Obama and Anger

Mark Kleiman posts an email from a friend who thinks that Barack Obama doesn't identify with the poor. Chris Bowers notes that Obama got trounced among New Hampshire Democrats who describe themselves as "angry" with Bush. In both instances, I think, we're seeing the downside to Obama's successful effort to present a persona that's acceptable to white America.

He almost certainly feels that he can't come anywhere near the level of outrage at economic injustice in America that you see from a John Edwards, or give voice to the anger that many of us feel about George W. Bush's malgovernment without losing his status as "one of the good ones." To be the most mainstream progressive black political figure ever, he's crafted a relentlessly upbeat, uplifting message. And it's a good message, but it is a bit out of step with how a lot of us really feel about the state of things.

Comments

America is clearly not ready for an angry black radical Muslim who trained for terrorism in Indonesian madrassa camps before selling crack in America.

If only we had a more acceptable, experienced, and touchingly human candidate who represented the ability of Our Party to push through a legislative agenda as planned by Republicans.

Posted by El Cid | January 10, 2008 8:39 AM

This kind of captures a lot of my discomfort with him -- that he is so awesome that all problems will melt before him. He acts like he's been in a coma since 1994.

Posted by Gore/Edwards 08 | January 10, 2008 8:42 AM

Matt, Matt, Matt: You are already engaged in the precise kind of punditry that I feel the entire press corps engaging in right now.

I am amazed that the press -- including the blogosphere -- repeatedly mislearns the lessons it is supposed to learn by lurching too far in the other direction upon realizing it made a mistake.

After breathlessly proclaiming Obama the inevitable winner and that he had cracked the beer vote and so forth in Iowa, they are now saying, with equal confidence, that Hillary is clearly the beer candidate and that voters were merely entertained by Obama's speeches but were not inspired. Please be more modest or more qualified before making grand pronouncements that ignore "old" data (from ten days ago!) and give controlling weight to "new" information.

New Hampshire could have come out differently had Obama, not being so confident, put out one of those election-eve 2 minute ads like the one he put out in Iowa. That Iowa ad toned down the "inspiration" and had Obama addressing lunch pail issues quite effectively. It was uniformly viewed as superior to Hillary's closing argument ad.

To save money, apparently, Obama ran no such ad in NH, and Hillary was the only Dem to do so. I'm not pretending I know how this would have affected the outcome, I am only saying that making grand, macro demographic judgments based on one example to the exclusion of others, and in the absence of compelling hard data, is the kind of journalism that is causing the press to look so bad right now.

I turn to this blog a lot, because Matt is usually remarkably able to float above the faddiness.

Posted by RaymondA | January 10, 2008 8:43 AM

Faddy faddy boombalatty!

Posted by Greg Balzac | January 10, 2008 8:46 AM

Agree with RaymondA, with the exception that the press has looked bad for awhile.

Posted by Jake | January 10, 2008 8:47 AM

Mere anger rarely solves big problems. Obama knows people are angry. Being the 'angry candidate' is just demagoguery. Obama takes a more mature approach, which is in fact what the country needs.

And just how angry is Hillary going to find it convenient to be, to her longtime political enemies, once in office? I don't see her selling out to a Republican agenda so much as further solidifying the age-old divide.

Posted by Bill | January 10, 2008 8:49 AM

I don't know how to break this to people, but giving "voice" to the anger of Upper West Side liberals and university faculties is probably not a recipe for electoral success. Remember 2004, when Yglesias exulted in how hatred of Bush had brought practically everyone together, only to learn with dismay that the majority of the country was, you know, on the other side?

Posted by y81 | January 10, 2008 8:50 AM

In short, Obama lacks the anger baggage that will come with a Hillary Clinton presidency.

He also understands that people would rather feel hopeful than angry. That may not be the cynic's cup of tea, but it's a demonstrably alluring message. Ask yourself who would rack up the most votes in November, Hillary, Edwards or Obama?

Posted by Bill | January 10, 2008 8:53 AM

The most progressive *Black* mainstream candidate ever? Is there even a white candidate who compares? RFK?

So he doesn't speak to your anger. Get over it. His campaign is not about posturing or self-righteousness. It's about healing and improving the Nation.

Many Republicans and Independents want to atone for Bush, but you don't get someone to atone by relentlessly telling them how angry you are with them and their mistake. That's why Obama's message will be very powerful in the general election.

I used to be angry. Now I'm hopeful and energized for Barack.

Posted by jacob | January 10, 2008 8:54 AM

I don't know how to break this to people, but giving "voice" to the anger of Upper West Side liberals and university faculties is probably not a recipe for electoral success.

