The Change Debate

An Obama supporter was trying to make the case to me yesterday that the real advantage Obama would have vis-a-vis his Democratic rivals (but especially John Edwards in this instance) in bringing about change is not so much his ability to bring people together in the micro sense (sitting around the negotiating table) as his ability to bring people together in the macro sense -- drawing huge crowds around the country, building this vast base of small donors, etc. That stuff gives him levers that can be pushed to create constituencies for change and generate pressure on legislators.

This is pretty plausible to me. Certainly, Obama is the politician in the race with the most talent, the most upside. You can imagine his working incredible wonders, if he plays his cards right. On the other hand, he hasn't always done that. Meanwhile, I agree with Clive Crook and Matthew Cooper and Felix Salmon that there's not much in the way of clear policy contrast between the two and I don't see any clear reason to think that Edwards' rhetorical approach will produce larger gains than Obama's. Indeed, Obama's seems much better-suited to a general election campaign, and it's by winning the election that you create the circumstances where change is possible.

Now for the sake of my sanity, I think I need to stop thinking about the Democratic primary.

Photo by Flickr user Allison Harger used under a Creative Commons license

Comments

Campaigning with homophobes...

Crisis in Social Security...

Pandering to the elderly in IA with "no taxes," while those with kids and mortgages...

Non universality....

That kind of change is AWESOME!

Posted by Gore/Edwards 08 | December 18, 2007 11:49 AM

I still believe people project many things in Obama. Even I, as a black person dare not say it because I get lambasted especially by my white friends. People refuse to vet Obama's record and simply come up with lots of fantasies and some unjustified expectations.

Earl Ofari Hutchinson wrote a must-read about this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matt-littman/hillary-and-jennifer-love_b_77158.html

Posted by ezD | December 18, 2007 11:53 AM

Democrats have a death wish.

Neither Clinton nor Obama can win in 11/08.

Obama makes some people feel good, but those people are not a majority. Clinton, well, Clinton is Clinton, and the heady days of the 90s boom can be replicated just as much as the days of Father Knows Best can be replicated.

The Dems are going to cede the election to the Republicans even before the general election campaign starts.

Posted by gregor | December 18, 2007 11:58 AM

The Dems are going to cede the election to the Republicans even before the general election campaign starts.

It depends. If Romney is able to snake the nomination by winning in NH and MI, then either Hillary or Obama can roll to the White House. If McCain makes a comeback in NH, it gets a lot tougher.

Posted by Duvall | December 18, 2007 12:03 PM

Projecting an Obama victory of smashing proportions isn't supported by most polling. Especially state by state polling Obama seems to look weak in states like Missouri and North Carolina. So running up huge numbers in Cali and New York isn't going to help the Senate out that much.

But in any case, it's about more than general election numbers it's about instincts. I think Matt's rejection of any weight to Presidential campaign proposals is quite wrong. While granted campaign promises often don't pan out, if a candidate is timid and trimming in the primaries (such as Obama), they seem very unlikely to grow more couragous in office.

Matt should just accept that his candidate is the least engaged in making bold domestic policy changes and move on. Obama is much more concerned with good government and atmospheric changes domestically and image changes abroad. That's fine as far as it goes, it just doesn't go as far as Edwards does.

Posted by AJ | December 18, 2007 12:08 PM

As one swing voter who is utterly outraged by the Republican party, I'm intrigued by Obama and undoubtedly would vote for him. Clinton I dislike on a personal level more and more the more I know her, but I almost undoubtedly would vote for her. I can't read almost anything Edwards says without smirking, and would have great difficulty voting for him. FWIW.

Posted by ostap | December 18, 2007 12:15 PM

This strikes me as an extremely uncompelling argument. A President Obama will not be able to operate in the relatively policy-free atmosphere of the pre-primary season -- he's going to alienate some people, he's going to have to build traditionally structured coalitions, etc. This idea that he's going to run the country as the second coming of John Lennon is ridiculous. He's the best change candidate because he'll be able to draw huge crowds? Please.

