Obama's Speech

Electrifying. Exciting. It's easier, of course, to be excited and exciting when you're winning, but he's doing it. Hitting some populist themes strongly, but with a bit of subtelty and grace; emphasizing the idea of organizing and mobilization as more than just election tactics, but as integral to changing the world. The Obama who gets panned in Paul Krugman columns and sundry blog posts -- the one who just wants to make nice with Republicans and doesn't care about progressive values -- doesn't seem to be on the podium tonight.

Certainly, in principle Obama more than anyone else epitomizes the new progressive coalition and wields the coalition behind him with tremendous oratorical skill. The questions always been whether he can really deliver on that promise. Before today, I think relatively few people thought he would be able to pull off this unprecedented surge of young people and first-time caucus-goers -- but he did. Charles Barkley says it's a "great start".

Comments

Clever counter-punches at both Clinton and Edwards, without using names. Would like to see the text of this when it comes out. It's amazing what these CNN fools miss.

Posted by Mike | January 3, 2008 11:32 PM

WORD.

Posted by tinisoli | January 3, 2008 11:32 PM

You mean Sir Charles "I'm a Republican because Republicans are the party of the rich and I'm rich" Barkley has left the GOP?

Say it ain't so.

Posted by Bill Laimbeer | January 3, 2008 11:32 PM

If true:

the one who just wants to make nice with Republicans and doesn't care about progressive values -- doesn't seem to be on the podium tonight.

Excellent news!

Hey, MY, how's your seminal work on trade policy going? Well?

Posted by lambert strether | January 3, 2008 11:33 PM

Of course, I'll take Sir Charles any day over Chuck Norris.

Posted by The Worm | January 3, 2008 11:34 PM

Wow. What was the shot at Guiliani, something about using 9/11 to scare up votes? Wow.

Posted by Just Karl | January 3, 2008 11:34 PM

When Barack Obama is on game, he's one damn moving speaker.

Posted by El Cid | January 3, 2008 11:36 PM

Hell of a speech from Obama.

Edwards was mighty good as well. I was sorely disappointed with Clinton's. She looked stunned and flat rhetorically.

Posted by 16th and Irving | January 3, 2008 11:36 PM

"Electrifying."

My thoughts exactly.

Posted by ryan | January 3, 2008 11:37 PM

Agreed, MY. The speech was stunning in the felicity of its expression and the rightness and soundness of its substance.

It will be nice to have a President who can, you know, speak publicly.

Posted by Ben Cronin | January 3, 2008 11:37 PM

the guy IS an authentic leader. he has all the classic qualities ... awsome!!

Posted by larry | January 3, 2008 11:37 PM

Matt, I think what you wrote is a good indicator of Hillary's biggest problem now -- the fact that, while she ran as the candidate of experience, it is now Obama who has a concrete accomplishment to run on. Not only did he win Iowa, but he accomplished something that was previously thought couldn't be done and which was, in fact, previously attempted and failed. Moreover, the people he turned out are the people who he'd have to turn out to win a general election. (I think the GOP's chances of winning Iowa in November are looking pretty bleak.) So who's really the candidate of tangible accomplishment here? I think Obama has a stronger case to make going into NH than Hillary.

Posted by Daniel Munz | January 3, 2008 11:38 PM

And Barkley has been splitting from the Republicans for a while now. Was interviewed on TV about how crazy he thought the Republicans were.

Posted by El Cid | January 3, 2008 11:38 PM

Text of speech here:

http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypolitics/2008/01/obama-victory-speech.html

Posted by blah | January 3, 2008 11:42 PM

The Obama who gets panned in Paul Krugman columns and sundry blog posts -- the one who just wants to make nice with Republicans and doesn't care about progressive values -- doesn't seem to be on the podium tonight.

Krugman can suck it. Honestly.

Apparently Edwards didn't congratulate Obama? That's classy.

Posted by Jake | January 3, 2008 11:43 PM

Huh, it disappeared. Anyway, here's the speech:

They said this day would never come. They said our sights were set too high. They said this country was too divided; too disillusioned to ever come together around a common purpose.

But on this January night – at this defining moment in history – you have done what the cynics said we couldn’t do; what the state of New Hampshire can do in five days; what America can do in this New Year. In schools and churches; small towns and big cities; you came together as Democrats, Republicans and Independents to stand up and say that we are one nation; we are one people; and our time for change has come.

You said the time has come to move beyond the bitterness and pettiness and anger that’s consumed Washington; to end the political strategy that’s been all about division and make it about addition – to build a coalition for change that stretches through Red States and Blue States. Because that’s how we’ll win in November, and that’s how we’ll finally meet the challenges we face.

The time has come to tell the lobbyists who think their money and their influence speak louder than our voices that they don’t own this government, we do; and we’re here to take it back.

