Delivering

I think the manner of Barack Obama's win is pretty impressive. I can't be the only one who was a bit inclined toward a cynical roll of the eyes at the idea of winning on the back of unprecedented turnout, mobilizing new voters, brining in young people, etc. That sounds like the kind of thing that people say they're going to do but never deliver on. But he did deliver. That's impressive.

Earlier today, an Obama supporter reminded me of this old Chicago Reader profile of Obama from back in the mid-1990s as proof of his progressive bona fides. It's certainly an article that makes you feel good about this guy being elected President of the United States. What's more, it's a reminder that tonight's victory for organizing and mobilization was spearheaded by a former community organizer; he's a guy who believes in the power of mobilizing new people and brining new people into the process. In Iowa, it's worked very well for him, and it's pretty thrilling to think about what could be accomplished with that kind of energy nationwide.

Comments

If those indicators of increased youth and new voter turnout for Obama prove reliable, it is a very good thing. I wish this weren't Edwards' 2nd run, and he hadn't already had a VP run, because if the Obama momentum continues, an Obama / Edwards ticket would have been very, very strong. But it would be really great to see a candidate who could continue to bring in younger and newer voters.

Posted by El Cid | January 3, 2008 10:19 PM

Yup. That's why I have been supporting Obama:

1. foreign policy
2. serious progressive cred (see the Chicago Reader)
3. Cross-party and independent appeal.

2+3=making progressivism sound moderate. That's good.

Posted by David | January 3, 2008 10:20 PM

Yes, he totally Ba-racked the vote!

Posted by golddog | January 3, 2008 10:20 PM

Daniels: It's the dawning of a new day.

McNulty: Pfffft.

Posted by rachel | January 3, 2008 10:32 PM

Matt,

Are you finally going to get around to reading your candidate's autobiography now? It's really well-written and quite informative.

Posted by Steve Sailer | January 3, 2008 10:36 PM

If you don't have time for your man's own book, Shelby Steele's "A Bound Man" explains Obama's life with great insight in about 10% as many words.

Posted by Steve Sailer | January 3, 2008 10:38 PM

signed, sealed, and delivered.

Obama ran a good campaign, and a different one, doing things people didn't think possible. That's a hint about what a "new politics" means.

Posted by eli | January 3, 2008 10:43 PM

I caucused tonight and that was what I took away from my precinct. I supported John Edwards but I'm not upset by an Obama victory. The establishment candidates tend to do well in Iowa, and I was somewhat concerned that Obama would be this year's Dean. But instead the enthusiasm for Obama was incredible and the turnout was awesome. In 2004 my precinct had 147 people at the Democratic caucus. This year we had 251 and the chair held up a fat stack of completed voter registration cards: it looked like perhaps 25 to 50 new voters had registered on the spot.
I'm sure I'm not the only Democrat with a nagging worry that the Republicans will find some way to win again--but tonight really made me feel like the movement for change is too strong for that.

Posted by Christy | January 3, 2008 10:59 PM

People really doubted the DMR poll that showed a turnout of 200,000 (about 210,000 actually showed up) and Obama beating Hillary by about 7%.

I thought Edward's speech was good, but Obama's is even more powerful. And I'm thinking we're gonna see the term "Obama Republican" coined this year. Dude looks presidential.

Posted by Ben | January 3, 2008 11:09 PM

I've seriously got to ask, but what is it that makes Barack "progressive"?

Is it his religion that tells him same-sex marriage is wrong?

Is it his stance against medical marijuana?

Is it the PACs and corporations who make up the top ten of his campaign contributors?

Was it his vote for the Patriot Act II?

Was it when he funded Bush's occupation of Iraq, everytime it was demanded of him?

I sincerely, can not believe that anyone would consider this person a "progressive".