Posted by Aaron S. Veenstra | December 18, 2007 12:26 PM

when are people going to stop believing the hype about obama and start dealing with the flesh and blood politician standing in front of them?
would obama represent change? sure, we've never had a black president before, so that in itself would represent a huge change. he would absolutely bring a different sensibility to the office because of that fact. but his record and his temperament argue strongly that he will not - and cannot - bring the kind of real and profound change that he talks about, and that his supporters appear to fantasize about.
edwards is correct when he talks about the entrenched interests that will not give up without a fight. the health care fiasco in this country is the best example.
do you think the insurance companies and the drug companies are going to give up their piece of the pie willingly? of course not! a corporation, is required by law to look out for its best interests and the best interests of those corporations is to maintain the status quo.
similarly, are the oil companies or the auto manufacturers and other larger industries going to hold hands and sing campfire songs because they are so dazzled by the brilliance of obama?
its never happened yet and it will not happen again.
consider this: the last truly important legislative gains by progressives occurred when? during LBJ's tenure.
how would you describe LBJ?
as a consensus-seeking pol in obama's mode?
or as a take-no-prisoners waterboarder with more in common with GW. Bush?
obviously, this Bush has more in common with LBJ. and despite the chagrin of most lefties, we have to admit that this Bush has been extremely effective in moving his agenda forward.
if obama is elected, they'd better resign themselves to small, incremental victories, like the v-chip and school uniforms. it will be a second dose of clinton-style small ball. those victories may be worthwhile and such successes will no doubt make us feel better than we feel now, but it is not the kind of momentus "change" that obama is advertising now.
the most revealing moment of any of the debates was in the last debate, when obama admitted tht he had to remind himself to NOT BE SO "TIMID", as he pursues his goals.
that acknowledgment was astonishing, but revealing, as i think obama reveals a very important part of his personality, through that comment. and unfortunately, for dems, if he is elected president, its a part of his personality that will often infuriate dems as his self-confessed timidity will cause him to cave time after time to the pressure conservatives will bring down on him.

Posted by frankie d | December 18, 2007 12:27 PM

"Certainly, Obama is the politician in the race with the most talent, the most upside."

At the end of the day, you're just a dumbass about politics, aren't you, Matthew?

Posted by Petey | December 18, 2007 12:37 PM

But remember: Obama knows the system sucks, but he will melt it with his awesomeness.

Sounds like you buy that change theory, Matt.

Posted by Clark | December 18, 2007 12:40 PM

Matthew ought to read some political history of Jimmy Carter.

Posted by Petey | December 18, 2007 12:46 PM

I was going to make some kind of basketball related joke about Obama's upside then I read all the previous comments arguing for waging all out war against the interests and realized I had an opinion (how unusual).

I think both sides are right. If you look back on any large changes in this countries direction, they mostly came about when a large majority of the public was ready and accepting of them. I think the public is ready for some changes. But there are two categories of changes the public wants. To generalize: one is, cut back the moneied interest; two is to end the culture war. I think Edwards running on the first and Obama the second.

So, becasue this is not a perfect world, you have to pick, guessing which candidate would do better in the general, because either would be better than any republican. And for that reason I think I would pick Obama, becasue I think more people care about the excesses of the culture war than really know about the moneied interests. And once in, there is a democratic president with democratic goals, but maybe "timid" means. But he's on your side, you can work with him. Much more than some republican, whose whole existance is tied to moneied interests.

And the danger of Edwards is that he is still fighting the culture war (or the permenent republican majority, or whatever you want to call it) and people are sick of that. People are exhausted with all this crap. I know I am.

Posted by cw | December 18, 2007 12:56 PM

cw,

sorry, but often the country gets dragged along by a strong leader. the impetus is not an organic need for change.
most of the country was just fine with the state of black folks in the '60's.
but first jfk and then lbj, spurred by the likes of mlk, dragged the country in a new direction. the electoral backlash, after the '60's is confirmation that the country was really not ready for that kind of change.
most americans really had no clue as to what reagan was going to dump on them. the wisdom of his moves aside, he took the country in a certain direction because of his leadership. for progressives, what caused them much heartburn was the fact that poll after poll showed that the public supported the dems' position on issue after issue. but because of reagan's strong leadership, he moved the country in a drastically different direction.
most of the country was behind the kinds of changes in health care that clinton tried to make. but his failure of leadership caused that change to flounder.
i think it is safe to argue that GWB's policies have been extremely unpopular. yet, he continues to get his way. why? leadership.
often, the popular will is thwarted, and the country moved in certain directions because of the will of a single politician, the president.
republicans have understood that for a long time.