The time has come for a President who’ll be honest about the choices and the challenges we face; who’ll listen to you even when we disagree; who won’t just tell you what you want to hear, but what you need to know. And New Hampshire, if you give me the same chance that Iowa did tonight, I will be that President for America."

The speech, as prepared for deliver, appears in full after the jump.

They said this day would never come.

They said our sights were set too high.

They said this country was too divided; too disillusioned to ever come together around a common purpose.

But on this January night – at this defining moment in history – you have done what the cynics said we couldn’t do; what the state of New Hampshire can do in five days; what America can do in this New Year. In schools and churches; small towns and big cities; you came together as Democrats, Republicans and Independents to stand up and say that we are one nation; we are one people; and our time for change has come.

You said the time has come to move beyond the bitterness and pettiness and anger that’s consumed Washington; to end the political strategy that’s been all about division and make it about addition – to build a coalition for change that stretches through Red States and Blue States. Because that’s how we’ll win in November, and that’s how we’ll finally meet the challenges we face.

The time has come to tell the lobbyists who think their money and their influence speak louder than our voices that they don’t own this government, we do; and we’re here to take it back.

The time has come for a President who’ll be honest about the choices and the challenges we face; who’ll listen to you even when we disagree; who won’t just tell you what you want to hear, but what you need to know. And New Hampshire, if you give me the same chance that Iowa did tonight, I will be that President for America.

I’ll be a President who finally makes health care affordable and available to every single American the same way I expanded health care in Illinois – by bringing Democrats and Republicans together to get the job done

I’ll be a President who ends the tax breaks for corporations who ship our jobs overseas and puts a middle-class tax cut into the pockets of the working Americans who deserve it.

I’ll be a President who harnesses the ingenuity of farmers and scientists and entrepreneurs to free this nation from the tyranny of oil once and for all.

And I’ll be a President who brings our troops home from Iraq; restores our moral standing; and understands that 9/11 is not a way to scare up votes, but a challenge that should unite America and the world against the common threats of the twenty-first century: terrorism and nuclear weapons; climate change and poverty; genocide and disease.

Tonight, we are one step closer to that vision of America because of what you did here in Iowa. And I’d like to take a minute to thank the organizers and precinct captains; the volunteers and staff who made this all possible.

I know you didn’t do this just for me. You did this because you believed deeply in the most American of ideas – that in the face of impossible odds, people who love this country can change it.

I know this because while I may be standing here tonight, I’ll never forget that my journey began on the streets of Chicago doing what so many of you have done for this campaign and all the campaigns here in Iowa – organizing, and working, and fighting to make people’s lives just a little bit better.

I know how hard it is. It comes with little sleep, little pay, and a lot of sacrifice. There are days of disappointment, but sometimes, just sometimes, there are nights like this – a night that, years from now, when we’ve made the changes we believe in; when more families can afford to see a doctor; when our children inherit a planet that’s a little cleaner and safer; when the world sees America differently, and America sees itself as a nation less divided and more united; you’ll be able look back with pride and say that this was the moment when it all began.

This was the moment when the improbable beat what Washington always said was inevitable.

This was the moment when we tore down barriers that have divided us for far too long – when we rallied people of all parties and ages to a common cause; when we finally gave Americans who’d never participated in politics a reason to stand up and do so.

This was the moment when we finally beat back the politics of fear, and doubt, and cynicism; the politics where we tear each other down instead of lifting this country up.

Years from now, you’ll look back and say that this was the moment – this was the place – where America remembered what it means to hope.

For many months, we’ve been teased and even derided for talking about hope.

But we always knew that hope is not blind optimism. It’s not ignoring the enormity of the task ahead or the roadblocks that stand in our path. It’s not sitting on the sidelines or shrinking from a fight. Hope is that thing inside us that insists, despite all evidence to the contrary, that something better awaits us if we have the courage to reach for it, and work for it, and fight for it.

Hope is what I saw in the eyes of the young woman in Cedar rapids who works the night shift after a full day of college and still can’t afford health care for a sister who’s ill; a young woman who still believes that this country will give her the chance to live out her dreams.

Hope is what I heard in the voice of the New Hampshire woman who told me that she hasn’t been able to breathe since her nephew left for Iraq; who still goes to bed each night praying for a safe return.

Hope is what led a band of colonists to rise up against an Empire; what led the greatest of generations to free a continent and heal a nation; what led young men and women to sit at lunch counters and brave fire hoses and march through Selma and Montgomery for freedom’s cause.

Hope is what led me here today – with a father from Kenya; a mother from Kansas; and a story that could only happen in the United States of America. It is the bedrock of this nation; the belief that our destiny will not be written for us, but by us; by all those men and women who are not content to settle for the world as it is; who have the courage to remake the world as it should be.

