independents and Republicans. It's disappointing that so many liberals find this offensive or disheartening.

Yes, it's true that Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, and Sean Hannity are not going to return the favor and will rip into Obama regardless of how nice he chooses to be to them. That's ok. Obama isn't talking to them. Most of the conservatives I know are not Limbaughs or O'Reillys or Hannitys. They're pretty reasonable folks, many of them are pretty upset with the state of the Republican party. Obama speaks to them in way that none of the other Democrats do, and does so without conceding an inch of policy ground. This is why he is a transformative candidate. He has a chance to claim the political center for Democrats without actually adopting moderate/conservative policies the way Bill Clinton did. Meanwhile Hillary appears poised to follow Bill's centrist policy prescriptions even though the level of political enmity conservatives feel towards her will prevent her from winning any actual votes for her centrism.

Posted by Joe B | November 2, 2007 2:36 PM

Where does the idea come from that any of the major candidates represent a "break with the establishment"? They all hire consultants from the same pool of talent and compete for endorsements from the same "key players" (most of whom have been around since the Reagan administration, if not earlier). The only exceptions to this rule are the whackadoo candidates (Kucinich, Tancredo, Paul, etc.) and mostly they don't play this game because they haven't enough money.

Also, is there any justification behind the "Republicans like Edwards" belief? From what I can see, most of the conservative blogs look at him the way liberals looked at Harriet Miers: a lightweight that they prefer to more competent opponents. I've yet to read a sentence suggesting anything approaching respect for Edwards; the best you're going to manage is sympathy for his family's multiple tragedies.

Posted by heedless | November 2, 2007 2:38 PM

Obama is basically an innocent. He has not yet been bloodied by the conservative war machine.

Hillary has been through the battles. She has survived Sullivan, she survived Drudge, Gingrich, Starr, Fox News, Limbaugh, Christian Broadcasters, the Federalst Society, and rest of the Vast Right Wing Conspriacy.

Does Obama, or his supporters, think just because he waves the white flag of surrender they are going to make nice with him? Hah!

Posted by ken | November 2, 2007 3:12 PM

Good to know that it is all Clinton's fault and her responsibility alone.

Look, nobody claims that the Iraq War is her responsibility alone. But every Senator has a responsibility to treat the decision to go to war that way, because so many lives hang in the balance. She decided to vote in favor of killing all those people. So, she is therefore responsible for all the senseless deaths that resulted. (I might add that she is an important enough figure that her decision to support the war carried real weight.) And, of course, she now wants the job with primary responsibility over decisions to kill additional brave American servicemembers.

Posted by Dilan Esper | November 2, 2007 3:22 PM

John Edwards voted for it too, but he gets a pass by saying "my bad". John Edwards, if he wins the nomination, and that's a big if, he will NOT win the general election.

And I would add John Kerry's vote on Iraq carried much more weight than hers did.

Posted by bs reader | November 2, 2007 3:28 PM

Andrew Sullivan wants a Democrat who brings truce because he wants everyone to forget about his despicable warmongering, smearing of the war opponents, and major, big time ass-kissing of the Bushistas.

There is no reason for any rational person to listen to him.

Posted by gregor | November 2, 2007 3:40 PM

How can there be a "truce" when one side barely can even be said to have been fighting while the other side will never stop shooting?

Posted by Ron | November 2, 2007 3:40 PM

When the cameras finally get turned on Obama's spiritual advisor for the last 20+ years, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr., who accompanied Louis Farrakhan on his visit to Qadaffi in Libya just before Obama joined his church, all this "bring us together" stuff is going to look kind of odd.

Lots of people, like Sullivan, project their fantasies onto Obama, but Obama's actually a real individual with a complicated past and present.

Posted by Steve Sailer | November 2, 2007 4:39 PM

while I think Andrew's approach to politician-evaluating is a bit more personality-driven than is wise, his approach is by far the most common one among swing voter types

Since "swing voter" has long been the polite way of saying, "clueless ignoramus who votes based on his narcissistic and capricious 'gut feelings'", then yeah, I'd say Sullivan is a good simulacrum of the type.

And all this time I thought darling Andy's journamalizing was totally worthless. Live and learn, eh?

Posted by sglover | November 2, 2007 4:44 PM

And Sailor shows up to remind us that Obama has another of the right enemies.

Petey, Im surprised you aren't supporting Obama just out of general principle:-)

Posted by eric k | November 2, 2007 5:08 PM

Imagine if Obama and Romney make it to the general election. What will bigots do - they will have no one to vote for! Wouldn't that be great? And imagine if it's Clinton - Guilianni. How depressing - big huge angry, ugly, fights. The worst of the media egging it on. An angry, bitter country. And on it goes.

Posted by rg | November 2, 2007 5:14 PM

I thought the article was quite good. If you only read the one paragraph Yglesias excerpted, you ought to read the whole thing. It's by no means a complete analysis but Sullivan makes an important point that should be taken into consideration.