Posted by Volum | January 3, 2008 11:18 PM

I've been skeptical in recent months about Obama and his rhetorical jabs against progressive causes and argument, but I have to concede MY's central point: he delivered. His campaign was less about substantively pure progressivism and more about himself as a new, fresh, and, yeah, inspiring vehicle for progressive change, defined broadly. And the turnout numbers, youth involvement, and everything Matt discusses bear out the conclusion that it succeeded beyond my expectations (I'm an Edwards guy) and perhaps even beyond those of his supporters. A tip of the cap to the winner, who certainly deserves it! But let's let the voters in the other states (including mine, Virginia, on 2/12) have their say too, please please, lol......

Posted by scott | January 3, 2008 11:25 PM

Alls I've got to say is this:

Suck it down, bitchez!!!! The "sphere" ain't no thang.

YEEEEAAAAARRRRRGGGHHHHHHH!!!!!!

Posted by Muwahahahaha | January 3, 2008 11:28 PM

He won the way he said he would - by bringing new people to the Caucus.

His speech was wonderful. You could almost see him grow into the role. I believe we're witnessing history.

Posted by rikyrah | January 4, 2008 12:52 AM

It is going to get a lot rougher for Obama now as the media tries to take him down. And I shudder to think what the Karl Rove successor is going to do with Obama's race in the general election. But maybe he can take it.

Posted by bob h | January 4, 2008 7:07 AM

It's time for us wonks to retreat a little bit from our obsessive poring-over of Obama's record, put down the magnifying glass that reveals the inevitable holes in his progressive credentials, and embrace the man in his totality. I'm not saying that just because I'm so hungry to win I'll sell my soul and forget my principles, though I'll cop to some of that. You really think I want to elect another Republican because Obama supports civil unions instead of gay marriage? I don't think I have a gay friend who would endorse that position (I'll ask, though).

What I mean is this: there's more to politics than their records and statements and there's more to presidents than what they've said and done. Case-in-point: Franklin Roosevelt criticized Hoover bitterly throughout 1932. Among his criticisms was that Hoover would fail to balance the budget, that his Reconstruction Finance Corporation had increased the deficit and promised to shrink the US government bureaucracy. FDR's own words seem almost bizarre in retrospect. Given a blind choice between who, on the campaign trail had called for "immediate and drastic reductions of all public expenditures" and "abolishing useless commissions and offices, consolidating bureaus and eliminating extravagances reductions in bureaucracy," how many of us would have said FDR? Given some of these statements, I'd say Barack's progressive bona fides are pretty solid by comparison.

But that's not my point. My point is that Americans in 1932 recognized that FDR was a new kind of person--a politician who understood their problems and had the flexibility and vision to lead the country through an unprecedented crisis.

Do yourself a favor. Keep studying the issues, but trust your gut for a change. Every now and then, history gives us a moment that transcends the minutiae of the candidates' records and presents us with something new and different. If this makes us naive, well, I'm grateful for it. What's more naive than the values and ideas defined by the American Revolution and the notion that the people are best-fit to govern themselves?

Posted by Matt Weiss | January 4, 2008 7:10 AM

"It's time for us wonks to retreat a little bit from our obsessive poring-over of Obama's record, put down the magnifying glass that reveals the inevitable holes in his progressive credentials, and embrace the man in his totality."

Fuck off and die.

That day will come in a month if Obama is our nominee, but Chairman Dean has set up a nice 4 state system to test our candidates in a variety of settings before we all have to fall in line.

Until then, I'm not going to embrace a triangulating candidate who is trying to gain the White House by distancing himself from the Democratic Party and our shared values and principles.

Posted by Petey | January 4, 2008 7:21 AM

Triangulating is the tactic in which you find the position on the left you know is probably right, find the popular right-wing positions and then find somewhere in between. For instance, you could note that you should vote against the Iraq War resolution, you note that the right wants eternal war on Arabs and you find the middle ground with Bob Shrum's help: vote for the war resolution but complain when the inevitable happens. Gee, I wonder which DLC loverboy did that?