That is what we started here in Iowa, and that is the message we now carry to New Hampshire and beyond; the same message we had when we were up and when we were down; the one that can change this country brick by brick, block by block, calloused hand by calloused hand – that together, ordinary people can do extraordinary things; because we are not a collection of Red States and Blue States, we are the United States of America; and at this moment, in tthis election, we are ready to believe again.

Posted by blah | January 3, 2008 11:46 PM

the one who just wants to make nice with Republicans and doesn't care about progressive values

Because that's a complete fiction invented and perpetuated by people with a vested interest in other candidates and/or do not want to see Obama use what has been a winning strategy for Democrats, because their own version of a pony would have a McGovernesque victory sweep America simply because the current batch of Republicans are as rotten as we've ever had.

Obama knows what he's doing, as demonstrated by tonight, and I hope he keeps it up.

The haters should get on board.

Posted by SoCalJustice | January 3, 2008 11:50 PM

You mean Sir Charles "I'm a Republican because Republicans are the party of the rich and I'm rich" Barkley has left the GOP?
Say it ain't so.

He explained that in an earlier TNR interview that appears to be lost in the archives. (TNR? Barkley? Weird.) It's here, anyway.

I never was a Republican. I said this when I was playing. I was doing some interview talking about politics, and my grandmother was there, and the reporter said, "Are we Republicans or are we Democrats?" My grandmother said that Republicans were only for rich people, and I said, "Well, I'm rich."

That was quite a speech, though it was still pretty heavy on the abstractions. And there's probably a connection between that and the ability to motivate young voters, whereas Edwards is big on the messy stuff of grown-up life.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | January 3, 2008 11:50 PM

That right there is what they call history. Iowa, you done good. You have redeemed yourself for 2004. Godspeed, Barack.

Posted by J.B. | January 3, 2008 11:50 PM

He almost made me cry. This guy Obama is in a league of his own.
Onward to victory!

Posted by Eduardo | January 3, 2008 11:53 PM

Hope is what led me here today – with a father from Kenya; a mother from Kansas; and a story that could only happen in the United States of America.

Oops.

Posted by minderbender | January 4, 2008 12:02 AM

The nod to ethanol bothers me; I hope it's just rhetoric. The huge quantities of corn produced already have driven down prices around the world; this has hit farmers in developing countries incredibly hard.

Other than that, I agree with previous comments: He's an amazing speaker, and it was full of abstractions. (Though, to be fair, it's not clear that this speech was the time for policy talk beyond abstractions.)

Posted by MD | January 4, 2008 12:03 AM

MD, you're a few years late. These days, ethanol policy is driving the price of corn up - farmers in developing countries are fine, but now it's consumers in developing countries who are screwed. If you get the sense that America just can't win, well...

That said, I agree that it was weird to bring up these fairly crappy policies. The whole idea is to mobilize people to change things for the better, not to reaffirm the most compromised aspects of the status quo. Did Krugman have the kernel of a good point, however poorly he presented it?

No, no he didn't. But I hope it's just rhetoric.

Posted by minderbender | January 4, 2008 12:08 AM

How could any Democrat get excited by the Iowa numbers. According to the unofficial AP stats, Senator Obama won with only 937 votes (99% counted), while Governor Huckabee is winning with 35,621 (87% counted)! 937 is a margin of error, not a vote tally. In light of this, especially for Democrats, an Iowa is not the beginning of a trend.

I also liked Senator Edwards' "concession" speech, where he argued that change is definitely what Democrats want.

Finally, I'll second MD. Now, let's hear no more of ethanol!

Posted by Baltimoron | January 4, 2008 12:12 AM

Good comment on his speech Matt. I have to keep reminding myself that Obama is a politician and keep my skepticism-shields on. But if Obama keeps making speeches like this no one is going to get close to beating him. I think the question now, even if a little early, is who will Obama pick as a running mate?

Posted by Jordan Lawrence | January 4, 2008 12:13 AM

Obama's a great speaker. So is Huckabee. Iowans just chose the two best speakers to win their caucuses. To what extent is this a public speaking contest? If Hillary had as smooth a line of bull as Bill, would she have won Iowa?

Posted by Fred | January 4, 2008 12:15 AM

Baltimoron, those aren't individual voters ont he Democratic side, those are precincts or state delegates. (Yeah, I'm not really sure how it all works, either, but trust me, that does not mean that only a thousand people voted for the Democratic winner.)

Posted by Adam Villani | January 4, 2008 12:20 AM

So was the Petey 'bot disabled for the night?

Posted by Ryan | January 4, 2008 12:22 AM

Baltimoron (which i love because i'm a browns fan),
Obama got 37% of the democratic turnout of about 240,000, which is just under 90,000 votes. The number you mention is the number of delegates he got.