God you're a moron. Nobody here is talking about your favorite Limbaugh cliche, "Upper West Side liberals." We're talking about large slices of the electorate, mainly of the lower income variety.

Remember 2004, when Yglesias exulted in how hatred of Bush had brought practically everyone together, only to learn with dismay that the majority of the country was, you know, on the other side?

I doubt Yglesias cited "practically everyone" but the fact is Bush's approval ratings have cratered since then.

Posted by Bill | January 10, 2008 8:58 AM

Progressive social change has always come out of anger--anger that mobilized into movements. Anger is not the same as hysterical rantings. Anger is not the province of Upper West Side liberals or college professors. Please. Leave the Republican talking points and references to latte drinking at the door.

If we want progressive change, it will only come as the result of a fight, as the result of channeling our anger into a movement for change. No, we can't all sit down together at some big table with CEOs of insurance companies and work out an equitable healthcare system.

Feel-good calls for change won't do it.

What does Obama's mantra of "change" mean? It's vacuous.

Posted by Lilybelle | January 10, 2008 9:00 AM

Worried that Obama is not angry enough? I'm not.

That's why god invented attack-dog vice running mates and other surrogates.

I feel certain that any of the three standing Democratic candidates will do just fine tapping into the angry vote.

Posted by Sean | January 10, 2008 9:06 AM

What we need starting in 2009 is a new President who will ensure daily warfare with the vast right wing conspiracy, someone who will encourage our half of the country to take arms against the other, evil, half. Nothing good can come from bipartisan cooperation! We need conflict, animosity and hatred!

Hillary 2008!!!

Posted by ILuvHil | January 10, 2008 9:08 AM

Hey, Matt, I feel your pain. But independent voters don't care that democrats are angry at Bush, and you can't win without winning independents. Clinton reminds them bitter battles in the 1990s, and Bush is now old news. Either move on and give them someone they can get believe in, or get prepared for another 4 years of republicans running the White House.

Posted by Helter | January 10, 2008 9:08 AM

bush isn't running in 2008. who cares if Obama is mad at him or not?

Posted by cleek | January 10, 2008 9:11 AM

First, he's not a progressive but a centrist (When push comes to shove he defers to the Establishmnet). Second, you don't need to be angry to appeal to those who are struggling.

Just bother addressing their concerns instead of spewing all this empty rhetoric. Show them you have a grasp on the policy details and will work tirelessly to push it through. Instead, Obama comes across as not only cooly detached but his answers are vague and he never seems like he's got that grit to push something through on behalf of the average person.

Posted by Davidson | January 10, 2008 9:12 AM

Just because I'm angry doesn't mean that I need a presidential candidate whose campaign is predicated on anger. I can understand that I'm angry, but if that's all I understand, it's meaningless. I have to understand why I'm angry, and which candidate would be least likely to perpetuate those things that have made me angry.

I'm all for partisanship, and the importance of party, but the "us v. them" mentality into which the Bush years has brought us has got to stop. The way to do that isn't by hunkering down and lobbing bombs over a wall. It's by letting people know that that wall isn't too tall to climb over, and that it's really nicer on our side anyway.

Posted by Fargus | January 10, 2008 9:13 AM

My only problem with that analysis is that he may very well have lost the "angry" vote, but that has a dynamic relationship with other factors. Maybe on balance a big win in the "hopeful" vote more than cancels out the loss. I don't know, obviously, but it'll be interesting to get further retrospective insights

Posted by Bill Dom | January 10, 2008 9:14 AM

But the emotions the Clinton's show seems to be reserved for the progressive wing of the party and not really toward the republicans. It's the progressives who believe in the false hope that anyone other than Senator Clinton can be a successful president, it's the progressives who are attempting to put someone less experienced than her in the White House. If you listen to her well up, it's not the idea of bad Republican policies that gets to her, it's the audacity of being challenged ( successfully) in your own party. The lines against the Republicans are delivered either flat or with a smirk. It's the progressives that really bring out the wrath, especially in President Clinton.

Between the Clinton's and the Republicans, it is a game. It's only personal within the party.

Posted by windshouter | January 10, 2008 9:22 AM

Okay, now that we once again have the squad of "Only He Can Unite This Nation," let me at least ask this: Could he say, clearly, repeatedly, in a non-aggressive, totally participatory community organizing M. Scott Peck manner, "We will completely roll back the George W. Bush Republican agenda"?

Posted by El Cid | January 10, 2008 9:25 AM

These three are the worst posts ever. Does Kleinman believe Edwards or Hillary "identify" with the poor?