Posted by Reality Man | January 4, 2008 7:35 AM

Obama’s sheen will soon disappear as more people look into his real profile. The press gave him a big ride and it is they who will bring him down.
Also, I do not think this country will elect a black man as a president in the near future. The closet bigots are the ones who gave him victory in Iowa. This will help the Republicans – not the Nation

Posted by Sam Malone | January 4, 2008 8:07 AM

Yeah Matt!
Glad you are waking up to what others have seen in Obama---maybe many in America are just more "sensitive" souls to the goodness,truth, or authenticity of Obama, than you. I, and others, saw in 04, something that is transcendent in Obama, at a time in our history that is necessary.
He's not perfect---but neither is anyone.
But he's less imperfect, than other candidates.
Constantly, you and other journalists, use comparisons--like Bobby K. to Obama, or Iraq to Vietnam.
This is a mistake on all of your parts.
No 2 situations are ever 100% alike. So while you can draw comparisons for explanation to the public,to accept that comparative as a given fact, no room for an alternate outcome is aloowed in your minds-or the readership.
People know in thier core-the possibility of that alternate universe with Obama, and believe.
Glad you've expanded your mind on that also.

Posted by Bethincary | January 4, 2008 8:30 AM

Yeah Matt!
Glad you are waking up to what others have seen in Obama---maybe many in America are just more "sensitive" souls to the goodness,truth, or authenticity of Obama, than you. I, and others, saw in 04, something that is transcendent in Obama, at a time in our history that is necessary.
He's not perfect---but neither is anyone.
But he's less imperfect, than other candidates.
Constantly you and other journalists use comparisons--like Bobby K. to Obama, or Iraq to Vietnam.
This is a mistake on all of your parts.
No 2 situations are ever 100% alike. So while you can draw comparisons for explanation to the public,to accept that comparative as a given fact, no room for an alternate outcome is aloowed in your minds-or the readership.
People know in thier core-the possibility of that alternate universe with Obama, and believe.
Glad you've expanded your mind on that also.

Posted by Bethincary | January 4, 2008 8:30 AM

You know, I've hated this administration as much as anyone, but maybe, rather than looking at Obama and seeing somebody who's a craven triangulator, you might recognize that the fact that you don't love everything about the guy might be a good thing. There are 300 million people in this country and some guy named "Petey" is only one of them, and one of the things I've hated most about the Bush years is that he and his side governed as if half of them didn't exist.

It doesn't work. It's bad for the country and it's bad for the world. To paraphrase a slogan I like, "Fuck Off and Die is not a governing philosophy."

Posted by Matt Weiss | January 4, 2008 8:37 AM

Oh--one clarification. I didn't mean to suggest that Petey or anyone else has to embrace Obama as the nominee at this point. The guy only won Iowa; I don't expect anyone to hand him the nomination. I was just suggesting that, in addition to examining a candidate's record, there's more we should consider when looking at somebody like Obama.

I don't know if that will move Petey to retract his gentle suggestion regarding my next move, but there it is.

Posted by Matt Weiss | January 4, 2008 8:41 AM

"one of the things I've hated most about the Bush years is that he and his side governed as if half of them didn't exist."

Fair enough. You explicitly want a Democratic nominee who's a triangulator. I explicit want a Democratic nominee who's not.

Over the next month, we'll get to see who the majority of the Democratic primary electorate agrees with.

Personally, I think it's time for the Democratic Party to show a little backbone.

Posted by Petey | January 4, 2008 8:41 AM

"Oh--one clarification. I didn't mean to suggest that Petey or anyone else has to embrace Obama as the nominee at this point. The guy only won Iowa; I don't expect anyone to hand him the nomination."

Sure I'll retract.

It was only your call for ignoring Obama lack of progressivism and coming together after only one state voted in praise of Obama's empty campaign of personality that motivated me to tell you to fuck off and die.

I hope you live long and prosper, Matt Weiss.

Posted by Petey | January 4, 2008 8:50 AM

Damn straight, Matt. He is a progressive and he is delivering the message beyond the Democratic party's core. Polls show that majorities often favor key progressive policies (e.g., universal health care), but for whatever reason Dems haven't been able to reach out to the independent or moderate Republicans who feel that way and reel them in. Obama shows that capacity. That is something we should welcome.

Petey, you're out of bounds, though I guess it is somewhat better that you retracted your idiotic reaction.