Posted by Brian | January 4, 2008 12:23 AM

As a true Baltimoron, you're giving us a bad name. Here's the turnout for each of the parties:

"The Iowa Democratic Party said that with 96 percent of the precincts reporting, they were seeing record turnout, with 227,000 caucus attendees. . . .

The Iowa Republican Party is also projecting record turnout, with 120,000 people taking part in the Republican caucuses."

Posted by MDtoMN | January 4, 2008 12:24 AM

This paragraph is just incredible:

But we always knew that hope is not blind optimism. It’s not ignoring the enormity of the task ahead or the roadblocks that stand in our path. It’s not sitting on the sidelines or shrinking from a fight. Hope is that thing inside us that insists, despite all evidence to the contrary, that something better awaits us if we have the courage to reach for it, and work for it, and fight for it.

Truly literary. Even historic. I can envision that in quote books decades from now.

Posted by Jack | January 4, 2008 12:25 AM

GOP in Iowa reports raw total votes, while Iowa Dems report by precincts.

Posted by nbt | January 4, 2008 12:25 AM

How could any Democrat get excited by the Iowa numbers. According to the unofficial AP stats, Senator Obama won with only 937 votes (99% counted), while Governor Huckabee is winning with 35,621 (87% counted)!

I'm completely embarassed for you. Do you seriously imagine less than a thousand people came out in Iowa for the caucus? I'm not even going to spell out for you the incredible error you just made, just LTP, N00b.

Posted by Ed Marshall | January 4, 2008 12:26 AM

The Obama who gets panned in Paul Krugman columns and sundry blog posts -- the one who just wants to make nice with Republicans and doesn't care about progressive values -- doesn't seem to be on the podium tonight.

That caricature was always proof to me of the emptiness and shallowness and sheer naivete of the political understanding displayed by the crude analysis offered by those self-appointed arbiters of progressivism.

Now that they all have the mud thrown back in their faces, it remains to be seen how they will seek to rescue their credibility.

Posted by Justin X | January 4, 2008 12:27 AM

Also, to take this on a SLIGHT tangent - -

It strikes me that the real loser tonight was Hawkish Politics. On the Republican side, Guiliani & McCain were battling it out over who could be the most aggressively in favor of war and aggression in foreign policy. Together, they received less support than any of the top three Democrats or than either of the top two Republicans. They received votes from less than 20% of the Republican attendees.

Meanwhile, on the Democratic side, Hillary is the most "hawkish" on foreign policy of the three, and despite huge institutional advantages, she came in third.

It would be wonderful if pundits and the media saw this as a repudiation of the myth that voters always support hawks. Somehow, I don't think that's going to happen.

Posted by MDtoMN | January 4, 2008 12:29 AM

Minder:

Thanks; indeed you're correct. I thought they had dropped again as of last summer. Either way our farm practices aren't helping those struggling in the developing world. I hope the next president is more sensitive to this reality--Samantha Power has Obama's ear and will help if he's elected.

Posted by MD | January 4, 2008 12:32 AM

OK, I feel like a moron now. But, hey how about that Edwards speech.

This is why I prefer foreign policy _ fewer numbers!

Posted by Baltimoron | January 4, 2008 12:35 AM

I noticed that Tom Tancredo actually got 3 votes in the GOP primary. And yes, that's 3 votes. Funniest moment of the evening.

Posted by Elrod | January 4, 2008 12:40 AM

Thanks, Ed Marshall. I just figured out MY mistake all by myself, and I won't forget it again. But, thanks for sticking it in, in a kind way! And, yes, after this past political year, when Obama and Huckabee win Iowa, anything is possible!

MD: I seriously doubt a progressive Democrat (and it seems the top four are all trade-skeptical) will do much that's good for free trade.

Posted by Baltimoron | January 4, 2008 12:42 AM

Great speech, but his use of Ericksonian hypnosis ("time distortion") was a bit jarring. Don't usually hear that outside of pickup artist websites.

years from now, when we’ve made the changes we believe in... you’ll be able look back with pride and say that this was the moment when it all began...

Years from now, you’ll look back and say that this was the moment – this was the place – where America remembered what it means to hope.

Compare to:
Time distortion technique enables you to plant the idea in the mind of the person you're seducing that at some point in the future, "say six months from now", she will look back at a present time feeling grateful to have met you now and had all over herself the pleasure of spending time in your company and perhaps fulfilling all of your own wildest dreams!
http://www.deeptrancenow.com/nlp_time_distortion.htm

Posted by beowulf | January 4, 2008 12:42 AM

Jake--The beginning of Edwards speech was a nod to Obama (and a swipe at Hillary and Romney).

Edwards is thinking about VP.

Posted by MD | January 4, 2008 12:49 AM

Funny you should write that, beowulf. I was going to extrapolate from tonight's winners that Tony Robbins would be a great candidate for president.