The "Anger" vote? Whoever's the most "angry" with Bush is the most authentic or right? Seems like a supeficial level of analysis.

My feelings with the American political system - let alone Bush - went from anger to denial to remorse to pessimistic resignation. I probably forgot a couple stages there.

In between popping pain pills, I bet Limbaugh is praying for Hillary to win so he can milk his dittoheads of their anger and their money.

Posted by Peter K. | January 10, 2008 9:29 AM

The other problem, Matt, is that you're taking the New Hampshire results as potentially representative of the whole country.

Jesus. I like reading political opinion, but sometimes this kind of breathless punditry makes me a little sick.

Posted by Fargus | January 10, 2008 9:31 AM

No, it's how a very small (but very vocal) group of people feel. What political junkies forget is this: Most people don't focus on politics until just before election day. For that group of people, angry vitriol simply isn't helpful. Insofar as they notice politics at all before November, they notice tone.

Posted by James Robertson | January 10, 2008 9:31 AM

By the way, Ronald Reagan really felt like he connected with the workin' man, and a lot of workin' people I grew up with rather stupidly thought he was fer them too. The whole thing is a weird and complex dynamic.

But both worked for Ronald Reagan: the angry, race-baiting, stereo-type bashing anger and the fake 'we're going to finally tackle your problems while we really put the screws to you ha ha ha'.

And then after that Ronald Reagan left office and carved the Grand Canyon with his tears.

Posted by El Cid | January 10, 2008 9:35 AM

Pundits: Hillary isn't angry. She's like, well, a girl, so she will behave like a woman scorned. She will react with cold fury. She will be a tigress, a she-bear protecting her cubs. She is caring and nurturing. Obama is conciliatory. He is the people pleasing abuse victim. He is, for God's sake look at him, a liberal. But not a bad liberal like Jesse or Sharpton, but a good don't rock the boat while the republicans enact their agenda kind of liberal.

As Clay Barnes (a Hillary supporter for sure, but an equal opportunity donor) would say, sheeeeeeeeeeit!

I want to know what are they going to do. I don't like what Hillary says she will do which is to be foreign policy hawk and a free trader. I don't like what Obama says he will do which is be the Rodney ("why can't we all just get along") King to the GOP's LAPD.

I don't like to see Hillary analyzed through a prism of gender, nor Obama through a prism of race. Edwards seems about right to me, but I fear he's out for reasons I can't quite understand. Unlike Matt, I conclude that Obama's popularity shows that I am out of step with how most people feel about things. I ascribe it to my own inability to find a niche in current American politics.

Posted by Peter Driscoll | January 10, 2008 9:37 AM

I want to see an optimistic nation emerge from this change in leaders. That said anger is an emotion people should feel comfortable having and expressing. They also shouldn't feel shame in wanting that anger present in a new president. Anger towards Bush for his crimes, his negligence, his lies and failures is understandable. If we were a second or third tier power and had committed the crimes we have in Iraq many in this administration would be hunted down and hanged. Being the sole superpower on the planet unfortunately exempts Bush, Cheney and the rest of their criminal mob from that fate. All you're left with is unsated anger. Myself, I'd donate this year's personal earnings to be on the crew building their gallows.

Posted by steve duncan | January 10, 2008 9:41 AM

"Clinton ran best among groups of voters who most often refuse polls -- poorer, less well-educated people. These are also the very people who are reluctant to vote for a black candidate."

Nothing like letting the angry redneck dregs of society make the decision.

Posted by IronMyShirt | January 10, 2008 9:42 AM

And Clinton is the choice of the angry dems? That makes no sense. Edwards maybe, but Clinton? The Clintons don't seem very angry at the Decider. They are mostly mad that the press doesn't get how awesome they are.

Can we please re-evaluate this constant white-black sub-analysis about Barack? Maybe he is running the way he is based on his values as a person/human being.

Posted by 2cynicalbyhalf | January 10, 2008 9:49 AM

Obama is smart enough to know that blacks running like Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton in full race card-playing, angry victimology mode - long ago ceased to be effective for getting elected outside black underclass and Hollywood areas. Though useful for the routine Sharpton/Jackson sound bites and corporate shakedowns over the last 20 years.

Obama is not smart enough to have stopped his head from swelling up the size of a weather balloon as he has "transformed" from a one-year Senator was beginning to slide into to referring to himself as "like JFK", "like MLK" and the heir to both of them as he basked in the adulation of his fans. Who not only talk of his great oratory skills and being articulate - but are in a frenzy to out-compliment Obama to each other. "He's a rock star!" "No, he is the black Messiah!" "No, he was sent to us to redeem our guilty white liberal asses of our sins."