Posted by Korha | November 2, 2007 5:22 PM

Steve Sailer,

Out of curiousity, have you publicly endorsed any candidate, or, rather, are you projecting your fantasies onto anyone in particular?

Posted by SoCalJustice | November 2, 2007 5:26 PM

...In the course of highlight this difference between Obama and the others...

Shoot, thought there was a chance that you'd get through a whole day without doing this.

Proofread harder! C'mon!

Posted by chiggins | November 2, 2007 5:27 PM

Yes, it's true that Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, and Sean Hannity are not going to return the favor and will rip into Obama regardless of how nice he chooses to be to them. That's ok. Obama isn't talking to them.

This is a pretty essential point. When Obama talks about working with conservatives, he's talking Lugar, Coburn, Grassley, Specter, not Hannity, Coulter, Limbaugh, O'Reilly. There's a big difference.

Posted by Dave | November 2, 2007 7:19 PM

If Sullivan wants a truce, that means he thinks his side is about to lose.

Good.

We need to push harder.

Posted by lambert | November 2, 2007 8:16 PM

lambert, whose side do you think Sullivan represents? He has been relentless in his blogging against torture and he voted for Kerry [if reluctlantly]. He's not Sean Hannity, ok?

And lately he posted this, with glee:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/11/conservative-ep.html

Posted by Phoebe | November 2, 2007 9:33 PM

Sullivan: "It is a war about war—and about culture and about religion and about race. And in that war, Obama—and Obama alone—offers the possibility of a truce."

Excuse me, but - what the fuck does that mean?

Jack Burton in "Big Trouble in Little China":

"Huh? 'China is here'? I don't know what the hell that means!"

THIS is the kind of post you need to stop writing, Matt.

We don't know what the hell you're talking about.

Get a goddamn clue, Matt. Obama is a slick-talking black politician.

He is not Jesus.

He is not Nelson Mandela.

He is not Ghandhi.

He's Lou Gossett, Jr., is what he is.

And he's in favor of treating Iran like a "serious threat", imposing sanctions and thus ratcheting up the confrontation, and ending up with another war in the ME - plus he's too stupid - or too crooked (more likely) - to understand that Iran CANNOT stop enrichment if they want nuclear energy they can depend on.

Plus he has no apparent intentions of bringing the troops home from Iraq either, at least not before 2013.

By which time, he will have started the war in Iran.

So where do you see this character offering a "truce" between conservatives and liberals, both of whom are members of the "War Party."

Or maybe that is what you mean - he will unite both Republicans and Democrats into a "All War All the Time" coalition...

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | November 2, 2007 10:58 PM

Good grief...it's fairly obvious from most of these comments that few have actually read Sullivan's article.

The non-violent civil war he talks about is the BS that my generation...the infamous Baby Boomers...have fought for the better part of my adult lifetime.

This whole piece is directed at the idea that now is the essential time for this country to politically pass the torch.

Read the piece. It's telling all you young pups that it's your turn as my generation has had long enough to screw the country up.

Good on Sullivan...and if there are any gods, Obama will get a shot to stop the Boomer madness.

Posted by G Davis | November 2, 2007 11:18 PM

This point about the boomers will cut straight through party lines.

No argument from me that the boomers, as a group, have been divisive and narcissistic.

They heckled/abandoned veterans and flipped on opposition to a Medicaire prescription drug program when it was time for them to stop paying and start collecting. They trashed Gen X as lazy, pointless layabouts even as Gen X brought about a quantum leap in information. More insulting, they had the audacity to rechristen Gen Y as the "echo-boomers."

Think about the figures the "Greatest Generation" gave us.

Now look at the Boomers.

With Bush, Giuliani and Hillary as the three of the "best" that the Boomers have produced (Bill's the exception), what have they done, exactly, that those gen-Y kids should echo?

Posted by Shinyk | November 3, 2007 5:56 PM

Sullivan is a conservative, and he likes Obama because he holds great potential to be the most conservative Democratic candidate. That's all there is to it, really. Even his emphasis on the need to transcend political strife is loaded in favor of (substantive) conservatism: the Republicans started the strife, and now that they seem likely to be repaid in kind, Sullivan wants to move the goal posts, redefine the rules, what have you.

Posted by Rich | November 3, 2007 8:26 PM

I have to say that I read halfway through the article only to abandon it as pretentious claptrap.

To understand recent American history as a psycho-bubble civil war between members of the baby-boom generation (between "those who fought in Vietnam and those who didn't" btw? Really? Between 1-2 million soldiers who did serve there and the 249 million who didn't?)is really not to understand history at all. It's a convenient narrative, perhaps even good for Obama to have a hook to tie his demographics and undermine Hillary, but as substance, there's nothing there, there.

Posted by Nick Kaufman | November 4, 2007 3:39 AM