Posted by Chunche | January 4, 2008 9:06 AM

Peace and Long Life, Petey.

By giving the proper Vulcan response, I hope I've established that, however weak Obama's progressive credentials may be in your eyes, my geek bona fides are well-established.

Posted by Matt Weiss | January 4, 2008 9:24 AM

Matt Weiss who went to Villa Academy in Seattle by any chance? Sorry to use one of the most viewed websites in the political blogsphere to reconnect with old friends but the name jumped out at me.

Nothing much to add on the Obama front except to echo Matt Y's point of last week that the more people study his background the more they question the Clinton camp's insistance on playing the "experience" card every chance they get. There is no real descernable difference between the two candidates in terms of experience and Iowa only goes to show that voters understand quite clearly that a vote for Hillary does not a 2nd Bill Clinton presidency make.

Lastly, I live in Japan, where it is 12am on a friday and I have been drinking...so please excuse any spelling/grammatical mistakes.

Posted by Eric Peterson | January 4, 2008 9:54 AM

Petey:

I am all for your supporting Edwards. Universal Healthcare and a stiff dose of populism are worth supporting, but let's not sell Obama short. Sounding moderate, but being progressive is a good combination and i think there is a lot of evidence that Obama is just that:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/03/AR2008010303303.html

Posted by d | January 4, 2008 10:24 AM

HillBill really wanted to win Iowa. So did Edwards.

Much as she was trying to mask it last night, she got rocked. HillBill's got the dough to go on, but does Edwards?

If HillBill doesn't win NH or SC, this thing is totally up for grabs.

Let's face it, HillBill can probably win 24-26% of the vote in November. Considering that 49% of the country votes, that means she's got a shot, even a good shot against McCain or Mitt. (Sorry Mike, I don't see you as the nominee.)

The Obama miracle is that he expands the number of possible voters from 49% to maybe 52-3%, and they all go to him. That makes him tough to stop.

People will get their backs up when they realize it's HillBill's corporates against us folks, and the voters will open up their internet checkbooks $50-100 at a time. With those open wallets comes commitments to vote for Obama, which will in the end bring HillBill down.

Long live the sharp scythe of American politics!

Engage the American electorate, and they'll give you the shirt of their backs. (When was the last American President to do that?)

Mess with them, and they'll turn on you so quick it'll make your head spin. After all, how can you expect the American electorate to trust a woman whose husband had oral sex with an intern young enough to be his daughter in his White House office? Especially given the fact that he'd been doing other women for decades. What does it say about her? About him? About them?

The times, they ARE a changin'

Posted by Adirondax | January 4, 2008 12:29 PM

Petey, you go to the bathroom right now and wash out your mouth with soap. No basketball with your friends tonight, young man. After all, this isn't a Republican bashfest but an intelligent discussion. Retraction noted but try to curb those nasty instincts to flame, boy, y'hear?

}-)

Matt Weiss, I was inspired by your call to "...put down the magnifying glass that reveals the inevitable holes in his progressive credentials, and embrace the man in his totality."

Your analogy to the candidacy of FDR (Obama evokes those of JFK and RFK and, yes, Bill Clinton as well) is right on the money.

Talking points, plans, policies, promises etc. are all part of the political circus that we're forced to endure and have a love/hate relationship to. It's a great way to sell papers and get viewers to tune in, (such as to "the Best Political Team on television" on CNN: is anyone else as irritated by that shameless and constant self-promotion as I am?)

But Obama represents something real and exciting. He's a brilliant speaker, a true uniter, but also an excellent strategist. He beat Hill's machine with superior strategizing and timely but not nasty campaigning.

We need hope. We need excitement. We need to feel that we have, again, the chance for integrity and dare I say it, some soul in the white house.

Sure, we are charged with the responsibility to examine positions, statements, claims and counter claims (unless they're from the Rovian Swiftboat mentality that's had far too much sway in this country).

But let's indeed "trust our guts" and give this guy a real shot at proving he can be our guy in the whitehouse.