Posted by frankie d | December 18, 2007 1:07 PM

Matt should just accept that his candidate is the least engaged in making bold domestic policy changes and move on. Obama is much more concerned with good government and atmospheric changes domestically and image changes abroad. That's fine as far as it goes, it just doesn't go as far as Edwards does.

This is a reasonably fair assessment. I guess the question comes down to whether you believe that we haven't legislated solutions to our major national problems because we've lacked sufficiently bold ideas, or because our political dialogs has been fundamentally broken. Do we need boldness in policy prescriptions, or boldness in rebranding the Democratic platform to gain cross-party support in a Reaganesque sort of way?

Posted by J.B. | December 18, 2007 1:08 PM

Jimmy Carter got quite a few things done: including the Egyptian-Israel peace, done in the face of massive hostility of American right-wing Jewish community. Indeed on that score, Edwards is rather more pandering to the relevant special interests, not "fighting them all his life" as he claims is his signature. And - just to remind you of the relevance - that organised interest is part of the reason we may have a war with Iran.

More broadly, while Petey has rather astonishingly persuaded me and maybe others that JE would be acceptable, and even that JE may win the primary, it's a just a simple mistake to think that the one who says "I'm the fighter" is in fact the only fighter out there, particularly since Obama has a rather more left-wing (yes, not just liberal) background than Edwards and the difficulties of achieving any sort of viability as a Presidential candidate if he can be painted too clearly as "angry black man". He can't say what Edwards says and hope to win, even if he wants to do more than Edwards will after victory.

Posted by otto | December 18, 2007 1:11 PM

Matt should just accept that his candidate is the least engaged in making bold domestic policy changes and move on. Obama is much more concerned with good government and atmospheric changes domestically and image changes abroad. That's fine as far as it goes, it just doesn't go as far as Edwards does.

Right. This is quite the cliché, but Obama is running as a Bill Bradley-style process liberal, and that usually means stressing foreign policy, political reform, and social issues. It's a type of campaign that traditionally attracts affluent, idealistic liberals. If this is your thing, Obama's your man.

If economic justice is your thing, the obvious choice is John Edwards. I think a big problem for American liberalism in general is that, by soft-peddling the economic justice issue in such an incredibly lame fashion (I mean, America's safety net is absolutely fucking pathetic compared to almost all of the rest of the rich world), "process" liberalism is severely undercut. You can't expect folks who are worried about homelessness or hunger or hospital bills to get overly worked up about gay marriage or peace in the Middle East. Indeed, you might very well expect them to oppose progressive efforts in these areas, to the extent that financially-stressed working people tend to be overly susceptible to the siren call of right wing scare-mongering.

It's no coincidence that the last time the two strains of liberalism were fused in a credible national candidate (Bobby Kennedy) came toward the tail end of a great period of expanding economic opportunity.

I think it's high time we got our ducks in a row when it comes to economics.

Posted by Jasper | December 18, 2007 1:18 PM

Frankie D,

I agree with you. But I don't believe Kennedy or Johnston promis to pass civil reights legislation in the primaries or the general election. It was something that kennedy was kind of forced to propose and Johnston carried out. And the policies of Regan and Bush were not advertised in the elections, but engineered in the course of their presidencies. My point being that we are talking about an election, which is different than a presidency. And I think Obama, with his message of ending the political war, is more electable than Edwards with his message of continuing the political war.

No matter what either say in the election, no one can predict with much accuracy what would happen once either were elected.

Posted by cw | December 18, 2007 1:26 PM

To all these Edwards groupies: Gag me with a freakin' spoon! I'm as liberal as they come, and I sure as hell don't accept Edwards as my personal Lord and savior. Talk is cheap, and that's the only currency Edwards has got to his name. And rhetoric doesn't buy my vote; actions do.

Much as his supporters might pretend otherwise, Edward's entire legislative record reads DLC Democrat. But no, lets flock to the guy who has done jack shit, to whom liberalism is nothing but a transparent campaign gambit, because then we can be all self-righteous and furiously masturbate our own egos. Oh yeah, that sounds great.

