Take a look at Chris Hayes' case for Barack Obama in The Nation. I find it pretty convincing but, of course, I was already convinced so what does that prove?
« Official Super Bowl Prediction | Main | We're Number Three »
Hayes' Case for Obama
31 Jan 2008 05:37 pm
Comments (30)
I confess to being largely immune to claims that Obama can win 40 states because he's so charismatic and likeable. But more than that, I'm not sure he'd accomplish a lot even if he did. I know you're young, Matt, but surely you can remember 1992-93? Clinton won with a relatively populist message, elected a bunch of new Dems with his coattails (year of the woman, anyone?), then ran into a brick wall of Republican stonewalling--and that's with 57 Dem senators and 258 reps in the 103rd Congress! What's going to be different this time? Are the Republicans not going to fight as hard, or is Obama going to be more astute than the first term Clinton at pushing legislation through a still-conservative Congress?
It's all well and good and decry the "polarized" and "partisan" politics of Washington--especially if that will get him votes in the general, but Obama's still going to have to deal with a vicious and unprincipled Republican party.
I liked the part where Hayes makes the distinction between Obama's unity message and progressive fight-'em-tooth-and-nail views and beltway Broderist bipartisanship-fetishism. I've long felt that there was something missing in the stark division between tough, partisan progressive warriors and High Broderists. This isn't to say that Obama has transcended these distinctions or is the synthesis of them: it's just that he's left outside of that simple dichotomy, which, by its nature, leaves many things out.
Jake
You hit the nail on the head. Conservatives call any objective source 'liberal media' because reporting objectively serves liberal/progressive ends.
Matthew
It seemed like a good argument ot me as well but I was convinced with a couple of hours of research I did after hearing his keynote address in 2004.
The new National Journal Senate rankings are out.
Obama is THE most liberal senator (after shifting from 10th and 16th the last two years) and Hillary is ranked 16th (after shifting from 32nd last year).
"You hit the nail on the head. Conservatives call any objective source 'liberal media' because reporting objectively serves liberal/progressive ends."
Reality has a liberal bias.
And those rankings don't measure what they purport to. But Obama really is more liberal than Clinton.
Jake,
That's because if you disagree with me you are not just mistaken, but immoral.
I jest, but sometimes that seems to be what's happening. On both sides.
Going with a guy from Chicago who's brother works for the Obama campaign. What is next, Chelsea's case for a Clinton presidency?
Obama's actually taken enough votes to qualify for a ranking? Good for him.
Ummm, how about this Nation article that makes the (domestic policy) case against Obama?
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080211/fraser
Ok fine Mitch McConnell et ilk are filibustering food stamps and unemployment insurance. What exactly, as Pres, would Obama do here?
And if he has these magical powers, why doesn't he use them now?
People will go hungry.
Gustav, a big difference between now (potentially) and 1992 is that the Dem party then still had a lot of southern members who weren't particularly liberal, and voted with Republicans. Secondly, we think of Bill Clinton as an astute politico, but his win in 1992 wasn't all that resounding; 43% of the vote. Obama has a much better chance to get a big mandate, and then when he's in office to get things accomplished, because Republicans don't think he's the devil incarnate and will vote against him just to score points with the base. I'm not at all saying they'll be happy and cooperative, but, seeing the writing on the wall and their own jobs at stake, I think they would be as permissive as, say, Democrats circa 2002.
Furthermore, Hillary has never demonstrated that she has liberal instincts. She tells the base what they want to hear in primary season, but just watch her pivot in preparation for the general. I understand that Obama can be critized on the same grounds, and the testable differences between the two aren't very big. But I simply don't want to go back to the triangulating and cautious centrism of the 90s that brought us such gems as NAFTA, declining social expenditures, and DOMA.
This is the same old argument from Obama supporters - vote for Obama because the Reps hate HRC. Doesn't really make a lot of sense.
He's supposed to be The Uniter, and admitedly he's got the support of The Nation, The New York Post and Andrew Sullivan, but his supporters are often pretty nasty to Hillary.
I find it interesting that Clinton supporters caution that Obama won't be able to get anything done -- not even with a Democratic Congress. The reality is, and a number of red-state endorsements confirm this, that at the very least Obama won't harm down-ticket Democrats. Anyone with any sense knows that the same can't be said of Hillary Clinton. Her very presence on the ballot will hurt Democratic members of Congress and impede her ability to get anything done. And while it would be very foolish for the Republicans to obstruct the agenda of a very popular president, it would be easy for them to demonize and paralyze a president that's viewed negatively by nearly half the country. Will Barack Obama be able to get all of his legislation passed? Absolutely not. But will he be far more effective than Hillary Clinton? Without a doubt.
Since The Nation's ranking (and its problems) has gotten some play here, I wonder what people think of Progressive Punch's ranking, in which Clinton is placed over Obama overall? I've always found their approach interesting, measuring people up against a select pool of progressives in the House and the Senate.