Posted by Fred | January 4, 2008 12:49 AM

Yes. So if I take someone's car keys away from them because they're drunk, and tell them "You'll thank me later," I'm really using a diabolic hypnosis technique.

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

I guess Mystery couldn't run -- I think he's Canadian. I was thinking that aloud and my girlfriend asked from the peanut gallery whether Matador would be his running mate. Better a reality show to pick the running mate though. Maybe the contest could involve seducing foreign leaders.

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

Brian:

Baltimoron (which i love because i'm a browns fan)

Don't get me started! Even far away in South Korea and after all these years, I still see brown when I think of the Ravens! Artie Shaw would know what to with a Brown.

Adam Villani:

Thanks!I'm proud to be in the middle 30% of actual people, not virtual names without any class.

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

@ Baltimoron

Just LTP :)

I seriously was wanting to be kind.

Posted by Ed Marshall | January 4, 2008 12:54 AM

If you took his keys and the next thing he remembers is waking up next to you naked, then yes it was a diabolical seduction technique. Otherwise, not necessarily.

Its a tool that, like any other, can be used for good or evil. Milton Erickson was a gifted psychiatrist who helped many sad and lost souls move past their pain and get on with life. That his insights would later be used to by players around the world to pick up women is hardly Dr. Erickson's fault.

Posted by beowulf | January 4, 2008 1:07 AM

Ed Marshall:

After years of dealing with Koreans, I forgot people could be kind!

But, speaking of stupid things, why does an Iowan go to a caucus in the dead of winter, just to vote "uncommitted"? That has to take courage, to stand in a room with your relatives and neighbors, and just balk. At least that's what I saw in the early numbers where 3 people were "uncommitted". Yet, that was more than Dennis Kucinich got!

Posted by Baltimoron | January 4, 2008 1:07 AM

Apologies if it's a repost - I scrolled down looking after reading the first half-dozen comments, but could have missed it; here is a Youtube link to video of the speech.

I found the speech to be inspiring, and the delivery electrifying. As I've seen mentioned elsewhere, it seems much more like a general election speech than a speech aimed at the primaries. With the momentum behind him (and with all those independents Petey dislikes voting in NH), that approach could work very well.

Posted by Warren Terra | January 4, 2008 1:08 AM

But, speaking of stupid things, why does an Iowan go to a caucus in the dead of winter, just to vote "uncommitted"?

Because they want local jobs in the party.

Posted by Ed Marshall | January 4, 2008 1:11 AM

Hope is that thing inside us that insists, despite all evidence to the contrary, that something better awaits us if we have the courage to reach for it, and work for it, and fight for it.

In a way, Obama vs Edwards is Ralph Waldo Emerson vs Mark Twain.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | January 4, 2008 1:19 AM

Alright, and I really am interested in this, especially after over ten years away from the States (and, I know my wife will ask):

1) How do they calculate delegate totals from the head count?

2) How do you get a job just by voting for no one?

Posted by Baltimoron | January 4, 2008 1:21 AM

Does anybody know why CNN's estimate of each candidate's national delegation isn't proportional to their number of state delegates? Indeed, Edwards has more state delegates, but Clinton apparently has more national delegates from Iowa. Inquiring minds want to know.

Posted by Raghav | January 4, 2008 1:23 AM

Jake--The beginning of Edwards speech was a nod to Obama (and a swipe at Hillary and Romney).

Edwards is thinking about VP.

Shush! You'll spoil the best Clinton spin I've seen all night. "Sure I was tied for second, but I was classy tied for second!".

Seriously, one heck of a speech by Obama. And if the worst I'm hearing about Edwards speech is "Well, it's good, but he didn't thank Obama properly enough in my mind" than I think Edwards did pretty solidly on the second-place speech as well.

Posted by Morat20 | January 4, 2008 1:37 AM

To illustrate the absolute idiocy of the progressive punditry about Obama, here is the latest wisdom coming from the pen of the Most Serious Krugman on the morning after Obama’s victory in Iowa:

But among at least some of Barack Obama’s supporters there seems to be a belief that if their candidate is elected, the world’s problems will melt away in the face of his multicultural charisma.

Why doesn’t this guy just stick to economics? Or, is it that his ego just can't allow him to grant the absolute superiority of Obama's intellect in the realm of politics? Or, maybe he should just spend some time with his psychiatrist to deal with the obvious hang-ups he has about Obama.

Posted by Justin X | January 4, 2008 1:42 AM

Or, is it that his ego just can't allow him to grant the absolute superiority of Obama's intellect in the realm of politics?

ALL MUST BOW DOWN AND WORSHIP!

Do you have any idea how much you and the other Obama fans sound like fucking cultists?