I can understand why some would vote Clinton. I understand why someone would vote Obama. I have no idea why anyone would vote Edwards, who has perhaps the most conservative of records of any of the candidates.

Primary season can't be over soon enough.

Posted by Beem | December 18, 2007 1:27 PM

cw,

i agree with you on every point except one.
i think there is a percentage of voters who will tell pollsters that they will vote for a black candidate who will never do so. so obama's electability is less than what the numbers show now.
all of this republican love and independant infatuation that obama gets now will be much less once the republicans have had their shot at obama.
also, you are absolutely correct that jfk and lbj were kind of pushed into their decisions on civil rights legislation. but they were impelled by events, not the popular will. and that is where personality becomes so important. a man with less courage would have taken the easy way out - as eisenhower did after brown v board of education - and not taken the steps that jfk took.
what happens when obama faces that moment of truth?
does his self-described timidity decide his course of action?
or does he find a steel in his spine that hasnt been obvious so far?
trust me, i have much in common with obama and admire him greatly. but when i look at obama, i see bill clinton the second, not a crusading agent of change.

Posted by frankie d | December 18, 2007 1:40 PM

What SansAClue (aka MattY) doesn't know is that whoever the Dem candidate is, they're going to have to face questions from the public.

And, a little pointed questioning would reveal that they're corrupt.

Obama might be able to fool a FifthGrader (assuming the kid bought his lines), but I don't think Obama would end up looking very good at all under questioning from someone who knows about these issues.

Upload that exchange to Youtube, and within a day things might not look very good for the Dem party's chances. We might even get a real third party alternative.

Posted by TLB | December 18, 2007 1:57 PM

I don't think Obama has to rely on anti-immigrationists to win the election. Those are mostly the 30% true-believer republicans.

Posted by cw | December 18, 2007 2:02 PM

Frankie,

i think you are right that there are a certain percentage of americans who won't vote for a black man. I don't know what the % is. He might get a lot of black and hispanic and young voters that Edwards wouldn't.

The thing about Edwards is he seems like just another politician, so far, talking the same old populist message. I mean, what would Edwards vrs Rommney look like: two smooth haired smooth talking classic politicians, spouting the same old crap. it would be life immitating parody. Imagine the turn out for something like that. Imagine the ads. I think Obama has what the voters want, and that is someone who seems like a human being first and a politician second. Maybe it's all a bullshit pose, but we'll see.

Posted by cw | December 18, 2007 2:12 PM

cw

for those who want a big Dem win, Edwards v Romney is the *dream* matchup.

it's the single-largest D v R head-to-head drubbing in all of the polls i've seen.

having the candidate with the most avowedly lefty campaign absolutely crush an R seems to me the perfect scenario.

Posted by josh bivens | December 18, 2007 2:22 PM

i think obama is very sincere about his wanting to produce real change.
i simply wonder if he has the personality to make it happen.
i remember bill clinton's 1992 presidential campaign. i still have a pic from a rally in ann arbor, michigan. clinton really seemed poised to do new and different things. it was extremely exciting.
but when he got into office, the kind of profound change he wanted to have happen got stifled.
now, certainly, as has been proven, the republicans mounted a sustained, intense campaign to ruin his presidency, and that had much to do with many of his choices.
but, because of his personality, that need to find the comfortable middle, clinton accommodated right-wingers much more than he needed to.
(i always found it very odd, as they beat on him, he tried to make friends with them!)
i think obama has a lot of that bill clinton-style accommodation in him. which might mean a very nice, even successful presidency, but it wont produce the kind of profound change that progressives might wish for.
very much like what happened with bill clinton, after he assumed the office.

Posted by frankie d | December 18, 2007 2:32 PM

I like Edwards and Obama. Given the choice, I'd choose Obama in a heartbeat though. He has the political talent we need to crush the GOP next year and will expand our majorities in Congress far more than Edwards, who has way too many vulnerabilities.

And Hillary? She's the only candidate that some down-ticket candidates WON'T want to campaign with them. Plus, she's totally lost any support I might have given her after the last 2 week's worth of shameful dirty tricks by her surrogates. Truly tacky and un-Democratic.