RIP - The caricature fascist unelected "angry Head Negro" blaming whitey and America for everything. Only liked and listened to by 1/3rd of blacks. Supported by (1)Lefties, (2) media looking for "the black reaction" to a big news story from a "colorful, emotional, angry black man" for better ratings, and (3)Jews deep in liberal guilt seeking their absolution.

Sharpton and Jacksons people at the protests and screaming at "impromptu" demonstrations don't count. They are not followers, but the paid posse or rent-a-mob paid to show up in front of Applebees HQ for a good shakedown prelim protest to set the intimidation going, or the creatively loud that jump on a charter Jet with Rev Al to "help resolve" the latest cop shooting a thug incident or similar racial crisis that NEEDS Rev Al there.

Obama is very different, Deval Patrick is different, Harold Ford Jr is different, as are 85-90% of blacks - than the race card hucksters.

Posted by chris ford | January 10, 2008 10:01 AM

Don't worry. By the time Bill, Hillary, and their minions are done trashing him, Obama will be plenty angry.

Posted by Jim W | January 10, 2008 10:01 AM

People seem to be very confused between Obama's appeal to conservative/independent *voters* and a hypothetic appeal to Republican politicians.

I remember when gay marriage showed up on the ballot in 2004 -- it was the conservatives who were complaining about divisive wedge issues and people voting against their real interests, right? Am I misremembering?

Posted by Barbar | January 10, 2008 10:14 AM

I don't think that MattY is backtracking and/or drifting with the pundit winds.

Rather, a lot of us thought that Obama was the "1994 candidate" who was talking like the last 12 years never happened. However, his impressive victory in Iowa with record Democratic turnout made a lot of us think, for about a week, "maybe we were wrong. Maybe Obama really is delivering the right message for the times." However, Obama's loss in Iowa combined with the exit poll data gives us an indication that our initial instincts were correct.

I hope that it is Iowa, not NH which serves as the model for the rest of the primaries-- huge turnout among the young and disaffected non-voters attracted to Obama's message, putting hiim over the top-- not because I am a big booster for Obama, but because it would be nice to see that strategy work for once.

Furthermore, Obama's soaring platitudes about hope and change and "bringing us together" are not reflective of a "mature approach." It might attract people, but it's not "maturity." Maturity is accepting the fact that political success involves a lot of nuts-and-bolts brawling and legislating and difficult work. Hillary seems to have taken up that message.

Posted by Tyro | January 10, 2008 10:15 AM

Actually, Kleinman's post is sorta good. Sorry!

Posted by Peter K. | January 10, 2008 10:17 AM

but it is a bit out of step with how a lot of us really feel about the state of things.

But what about all those Yglesias-age kidz I saw interviewed on the tube after Iowa getting ecstatic about "hope"?

:-)

Posted by artappraiser | January 10, 2008 10:24 AM

Chris, you are repeating a Clintonista myth, perhaps inadvertently. Obama never once compared himself to JFK or MKL, Jr. Hillary Clinton was asked by a Fox News reporter whether the attacks she was making against Obama about "words and actions" would apply to Kennedy and King, and Hillary answered by saying that they were good talkers, but LBJ got the Civil Rights Act passed. Obama brought of JFK and MLK only to challenge Clinton's view on the importance of words.

By the way, a lot of historians will tell you that laws like the Civil Rights Act become truly effective only when the underlying social attitudes change, and therefore King's appeal to the conscience of the country was more important, because (a) it laid the predicate necessary for there to be sufficient public acceptance of equality for Congress to pass the law, and (b) King's words and his example actually changed the hearts and minds of the vast majority of people whose conduct is not regulated by something like the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

As a final aside, Hillary's history is wrong even on her own terms. LBJ's signal achievement, the Voting Rights Act, was accomplished after he gave one of the most memorable Presidential speeches -- yep, speeches -- in American history.

He gave a television address to the nation urging passage of the bill and ended by looking into the camera and saying, "We Shall Overcome." That was one of the most powerful moments in presidential history, because the use of those words by a white politician from Texas who won his first Congressional election by out-race-baiting-his-opponent truly moved people to think of America as having become better than it once was. That is what Obama has done, and is capable of doing more of.

Posted by RaymondA | January 10, 2008 10:26 AM

"We will completely roll back the George W. Bush Republican agenda"?

Can anyone honestly say that?

No.

So why do you want to be lied to?