I have to think you do, because nothing sets you off faster than someone who dissents from your posture of Barack Infallibility.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | January 4, 2008 1:50 AM

Anyone who likes this speech, and likes Obama, must pick up Dreams From My Father.

You think he can speak, and really has something to say when he talks? Boy can he write.

Posted by Steve C | January 4, 2008 2:10 AM

I like Obama as a candidate. I even volunteered for him briefly in his Senate run here in IL ('briefly' because he didn't need much help by the time I was available to do it!). And I would be thrilled to vote for him in the General. But I didn't find this speech 'electrifying' or any of that stuff. Yes, I was an Edwards supporter (presuming he's going to be out of the running, which may not be so - but probably). But I have really tried to love Obama, too, because there's so much which is so appealing about him. But I just don't. There's a certain parsimoniousness and tenativeness I find irritating and, frankly, hacknied:

..organizing, and working, and fighting to make people’s lives just a little bit better. (...) There are days of disappointment, but sometimes, just sometimes, there are nights like this – a night that, years from now, when we’ve made the changes we believe in; when more families can afford to see a doctor; when our children inherit a planet that’s a little cleaner and safer..

Why just 'a little bit' better? Why '99% of life sucks but sometimes, just sometimes'? Why will 'more' families be able to afford to see a friggin doctor, rather than all families? Why - YEARS FROM NOW - will the planet be only 'a little cleaner and safer'? I know this is just a manner of speaking, but the words you choose in political rhetoric matter a lot. It sounds like false modesty. It even sounds like the trailer to a Spielberg move! ('In a world....sometimes, just sometimes...').

OK, I know I'm kind of being a dick here; I really don't mean to piss on anybody's parade, but I don't say this stuff just because my candidate didn't win. Barack doesn't inspire me. I like him and will probably volunteer for him and send money if he's nominated (but 'just a little bit'! HA, I kid). But he doesn't fire me up. Maybe he knows exactly what he's doing, politically, and I just don't get it. Maybe he will finally turn out lots of new voters beyond IA and in the General. I sincerely and fervently hope so. But I find that I like the idea of Obama more than I like the actual candidate.

Anyway, at least HRC came in third. Huzzah! Congrats to Obama supporters.

Posted by jonnybutter | January 4, 2008 2:17 AM

Man, the guy wins and he can't win. Up the thread Krugman's calling him a pie-in-the-sky idealist who thinks he can bring about world peace through sheer charisma, and down the thread Johnnybutter's criticizing him for not promising to establish universal singer payer, end global warming and stop all crime by the end of his first term.

Four years ago you'd never heard of him; six months ago he was a speed bump under Hilary's treads, tonight he gets a solid win by nearly doubling the turnout of youth and independants, and even flipping a few Republicans, but he's not inspiring enough? Whaddya want him to do, levitate over Times Square in the lotus position through mind power?

Posted by diablevert | January 4, 2008 2:46 AM

Speaking as someone who can't carry a tune in a bucket, I can't tell whether universal singer payer would be good or bad for me.

Posted by Warren Terra | January 4, 2008 2:56 AM

"universal singer payer" : when I first saw that the first word to register in my brain was "singer" and so at first I thought "payer" said "prayer" LOL

To jonnybutter, on the almost built-in depression of "a little bit..." and "sometimes, just sometimes," Using these puts what he is calling for within reach. Phrasing like that makes it sound like you aren't asking for too much, that it's something that should be able to be done. It's to put that pie-in-the-sky idealism on the ground, as I see it.

To make change happen you don't need to preach to the choir, the democratic base, on the democratic platform. He's going for that coalition; he has to win over those who aren't sold, who aren't all into politics.

Posted by Jeff Morgan | January 4, 2008 3:36 AM

This was the Krugman smackdown:

"I’ll be a President who finally makes health care affordable and available to every single American the same way I expanded health care in Illinois – by bringing Democrats and Republicans together to get the job done"

I hate Krugman.
Thank you,
goodnight.

oh yeah - I notice that the prepared speech didn't include the shout-out to michelle, which was one of my favorite parts, just because it really was sweet. maybe he wanted it to be a surprise.

Posted by Phoebe | January 4, 2008 5:17 AM

Barack's family looked very impressive up there on the victory stage - Michelle Obama is a serious character. Barack's shout-out was a nice touch.

It was great to see Barack pull of this victory and give that excellent speech. Just thrilling. Destiny is his.

Posted by Comment | January 4, 2008 5:30 AM

Which was the progressive part of this speech? All I got was mush about bringing people together, delivered well. We need Edwards in the race for a while.

Posted by david | January 4, 2008 5:50 AM

Edwards is very much disliked by much of the media - One reporter told us that he disliked the way Edwards pronounced the second person plural "you" when giving speeches.