Posted by John | December 18, 2007 2:45 PM

Josh,

I saw that chart and it seemed weird to me. Is it becasue this early in the campaign it's the activists who have opinions?

Frankie,

I don't think profound change is possible unless the stars align. You have to have the legislature, the current events, a majority of public support and the right president. Clinton never had the stars line up but he did pretty good incrimentally. Neither Bush nor Regan made any profound changes, mostly just tweeks to the right. The exception is maybe the war in Iraq. That was a profoundly bad change in American foreign policy, but that would never have come about without 9/11. The stars lined up. In fact, Bush wouldn't be president now except for 9/11 and that moron Kerry. And since that election, the stars have been against Bush and he hasn't achieved any of his profound goals.

Our system doesn't ususally allow for profound change, so it seems weird to pick a candidate on the criteria that they are the ones who could best effect profound changes.

Posted by cw | December 18, 2007 3:27 PM

Edwards folds when it matter: AUMF, some staggeringly bad Veep debates. Obama worked from the bottom up through community organizing.

Maybe he has become a bold populist (conveniently when he realized that was his route to the nomination with a will of iron--I don't know-- but the evidence does not support it, nor does it support the claims that he is some transformative politician.

Probably not a bad guy, and I'd vote for him for President, but give me a break on this primary shit: I have been listening to it for, like, 9 months already.

Posted by PTS | December 18, 2007 3:39 PM

PTS

The primary debat shapes the general election debate which shapes the course of the country. By commenting here PTS, you are guiding the course of history. That's why I do this instead of the work I'm supposed to be doing.

Posted by cw | December 18, 2007 3:53 PM

cw,

recently i've become a convert to the idea that "leadership" and personality can make a huge difference.
previously, i believed as you do now.
but, i do think that both reagan and especially bush have made profound changes, not just small adjustments, in our way of life, largely because of their willingness to push the envelope. especially bush.
that sheer willingness and ability to push very, very hard for something is something that will take an executive a long way.
for instance, bush could have taken a more conciliatory appoach to governing after 9/11 and he could have had a profoundly positive impact on our society. but, instead, he took us in another direction, largely because of 9/11 and his willingness to exploit it. other presidents may not have had that willingness to go for the jugular, in the manner that bush did.
and that kind of leadership is what i wish dems showed more of.

Posted by frankie d | December 18, 2007 3:54 PM

The way Bush went for the juglar and conspired with Delay in creating the permanent republican majority is a bad thing. I believe in democracy and therefor support democratic tactics.

I don't think that Edwards is going to pull that kind or rovian shit, but the whole politics as total war model has to go. I want honest democratic discussion, no demogaugery. No leveraging power to entrench power. I want whoever the democratic president is to reliquish the presidential power the Bushes siezed. I want more democracy, even if it hurts the democrat. I see that as our countries main problem today, our democratic process are corrupt. I want a president that will fight that corruption, not necessarily the Republicans.

Posted by cw | December 18, 2007 4:03 PM

I really need ot proofread better.

Posted by cw | December 18, 2007 4:06 PM

i agree wholeheartedly.
for instance, i think that the first step a new president should take is to move for the public financing of elections.
it astounds me that democrats fail to strategically realize the importance of that move.
but, in order to get that sort of legislation passed, a president will have to play the kind of hardball that only the toughest pols know how to play.
now, once - and if - such a law was passed, we could move on to a more appropriate style of discourse and politics. failing that, we end up swimming in the same old cesspool that corrupts everyone.

Posted by frankie d | December 18, 2007 4:17 PM

At this point, I think all of the top five Republican candidates are so badly nicked that none of them can beat any of the top three Dems in the general election.

Let's pick the candidate we actually want as President, because we're gonna win regardless.

Posted by low-tech cyclist | December 18, 2007 4:44 PM

I think Kevin Drum has it right on Obama's New Politics:

The question is, do you believe that there's a "new politics" out there waiting for someone to grab hold of it and change the "equations that govern political math"? I gotta say, I'm skeptical — the same way I was skeptical when the dotcommers thought they'd rewritten the rules of stock valuation and the subprime lenders thought they'd rewritten the rules of risk evaluation. Call me cynical, but from where I sit politics doesn't look a lot different today than it did when I cast my first vote 30 years ago.