Posted by libarbarian | January 10, 2008 10:32 AM

Obama is conciliatory. He is the people pleasing abuse victim. He is, for God's sake look at him, a liberal. But not a bad liberal like Jesse or Sharpton, but a good don't rock the boat while the republicans enact their agenda kind of liberal.

A Clintonista claiming that Obama is "a good don't rock the boat while the republicans enact their agenda kind of liberal" is psychological projection worthy of the Doughy Pantload's "Liberal Fascism". Its a bald-faced lie that you shame yourself by telling.

Clinton is pro-Gitmo, pro-torture, and pro-spying on us citizens without a warrent. On the most important issues of the day she sides with unlimited levels of extra-constitutional executive power without constraint by congress.

Clinton isn't "a good don't rock the boat while the republicans enact their agenda kind of liberal" - Clinton is an "enact the Republicans agenda yourself kind of liberal".

Posted by libarbarian | January 10, 2008 10:46 AM

In both instances, I think, we're seeing the downside to Obama's successful effort to present a persona that's acceptable to white America.

I'm really concerned that even educated people who are supportive of Obama seem not to read with sensitivity anything this guy writes, or actually listen to anything he says when he talks. Despite his tilting support for Obama, Matt seems to incline to the cynical view that Obama is simply trying to package himself or present an acceptable persona to white people, and that the real Obama must be something quite different. I guess he thinks that no intelligent person could really have the disposition to see so much good in such a diverse group of people, or really see myriad opportunities for constructive coalition-building and cooperative work on behalf of progressive causes, where other people see only enemies to confront with ineffectual spite and rage.

This interpretation is so condescending and wrongheaded. From whence comes this conviction that, at bottom, Obama must really be some sort of stereotypically angry black man, wearing a friendly mask to please white people. What bigoted, culturally provincial bull!

Obama's life experiences have brought him into contact with a very large range of different kinds of people, a much more diverse group than most politicians or bloggers have encountered. Also his training as both a constitutional lawyer and community organizer seem to have taught him to see problems from a broad structural and humane perspective that transcends one ward, one state or one country. The universality in Obama's message is the real thing.

Read his speech to the audience at the University of Nairobi in 2006; his various commencement speeches, and his other speeches and public statements. It's the same message wherever he goes, and the message is rooted deeply in his life experiences and the view of the world these life experiences have given him. Obama is as integral, coherent and authentic a personality as any politician we have seen in a while.

Matt says that Obama's message is "a bit out of step with how a lot of us really feel about the state of things." Perhaps that is true, although it depends of course on who the "us" is. It's certainly out of step with the way I feel most of the time. But frankly I think Obama is a better man than me. And his record shows that he has a lot of insight into how to get things done. If you treat your opponents with respect and openness, their self-protective batteries of mental walls sometimes come down, and you can actually accomplish change. Perhaps there is more merit in this approach than the alternative approach of demagogically persuading your supporters you are fighting for change just because you ostentatiously bang your head against those walls. Obama has certainly accomplished a lot more than I have ever accomplished writing posts and comments on blogs about all the things I'm mad about, so I'm inclined to think he understands a lot of things I don't.

It's proving very hard to get this message across on the blogs, because as we all know, the most effective political agents in history have been blogospheric ranters and railers, stewing in self-indulgent and one-dimensional animosities and hatreds; those along with ironic hipsters enjoying the passing show from behind a timid wall of condescending self-protection. Somewhere along the line, I hope Obama figures out a way of penetrating the obtuseness of the Ironic Class.

Posted by Dan Kervick | January 10, 2008 10:46 AM

"We will completely roll back the George W. Bush Republican agenda"?

Can anyone honestly say that?

No.

So why do you want to be lied to?

Posted by libarbarian

Okay. Let me get this straight if I can.

It's wrong and unrealistic to over-promise one's ability to actually roll back the most dangerous, nation-harming agenda from the most venally incompetent President we may have ever had. Maybe during the campaign we'll change the verbiage to "we'd like to" and other empowering rhetoric.

Meanwhile, on the other hand, it's perfectly sensible to repeat things about Obama being the only person to bring us together, to transform our anger into useful energy so we can solve big problems and heal the Nation.

Posted by El Cid | January 10, 2008 10:51 AM

I'm angry at Bush, but that doesn't mean I want to be angry or that I enjoy it. I'd much rather have a president who can roll back some of the damage of the last few years than give voice to my anger.

Posted by matt | January 10, 2008 11:01 AM

no white person will vote for an "angry black man".