They will now work hard to marginalize him. As Barack supporters we cannot complain - but Edwards is raising real issues that have to be addressed, albeit in a more clever and tactful way.

Posted by Comment | January 4, 2008 6:09 AM

I liked the speech. I like how he pulls things together - the fight for civil rights with the pressing need for access to health care - under the theme of hope.

I've heard a number of Republican friends say they would vote for Obama, so I know that he has appeal that transcends the civil war that's been going on since the 60's.

But I think Krugman is right. The demon that currently has the Republican party by the throat called movement conservatism is not going to allow bi-partisanism to break out anytime soon. (witness the Republicans in Congress running towards a president with a 30% approval rating) Entrenched interests that have only gained influence and blocked progress are not going to negotiate that away.

I hope Obama's experience as an organizer gave him more realism about how entrenched power operates than his "sit down together" panacea seems to indicate. Otherwise, he will have raised our hopes and expectations only to see them hit a very hard wall.

Posted by Noel | January 4, 2008 6:14 AM

I'm glad Obama won, and I'm not ungrateful to see a long line of really hideous looking presidential candidates finally terminate with someone whose face doesn't challenge the structural integrity of the mirrors that reflect its image. But this whole line of support-cheering for the hope-filled presidential candidate-comes across to me as about as substantive as a Hallmark card. Okay, a really glossy hallmark card. It's silly-we are talking about the political process right? The machine that literally operates by pulverizing and shitting out our dreams? Of course, if we are going to choose some kind of BS foundation for a campaign (and we probably have to), I guess hope isn't too bad a choice. It beats Hillary's "Resistance is futile-prepare to be assimilated" approach to campaigning. But this is all modal. If Obama had stood up and just said: "Elect me and we'll get out of Iraq, give everyone decent health coverage and make lobbyists bleed from their eyeballs," he'd have covered everything that mattered in this speech. He's a handsome guy with a deep voice and a can-do attitude. None of these things has a goddamned thing to do with how effective he'll be in the Oval Office. Not to poo in anyone's cheerios-like I said, I'm rooting for the guy. But I think a clear distinction needs to be made between how he comes across in public, and what he really manages to do in office.

Posted by gerontion | January 4, 2008 7:27 AM

beowulf - 'his use of Ericksonian hypnosis ("time distortion") was a bit jarring.'

The motivational speech in 'Braveheart' uses the same technique.

Aye, fight and you may die. Run and you'll live -- at least a while. And dying in your beds many years from now, would you be willing to trade all the days from this day to that for one chance, just one chance to come back here and tell our enemies that they may take our lives, but they'll never take our freedom!!!

It's a good technique to get you amped up. It's simple visualization, common in sports.

Posted by joejoejoe | January 4, 2008 7:34 AM

Why doesn’t this guy just stick to economics? Or, is it that his ego just can't allow him to grant the absolute superiority of Obama's intellect in the realm of politics?

He is sticking to economics. I don't think Krugman has a problem with Obama's foreign policy views. He's simply not enamored of Obama's decidedly non-liberal views on economic policy. Any true progressive should be grateful to Paul Krugman for his willingness to continue to hold Barrack Obama's feet to the fire on issues of economics. Again, this is a candidate who:

1) Has surrounded himself with non-progressive economic advisors;
2) Has bought into Republican talking points about Social Security;
3) Has introduced the weakest, least universal healthcare plan of the three leading Democrats;
4) Has attacked labor for having the temerity to support the candidate who best represents working people.

Sure, he's attracting independent and Republican voters. In light of the above, that's not surprising. But hey, he delivers a soaring speech and he's promised to be friends with Amhadinejad, so why worry?

Posted by Orange | January 4, 2008 7:55 AM

"Sure, he's attracting independent and Republican voters. In light of the above, that's not surprising. But hey, he delivers a soaring speech and he's promised to be friends with Amhadinejad, so why worry?"

The funny thing is that Obama hasn't gotten to the 50% point yet in the Party he's going to need to get enough delegates for the nomination.

The Obama-bots haven't figured out yet that attacking the principles of the Democratic Party may not be the best strategy going forward.

Posted by Petey | January 4, 2008 8:02 AM

Everyone knew there was the possibility that this year and this war would bring out a lot of voters. The record turnout turned out for all three top tier candidates. The second vote looks more like a movement than the first vote before the bottom tier supporters peel off to Obama, largely through deals. The ratio of independents to Democrats voting last night was the same as the ratio of independents to democrats four years ago. Barack outspent hillary in Iowa so he cannot really be the underdog like Huckaby. Pollsters found women and men more willing to vote for a black man than willing to believe that a woman can win and so our sexism and fear of women in power maybe even more institutionalized than our fear of the black man.
And the speech was powerful rhetoric but ffull of hyperbole: He won his neighboring state of Iowa. He beat the first serious woman candidate in American presidential politics. He talked as though he was our destiny and that is silly at the start of fifty states just as lots of teams over estimate thier playoff chances after the first win of the season.
Hillary was lambasted months ago because people wanted to think she the anointed winner and now Barack and his happy camp have no worries that they are inevitable. No one is.
Was it arrogance in his claims to history last night?
If he wins NH he says he wins it all: 48 states don't matter?
Play the season. Even if we consider this a play-off round winning the first game does not mean a sweep and a ring.
I can get behind Obama and be thrilled but I love hillary and I don't hate her chances.