Posted by AJ | December 18, 2007 4:49 PM

I think Obama has what the voters want, and that is someone who seems like a human being first and a politician second. Maybe it's all a bullshit pose, but we'll see.

But we *need* a politician, cw. The big test of this primary season for the dems is to figure out how to stop merely reacting to the GOP, to Reagan. This deal about hating 'politicians' is pure Reagan, inchoate anti government crap. This idea that if we just get rid of 'politicians' and elect 'human beings' is just hokum - Republican hokum. The 'regular guy' vs 'politician' dichotomy is so ingrained that we accept it without question, which is exactly the reason it must be questioned. It's the things which are so conventional, so much 'a given' that no one notices, which teach so much.

Posted by jonnybutter | December 18, 2007 5:10 PM

cw says: I don't think Obama has to rely on anti-immigrationists to win the election. Those are mostly the 30% true-believer republicans.

In case that comment is directed at my earlier comment - even if it isn't - I don't think I was being clear.

What I'm talking about is Obama - and the others - being asked prosecutorial-style questions designed to reveal the flaws in their policies and to show that they can't think things through or are corrupt. Even if you support massive immigration, you might not vote for someone after having seen their policies exposed as faulty.

Posted by TLB | December 18, 2007 7:47 PM

Damn. Everyone knows that ole Obama was hitting the crackpipe for years. He, after all, didn't get the nickname Barack "Crackhead" Obama for nothing.

Obama has a all but declared war upon the white race. Like his good friend Jose Angel Gutierrez, founder of La Raza, he thinks: “We have got to eliminate the gringo, and what I mean by that is if the worst comes to the worst, we have got to kill him.”

That's all I'm gonna say.

(I'm not even going to talk about Obama's proclivity for raping white women.)

Posted by Paleoconservative Peter | December 18, 2007 8:04 PM

"Indeed, Obama's seems much better-suited to a general election campaign, and it's by winning the election that you create the circumstances where change is possible"

Are u serious? He seems better suited for the general election campaign?

Two problems:

1) Obama has never been tested. Im from Illinois and Obama had possibly the easiest senate election ever. In liberal Illinois, his initial challenger was a semi formidable Romneyesque i-banker embroiled in a sex scandal. This was only to be followed by the worst candidate in the world, Alan Keyes (self explanatory). Thus the notion that Obama is somehow some great political figure is absurd. MY says "you can imagine his working incredible wonders." Based on what? Hope! This is pure projection.

2) The idea that a black candidate that admits using cocaine and has the middle name of Hussein is the most formidable is absurd. Look, you may like him, but this is pure bs journalism. In a general these things will work terribly.

I think one thing dems/liberals are sorely lacking is insight into what bedevils them. As Howard Dean said--to much rancor--Dems should go after the guys with confederate flags on their pickup trucks. He was villified but absolutely right.

This is why I think Edwards is much better. Not only has he won in a much harder Senate race--North Carolina sans Alan Keyes--but he appeals to what I call Lou Dobbs Republicans. They dont particularly care for liberal pluralism, but they are awful mad that there economic plight is worse. They want good jobs. Edwards taps into that. In fact, Lou Dobbs said that Edwards was the best of the Dem candidates.

This is where liberals need to go. The economic formula is winner. Not the high-minded loft of a bill bradley campaign, which Obama is running. While many like Obama they have to be honest about his chances and real skill.

Posted by jeff | December 18, 2007 9:27 PM

The economic formula is winner. Not the high-minded loft of a bill bradley campaign, which Obama is running. While many like Obama they have to be honest about his chances and real skill.

No, jeff, you're wrong because Oprah said so.

Posted by Commoner | December 18, 2007 9:40 PM

It's incredible to me that the three leading Democratic candidates for the nomination have zero executive or business experience between them. You've got a former lawyer/First Lady/second term Senator versus a first-term Senator versus a former trial lawyer/Senator. If the wind is at Dems' back for '08, why haven't your politicians who have executive experience -- your governors and business execs -- stepped up?

Posted by Fred | December 19, 2007 1:54 AM