Personally, I would be happy to have any of the candidates, Clinton, Dodd, Biden, Edwards, Hillarious, (well, maybe not "Roswell Incident" Kookinich) for president. His wife is a babe though.

But Obama is the one that sends little shivers up my back.

And I'm 62, male, white, and straight. But I do fly hang gliders. Nobody's perfect.

I'll be gutchecking all the way through the process, and hope my man comes through the Hamburger Hill that lies ahead for all of the candidates. If it turns out to be Hillary, I will vote for her. Give me any horse in a race vs. alligators.

Meanwhile, I am Proud! As! Hell! that a state with a 97% white-as-rice population voted for a black man to be President. This says great things for our country. Who does not hunger for peace and brotherhood in our land? Obama reminds me how hungry I am to share love and respect vs. contentious hatred for my fellow Man.

So I salute my fellow (Iowan) Americans. This is indeed the beginning of something different, and we can hope, better, than the bitter cynicism we've had to choke back these last 7 years.

Thanks again Matt, well said indeed.

Posted by Jim Lawrence | January 4, 2008 12:50 PM

I'm new here but I just wanted to add my two cents. When Clinton ran in '92, my young queer self was thrilled at the prospect of an end to the Reagan/Bush nightmare. I had a bitter argument with a anti-death penalty activist friend who refused to vote after Bill flew back to Arkansas to throw the switch and make himself more appealing to the so-called Reagan Democrats. I had been arguing for universal healthcare since the mid-80s and I truly believed that Bill/Hill would deliver.

And I was bitterly disappointed with what I eventually got, so much so that I didn't vote in 96 and voted for Nader in 2000 (in CA, not in FL, so don't blame me).

But I'd still trade my right arm for 8 more years of 'triangulating' Bill and an-inconvient-bore Gore. If the WORST we do is Obama in 08, it's incalculable how much better off the country and planet will be. Bill got flatted by the lobbyists, the Pentagon and the Republican Congress and he still delivered more than any president in my lifetime (I'm 41). The simple change in tone that Clinton I brought to the White House - a genuine ease with America's diversity and an end to demonizing blacks and queers and anyone who wasn't a right-wing zombie that characterized the Reagan years - certainly paved the way for the embrace of Obama by today's youth.

If Obama wins on personality and then promptly steals all of Edward's economic platform and then brings Hillary's klller instinct to his dealings with the Right, I'll be in political heaven. I'll take either of the three, frankly (Biden was my man and I'm hoping he'll be Secretary of State in the new administration).

Posted by AG | January 4, 2008 2:06 PM

Sorry, Eric Peterson. A different Matt Weiss. Good luck Google-stalking your old friends, though!

Posted by Matt Weiss | January 4, 2008 7:14 PM

One thing the Dems really need to do is "neutralize" the negatives that have come due to the gay marriage issue. That idiot San Francisco mayor didn't do ANYONE any favors four years ago, by making that issue a huge lightning rod, right before the presidential election.

The BEST way is to achieve the "civil unions" route, so that gay couples have all the "meaningful, legal" benefits that normally come from marriage.

In terms of the "marriage" dimension---why the hell do you need the "government" to divinely "recogize" that you are married? There are several denominations that will "marry" you, if you are into semantics that much. Bottom line, a "marriage" is between you and your significant other, and to whatever entity you recognize as "Divine," if that is applicable to you.

Being obsessed with some sort of "marriage recognition or nothing at all" is a fantastic way to keep handing the Dark Side a huge weapon.

Posted by KR | January 5, 2008 12:08 AM

These critics of Obama who claim that he's not progressive enough because he only supports civil unions and not gay marriage or because he stood on a stage with Rev. McClurkin forget that he, unlike the other candidates had the wisdom to see the war in Iraq would be a mistake before it was launched. That type of judgment is much more important than the posturings which his critics complain about and are much more relevant in sizing up his qualifications for the presidency.

Posted by Jonathan Goldberg | January 5, 2008 12:32 AM

Another consideration. After Obama's success in a state 94% white, what state would dare not to support him and thereby look racist?

could be a tad embarrasing

Posted by iowaboy | January 5, 2008 3:04 PM