Posted by Michael | January 4, 2008 8:05 AM

The motivational speech in 'Braveheart' uses the same technique.

It's an older technique than that. See Shakespeare in Henry V.

Posted by Dan Kervick | January 4, 2008 8:23 AM

Enough with the goddamned "technique" already. It's like calling the straw man argument a "technique." What if, Obama actually believes that his elevation to the presidency will have all sorts of positive benefits for America? That would explain why he's running to begin with, wouldn't it? When will these benefits start accruing? In the future. This is necessarily true, because he doesn't get to be President starting yesterday. Now... supposing that Obama is right (no guarantee, of course), what will that mean? Why, it might mean that we'll be grateful for having supported him today! We're talking about a string of tautologies here, not a form of hypnosis. In fact, it is on this basis alone that any politician must argue for his or her election: we vote for the guy we think will have the best prospects regarding future performance.

Posted by gerontion | January 4, 2008 8:47 AM

Did anyone read David Brooks's column this morning?

It was like he spooged in his pants.

But he did have a great line:

"This is a huge moment. It’s one of those times when a movement that seemed ethereal and idealistic became a reality and took on political substance."

The Hillary Machine is not inevitable or unstoppable. There is hope!

Posted by Peter K. | January 4, 2008 11:09 AM

Come on Orange be serious. Obama has "bought into Republican talking points about Social Security" because he dared use the word "crisis"? Please explain to me how the following position is either Republican or non-liberal:

Obama is committed to ensuring Social Security is solvent and viable for the American people, now and in the future. Obama will be honest with the American people about the long-term solvency of Social Security and the ways we can address the shortfall. Obama will protect Social Security benefits for current and future beneficiaries alike. And he does not believe it is necessary or fair to hardworking seniors to raise the retirement age. Obama is strongly opposed to privatizing Social Security.

Obama believes that the first place to look for ways to strengthen Social Security is the payroll tax system. Currently, the Social Security payroll tax applies to only the first $97,500 a worker makes. Obama supports increasing the maximum amount of earnings covered by Social Security and he will work with Congress and the American people to choose a payroll tax reform package that will keep Social Security solvent for at least the next half century.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/socialsecurity/#protect-ss

Posted by Merle | January 4, 2008 11:09 AM

Here's the best take on Obama, from Matt Taibbi two weeks ago (basically predicting the victory last night):

http://www.alternet.org/story/70714/

Posted by mq | January 4, 2008 11:22 AM

Obama has "bought into Republican talking points about Social Security" because he dared use the word "crisis"?

Yes, as a matter of fact, he has. That's because there is no Social Security "crisis". The program is self-funded -- and producing surpluses -- almost certainly at minimum for another decade. After that point the system will require gently increasing injections of cash from the general fund -- probably not equal to much more than a couple of points of GDP -- over the next half century or so. The modest changes that might be needed to deal with this non-crisis can be decided upon in the 2020s. I don't think Obama is deliberately buying into the GOP scare machine (an apparatus dedicated to demolishing the modest degree of social insurance enjoyed by Americans). I do think he's not especially interested in or well-informed about the topic, and I believe he has surrounded himself with advisers who possess an economy agenda hostile to working people.

Posted by Orange | January 4, 2008 1:07 PM

Very nice, Obama! I really do hope he wins the elections.

Posted by Watch Reaper Online | January 4, 2008 7:11 PM

Is there no end to the ability of Obama to sell the pie in the sky politics to Democrats?

No wonder he won Iowa.

His speech at Selma was nothing but pie in the sky, on the shoulders of the last generation of marchers. But that generation didn't expect a free pass, and Obama does.

He is obviously the result of too many social promotions that constitute a free pass, and is availing himself of them all.

Against affirmative action, however, he would close the very gate he came through to others behind him. That hypocrisy is the worst of why his philosophy is flawed. But he has mastered the momentum of pie in the sky politics when it comes to people who look like him, but who don't necessarily think like him.

Isn't this what is to be expected of free pass candidates from Harvard? There is a whole history of them who graciously receive the advantages, but willingly leave their brethren behind.

From Harvard to anywhere appears to be the mantra, regardless of effort, experience, or dues.

Posted by Pat | January 11, 2008 12:44 PM