Gustav, I'm echoing Greg here, but while 1992 was a pretty good year for the Dems Clinton did not show apparent coattails. Maybe it's Perot's fault, but Clinton ran well behind all those Dems swept into office, and few if any of them evidenced any apparent loyalty to Clinton.
Of course, as has been discussed elsewhere, the 1993-4 Dem Congress saw little threat to its future prospects and didn't show much party loyalty. A President H. Clinton would probably get better treatment from her congressional majority than did President W. Clinton, more in reaction to memories of Tom DeLay than because of the merits of either President. Still, the idea that Bill Clinton was betrayed by congresspeople who owed their seats to him doesn't seem well founded.
"But will he be far more effective than Hillary Clinton? Without a doubt."
I think he'll deal. Mitch McConnell filibusters foodstamps, Obama sits down with Mitch, and asks:"What do you want, Mitch" and Obama will give Mitch what he wants. Obama has locked himself into this, he has to deal.
Matt Yglesias will swoon, and I'll be saying:"Five years down the line, Matt, we are so screwed." But Matt won't listen.
I actually think it will be much worse than this, because of the recessions.
The Republicans are gonna eat Obama alive, and spit him out in 2012. Worse than Carter, if we're lucky.
This is the same old argument from Obama supporters - vote for Obama because the Reps hate HRC. Doesn't really make a lot of sense.
Well, let me explain it to you. The Republicans aren't particularly satisfied with McCain, and might not vote if we don't put Satan herself on the ballot. Seriously, is there a human being alive that the Republicans hate more than Hillary Clinton? Even Bill has a charming-personality, regardless of what you think of his policies or character. The same cannot be said of Hillary. The Republican hatred of Hillary is viceral and will drive them to the polls en masse. I have to hypothesize that those unaware of this fact don't personally know any Republicans.
He's supposed to be The Uniter, and admitedly he's got the support of The Nation, The New York Post and Andrew Sullivan, but his supporters are often pretty nasty to Hillary.
Hillary is a phony, classless, lying, race-baiter. I have no respect for her and don't feel the need to say nice things about her.
The Republicans are gonna eat Obama alive, and spit him out in 2012. Worse than Carter, if we're lucky.
Bob McManus:
Maybe. I'm in the tank for Hillary deeper than anybody on the planet, as regular readers of the Atlantic's blogs will attest. But I will say this: if Obama prevails, I'll have a better feeling about his candidacy than I had the day after Iowa. At that point I was worried that the Democrats were unwisely rushing to anoint him without testing his toughness. But you really can't say that at this point. It's proven to be a real fight. Obama has a lot of momentum. But Hillary, even is she comes in second to Obama in the Super Tuesday delegate haul, is still bound to get a bunch of delegates (I personally think she's likely to come out on top next Tuesday, but I don't pretend it's a sure thing). My point is, Obama, even if he ends up as the nominee, is unlikely to pass the 50% mark in the delegate count before some time in March or even later (same thing for Hillary). So, the eventual nominee is likely to be a good deal more battle-tested than John McCain, who sure is starting to look like the presumptive nominee at this point.
And that's a good thing for Democrats. (And yes, Bob, I realize you're talking about performance in office rather than performance on the campaign trail, but I -- rabid Hillarybot than I am -- would vastly prefer a President Obama to a President McCain).
Secondly, we think of Bill Clinton as an astute politico, but his win in 1992 wasn't all that resounding; 43% of the vote.
If we are going to guess whether Obama will follow the inglorious trail blazed by Bill in 1993 it would be well to recall Clinton's rocky early start.
First, he ran as a centrist, time for a change "New Democrat", but the first big issue was somewhat left-leaning gays in the military - not a great choice from a PR perspective.
Secondly, Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood sapped some credibility and momentum which was not fully recovered when Janet Reno oversaw the debacle in Waco.
Third, the middle class tax cut disappeared. This spin from one of his own reads like Republican talking points:
"Voters never believed in the middle-class tax cut, because they have never seen anyone get a tax cut," said Mr. Clinton's chief poll taker, Stanley Greenberg. "They always believed their taxes would go up whether Bill Clinton became President or George Bush was President.
"They voted for Bill Clinton because they believed he was going to submit a program to change the direction of the country, to improve the economy and to create jobs. They will be mad as hell if their taxes go up and there's no genuine commitment to change. But if there is, they will be willing to contribute."
"It is critical," Mr. Greenberg said, that the rich be seen as punished most by Mr. Clinton's tax increases.
Does that sound even a little bit like a call for class warfare?
Tom Friedman, back when he was a reporter, looked back from May 1993 on Clinton's launch.