Posted by adam | January 10, 2008 11:03 AM

You don't have to be angry or shrill or militant to push for things like universal healthcare, or to defend the status quo on Social Security, or indeed to stand up for working families or the middle class in general. You can do it in a sunny and optimistic manner. Obama simply hasn't made this sort of economic pitch much of a focus of his campaign rhetoric -- at least not the speeches picked up by the media. Sure, if you go to his website you can find policies dealing with the economic anxiety issue -- after the ones you find about foreign policy, political reform and Iraq. Contrast that with Hillary's site, where the first "issues" button you see is healthcare.

I think Obama's campaign has made a big mistake by so relentlessly stressing the kumbaya factor. There's a lot of economic anxiety out there. Rightly or wrongly, people associate Hillary Clinton with a New Deal style of Democratic politics that focuses on the economy. Obama they associate with political reform, the environment and foreign affairs. Not surprisingly, downscale Democrats in New Hampshire closed ranks for Clinton. I think this is a big advantage for Hillary in the primaries as the country trudges through a winter of economic discontent. Obama had better have a chokehold on the votes of African Americans in the primaries, because, if anything, downscale voters will make up a larger chunk of the remainder of the primary electorate than they did in New Hampshire.

Posted by Jasper | January 10, 2008 11:10 AM

Rumor has it that Hillary will now be attending Nascar races and taking Larry the Cable Guy out with her on the trail, ala Chuck Norris.

Maybe she should make a triumphant return to The View again soon to pander to her other demographic.

Posted by Bubba | January 10, 2008 11:25 AM

jasper, I am thinking the same as you, but also that Obama still has the time to change direction, message, tactics, this could just be like his first stage. One thing I am pretty sure of: he cannot continue the kumbaya thing as performed to date without adding something else over many months without it becoming parodied. Especially with a youth corps raised with cynicism, rejecting cynicism right now, but that won't last. And every severe bad news development that may come along--i.e., big financial implosion, terror attack--calls for specifics, continuing the same broad generalities won't wash (then in a way you're back to running against Bush, not another Democrat.)

Posted by artappraiser | January 10, 2008 11:25 AM

Meanwhile, on the other hand, it's perfectly sensible to repeat things about Obama being the only person to bring us together, to transform our anger into useful energy so we can solve big problems and heal the Nation.

I never said any of those things, so what are you talking about? That kind of talk makes a good speech but there is substance behind it if you actually bother to look.

Try http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/daniel_koffler/2008/01/substance_not_style.html

One difference between Obama and Hillary is that Obama wants to let people choose to join state health care while Hillary wants to force people to join without any choice.

I suppose if your the kind of "angry person" who cares more about sticking it rich people than actually helping poor people, a candidate like Hillary makes perfect sense. She will come in, set up another Cheney-esque secret commission, draft a Health Care plan that is loved by fundamentalist liberals but absolutely unacceptable to a majority of the country including the entire Republican party, and then whine and moan after it inevitably gets shot down and fillibustered. Result - no one gets any health care. Great Job!!!

Fundamentalist Progressives are just like Fundamentalist Christians, but at least they sell their intelligence, judgement, and humanity for eternal bliss while Prog-Fundies sell it for ... what?

Just change "The people" to "Jesus", "the Free Market" at "Satan", and "Hillary Clinton" to "George W. Bush" and you guys could fit right in at Jesus Camp.

Posted by libarbarian | January 10, 2008 11:27 AM

...jasper, I am thinking the same as you, but also that Obama still has the time to change direction, message, tactics, this could just be like his first stage.

Well, I think Obama has already started to pivot a bit on the economic anxiety issue. He listed a few related items in his NH primary night speech. The union endorsements will help, too, if he take advantage of the opportunity to up the rhetoric. But he has to up the rhetoric. And he need not sound "angry" or "militant" to do so. He simply need choose to concentrate on the economy. Mostly up to this point he has chosen not to.That's a mistake he immediately needs to rectify.

Posted by Jasper | January 10, 2008 11:34 AM

um. The poor people in NH aren't black Matt. I doubt his race has anything to do with them not supporting him. It probably has to do with the fact that his rhetoric only appeals to the latte-liberals when the poor respond to people who understand their problems and have been working to fix them.

Posted by katie | January 10, 2008 11:42 AM

Hillary's original health care plan was to consolidate the nation's health care system in the hands of the 5 largest HMO's and insurers -- who, not coincidentally, designed the plan.

It was then targeted by right wing nutjob Newt's Congress (whose campaign donors had at that time greatly been made up of 'small' and 'medium' sized businesses) and by all the other insurance companies -- embodied by the HIAA -- not included in that top 5.

And even then, they had no backup plan.

Whatever it is you market fundamentalists want to believe about health care, do not blame the loss of Hillary Care 1 on 'Progressives'.

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1503

Posted by El Cid | January 10, 2008 11:42 AM

On the "kumbaya"/anger thing...

I agree with others here that Obama may have rode the unity wave to get where he is today, and that the media has predictably parroted all the people who deride Obama's themes as "kumbaya" idealism. But now he is free—and expected—to get down and dirty, and he seems eager to do just that. Those of us who like him already will hardly be turned off by a sharpening of tone, especially with Bill Clinton being such a condescending dickhead. Hillary, on the other hand, may now be stuck with her newfound "voice" or risk that a reversion to Borg-style politicking will cast that misty moment in NH as utterly bogus. In fact, this may be why Bill is being so aggressive lately: because his wife has boxed herself into the roles of Beacon for Boomer Feminists and Agent of Change, and she can no longer afford to be the cold or abrasive.

Posted by tinisoli | January 10, 2008 11:53 AM

So HRC does better with "angry Democrats" in NH. What does that mean? That could be a good thing -- that she can capitalize better on anti-Bush sentiments -- or it could mean that it'll be easier for the GOP to paint her as just another angry liberal. Who knows at this point?

What I think is more interesting (and perhaps more to the point, although as we learned in 2004, you shouldn't go for a candidate just 'cause you think he's "electable") is that independents are still largely breaking for Obama over HRC. The reason, AFAIK, that Obama was stuck with the support he got in the polls while HRC had more votes in the end was that undecided Democrats went for HRC and undecided independents went for McCain as opposed to Obama.

That is, people angry with Bush who are not committed to voting for a Democrat decided to vote for a Republican ... and a Republican who is extremely supportive of the exact agenda that's got them angry with Bush!

I'm not sure what we can learn from this: that the swing vote is teh stupid and we can't count on independents breaking for the Dem due to Bush anger, so we should vote for HRC, 'cause the low information Dem. base will turn out for her but even if independents won't vote for her -- because she is one of teh evil Clintoons -- neither will they vote for Obama, et al.? We should vote for Obama or Edwards 'cause the high information Dem. base (e.g. the netroots) will turn out for an Obama/Edwards ticket?

Perhaps we should take the corporate purchasing manager who loves MS Word's approach and vote for whomever best matches our laundry list of positions? We should follow Robert Reich's advice and vote for whomever gets the big picture best? I dunno ...

What I do know is that it's too premature to jump to conclusions at this point: especially when you're dealing with a political environment so bizarre that the Dems. most angry at Bush voted for a Senator who generally helped enable the Bush agenda whilst independents angry at Bush voted for the darling of the Neo-Cons 'cause he has a few talking points about being a "straight talker".

I think that what this shows (and what 2004 shows) is that you can't make predictions about the electorate based on reasoning, about electability or whatever. People are irrational, don't have much information, etc. ... you don't know until the votes are counted (or stolen).

Posted by DAS | January 10, 2008 11:58 AM

blacks running ... in full race card-playing, angry victimology mode - long ago ceased to be effective for getting elected outside ... Hollywood areas

What are you even referring to here? When has an angry black man ever even run for election in Hollywood, much less been effective in being elected there? I don't think I even need to stipulate that Tom Bradley doesn't count. Mentioning Hollywood is a complete non-sequitur.

Posted by Adam Villani | January 10, 2008 1:12 PM

Obama has spent more time actually working with poor people than any of the other candidates, and I'm really confident that he's spent more time thinking about poverty on a concrete (vs. abstract) level than any of the other candidates. If you read Dreams From My Father (which is pretty much what convinced me to support him) this becomes clear.

It also becomes clear from that book that he thinks that the best response to poverty (although by no means the easiest) is to try to channel the anger and despair that goes along with it into collective anger for constructive solutions--and I think that's exactly what he's trying to do with his campaign. You can disagree with him and believe in more militant strategies, but to say that because he's not up there breathing fire like Hugo Chavez he doesn't identify with the poor is just wrong.

Posted by Sean | January 10, 2008 1:28 PM

A lot of good things have been said particularly by Dan Kervick. One thing I find useful is comparing some of the black blogosphere's analysis of Obama's policies to the some of the higher trafficked sites. One point I saw made at Jack and Jill the other day was that Obama's approach to dealing with poverty addresses the problems of getting people who served time back into employment and social systems. This commmenter felt that Edwards plans on poverty while good, didn't deal with this really fundamental root of systemic poverty in this nation.
I think about points like this when I see people saying that Obama is nothing but kumbaya. I'm also starting to think that the absolute refusal of some parties to inform themselves or even pay attention to responses for demands on Obama's substance says something really unpleasant about what's driving this insistence on framing his as nothing but a stooge and symbol.