I think Clinton made many early mistakes and paid a price. I also think that Congressional Democrats, especially in the House, figured Presidents come and Presidents go but the House Chairman are forever, so he didn't exactly command his own party in a way Obama would.
I believe Obama supporters in that if he wins vs McCain it will be big (same if he loses) and he will have a mandate. What I don't buy is that his mandate would be for anything other than bi-partisanship and unity. Recent bi-partisan triumphs have included the Patriot Act, war in Iraq and three rounds of tax cuts.
Reagan ran as a conservative way to the right of elder Bush. He explicitly campaigned on a massive increases in defense spending, supply-side tax cuts and cutting government regulation. Dems in Congress fearing Reagan passed legislation in line with Reagan's campaign promises. With Obama's mandate, I am sure the Republicans will agree to all the bi-partisan commissions he proposes. I just don't see Republicans fearing Obama and him signing any progressive legislation in the first 100 days.
Matthew Yglesias,
There's a big debate on. You're a political blogger. They talked about Iraq. A lot! Hellooo Yglesias? Helloooo McFly?
Obviously Obama will not be able to get anything done while Republicans are still Republicans. We should definitely nominate someone with shorter (or better yet negative) coattails, who is less liberal, who is far more conservative in the one area (foreign policy) where Presidential discretion is powerful, and who is less able to use the bully pulpit. Who also has the advantage of being less likely to win in the first place. This sounds like a plan!
I think he'll deal. Mitch McConnell filibusters foodstamps, Obama sits down with Mitch, and asks:"What do you want, Mitch" and Obama will give Mitch what he wants.
I've got to ask, Bob, what gives you this impression? Because from where I stand, it seems like another unjustified meme spouted by an ill-informed Clinton supporter who's going to bat for a candidate that does far more compromising with the Republicans on more egregious pieces of legislation than any Democrat has business doing. And when you get close to 60 Senators on your coattails, it doesn't matter what Mitch McConnell says. If, on the other hand, you drag the rest of the ticket down, then the dreaded Senator McConnell has far more leverage.
Obama has locked himself into this, he has to deal.
How, by being more liberal (National Journal) and less willing to compromise with the Republicans (Iraq, Bankruptcy Bill, Flag-Burning Amendment, Workplace Religious Freedom Act, Kyl-Lieberman Act)?
The Republicans are gonna eat Obama alive, and spit him out in 2012. Worse than Carter, if we're lucky.
Nah, the Republicans will eat Hillary alive because she's phony, manipulative, inconsistent, despised by large segments of the American population, and a poor contrast to John McCain -- who actually does have 35 years of "experience."
He'll deal. You'll get Healthcare that looks like Medicare D --- payoffs and crumbs, a business bill with lipstick.
I guess I'll vote for Obama and hope Clinton wins.
As I keep saying, the problem with Obama is the same as with Clinton - they will BOTH start unnecessary wars during their terms.
The only difference between either of them and McCain is that McCain will start the wars almost immediately with no "serious diplomacy" efforts - and the other two will start them later after their "serious diplomacy" efforts fail miserably - because all three of them are wrong in the first place.
If your foreign policy is WRONG, you will get a WAR. And ALL THREE of these people are WRONG. It's that simple.
So the Nation agonized over who the most liberal nominee would be, and then, after fussing about it a bit, settled on the person they thought was likely the most liberal.
Predictable, and pedestrian.
My name is RICHARD STEVEN HACK. I type in ALL CAPS to put emphasis on IMPORTANT points.
------
McPussycat:
The Republicans are gonna eat Obama alive, and spit him out in 2012. Worse than Carter, if we're lucky.
I don't understand why people are so in awe of the Republicans. They're not that scary. They're not that tough, they just have a lot of money and lunatic true believers. And the system is built to protect the minority from the majority. Hence the Senate, the fillibuster, etc.
I believe Edwards Kennedy, a very liberal Senator, endorsed Obama because he knows Obama's not that centrist and Obama can handle the Republicans.
The Hayes piece Matt links is good. The main line is "The question then becomes this: which of the two Democratic candidates is more likely to bring to fruition a new progressive majority?"
That's the goal. Clinton was elected in '92 b/c Greenspan raised interest rates and Perot stole Bush's votes. This is the first election in my memory where the Democrats could nomiate someone who would help build a solid progressive majority.
Building a movement is the goal. Hillary is just playing the Republican's game with her shenanigans in Michigan and Florida, etc.
Comments closed February 14, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
One of the more interesting lines in that piece is:
It appears sometimes that his diagnosis of what's wrong with politics is the way it is conducted rather than for whom.
I realize it can appear that way, but I think it just touches the surface. I think Obama believes that, all things being equal, progressive ideas would be advanced, because he believes they're the better ones on the merits. The way politics is conducted often prevents a discussion of the merits from ever taking place, even among reasonable people.
Posted by Jake | January 31, 2008 6:05 PM