Posted by idabw | January 10, 2008 2:01 PM

What a hoary, icky-sick cliche- but you really do catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. Comparing the American voting public to flies is pretty vile but you get the idea. A key reason for Obama's appeal to Independents and Republicans is his tone. Style counts. It's not akin to the Kerry '04 'hup, hup, let's go!' idiocy. It's a carefully constructed "uplifting, classy" campaign." How many Americans were thrilled with W in '04? But, loads of them voted for him anyway partly because they liked him a lot more than that wind-surfing, wine-sipping, effete, intellectual snob Kerry. The vast majority of Americans will vote for someone they have a comfort level with via the idiot box with. Anger, malevolence, ire, the tigers of wrath - wonderful, wise traits all. But, not if exemplified by a candidate for President of the USA.

Posted by Trevor | January 10, 2008 3:21 PM

Apparently Kleiman's friend is ignorant of the state of South Chicago. Hyde Park may have some affluence around U of Chicago, but it's an island in a sea of want.

Posted by Jon H | January 10, 2008 4:54 PM

i'd prefer to transcend partisan politics after i've had a chance to dominate them for a while. getting good without getting even may be a little too evolved for me.

Posted by david breger | January 10, 2008 5:01 PM

Obama isn't angry because Obama isn't angry.
He is a process guy and you don't get mad at the process, you change it. A man labeled the Conciliator in a overwhelmingly positive portrait in the New Yorker isn't a secret populist.

Obamanauts need to examine their own prejudice. Not all black men are angry and if Obama wasn't bi-racial you would accept that he really is a pragmatic technocrat instead of insisting he is a rabble rouser on the dl.

idabw - innuendo is the choice of cowards and liars

Posted by hoser | January 10, 2008 6:42 PM

Well, I haven't exactly decided what's behind the attitude I'm describing, but if it makes you happy Hoser, I'll make a special exception for you. Your the sort of faux progressive, who really doesn't give a shit about what Obama has or hasn't accomplished to deal with issues like poverty, justice and yes even process because you're content to place him in the convenient symbol/token mold.

Now whether you're a racist or merely unhappy because he's not stroking you the way you want to be stroked, I don't know. What I do know is that I don't think much of the comprehension of someone who looks at what Obama actually says and his actual record and fails to see how extremely radical some of the concepts addressed are.

Happy?

Posted by idabw | January 10, 2008 7:26 PM

When has an angry black man ever even run for election in Hollywood, much less been effective in being elected there? I don't think I even need to stipulate that Tom Bradley doesn't count. Mentioning Hollywood is a complete non-sequitur.
Posted by Adam Villani

No, it is Hollywood that seeks to instruct that the angry, outraged black man acting out on the streets and elections gets what they want from guilty, intimidated whites.

The theater that Jackson and Sharpton utilize follows the Hollywood template as do city elections, and adulatory movies about black anger shaping the political process to better blacks by shouting and proclaiming endless outrage and victimization.

Perhaps I should have been broader than saying "angry black politicians" to all elements of black attitude and "acting out" - but black anger is consonant with Hollywood expectations and the two groups feed on one another.

Posted by chris ford | January 10, 2008 7:42 PM

He's angry, he just keeps it under control. As he should. Every so often it pops out, as in the Don Imus thingy, and when they cancelled the free breakfasts for schoolkids in Illinois. He feels it, but the deciding factor on his expression of it is what's the best response for him to actually help the situation, and that's the one he picks. Because he's a grownup.

Posted by Phoebe | January 10, 2008 9:51 PM

"Please be more modest or more qualified before making grand pronouncements that ignore "old" data (from ten days ago!) and give controlling weight to "new" information."

You must be new here.

This is what Matt DOES. This is his job description as a wannabe "pundit" - ignoring facts and making grand pronouncements based on his gut.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | January 10, 2008 10:46 PM

I think everyone's got the "unity" message wrong. It's actually all about anger.

The idea is that Republicans need liberals to forgive them--and liberals have to find the goodness in their hearts to forgive Republicans before moving on--because Republicans have so royally screwed up. This is not made explicitly in the argument, but it's more powerful because it suggests the totality of the conservative tragedy is so complete that there's no longer room for debate on the subject.

Posted by Bram Boroson | January 10, 2008 11:14 PM