Beyond Electability

Megan McArdle, expressing some cynicism about Barack Obama:

I'm watching his speech now, and it's inspiring. But it's also saddening, because deep down, I don't believe that Obama is going to change Washington, eliminate lobbying, etc. I wish he wouldn't tell me things that I can't possibly believe--and moreover that I can't really understand anyone believing. He might be the best president; he might even make Washington work a little better, though I kind of doubt it. But he isn't going to transform American politics in the utopian way his speech implies. No one who has dried out behind the ears could reasonably believe that he has this power. So why is he saying he does?

Andrew has a good response, but another thing I like about Obama is that Megan's listening to this speech and she doesn't really agree with what he's saying, but she's not snorting with derision. She's listening. She thinks it's inspiring. Meanwhile, like anyone who writes about political and economic issues for a living, her opinions on these things are much more fixed and coherent than are the average American's. Most people, by contrast, are relatively open to persuasion -- if the argument is made by a persuasive figure.

And that's one of the things Obama has that Hillary Clinton doesn't. If instead of Clinton or Obama, I were the one sitting in the White House, and I had some kind of appealing-but-controversial initiative I wanted to propose and for some reason I had to pick a Senator to be the "public face" of the initiative I'd pick Obama in a heartbeat. He's the kind of person whose support for an idea makes the idea seem more compelling than it otherwise would have. You can imagine him getting people interested in things that didn't previously interest them, or convincing people that steps they used to think were too risky are, in fact, necessary. Clinton, like lots of perfectly admirable Senators from Carl Levin to Jim Jeffords and beyond, doesn't have that extra bit. It's the difference between a person who has to change his policies to become more popular, and a person who makes policies more popular by espousing them. Obviously, that's a quality that exists on a continuum, but Obama seems to me to be much further toward the "makes more popular by espousing" side of the spectrum.

Comments

Obama inspires hope.

Change comes not with hope but hard work and smart choices.

The Clinton lady's problem is that there are few people who would not shrug or cheer at her exit from the race.

Posted by Linus | February 13, 2008 1:26 PM

This is exactly why Levin and Clinton, and Kerry as well, make great Senators. They thrive in the muck of intricate policy details, but aren't talented at turning complex policy initiatives into a presentation for the general public. It seems to me that the President should be the public face of major policy initiatives by his or her party leaders (just like Bush was for privatizing S.S.) and Obama is uniquely and impressively suited for this role. Again, I think Clinton is a good Senator who, once she is unburdened with a pending White House run, can move to the left and advocate for policies she (and New Yorkers like myself) really want to see implemented. And Obama can go out as President and sell those policies to America - just as he can go out and sell foreign policy to the world.

I am not an "Obama is the saviour" type - I just think the narrative that Obama's talents translate to the executive branch isn't out there enough.

Posted by Evan | February 13, 2008 1:27 PM

"her opinions on these things are much more fixed and coherent than are the average American's."

I've read her blog a few times. Her thinking is anything but coherent.

Posted by Jose Padilla | February 13, 2008 1:30 PM

Well, let him do all the hope-inspiring speechifying he wants...

But if in Summer 2010, we still have something like 100K troops in Iraq under President Barack "Hope" Obama, the Democrats are going to get annihilated in Congress...

Posted by RKU | February 13, 2008 1:34 PM

"Change comes not with hope but hard work and smart choices."

But without hope, how can there be any desire for change?

Mike

Posted by MBunge | February 13, 2008 1:34 PM

Thank you, thank you, thank you. This is what I've been trying to tell various friends and colleagues who have expressed admiration for Obama, and who have even acknowledged that he's the more inspiring figure in the race, but who have nevertheless echoed the Clinton talking point that he might not have the ability to magically and instantly enact every single policy proposal "from day one," as Hillary Clinton apparently will be able to do.

Even if Democrats increase their numbers on Capitol Hill, as they almost certainly will, the next president is still going to have to rely on his or her powers of persuasion in order to pass any legislation. In this respect, Obama's rhetorical prowess and inspiring character are tools that will help him as president, not just as someone campaigning for president. If you're trying to sell something to the American people and you actually have the power to rally them so that their legislators have little choice but to go along with the will of their constituents, that's an absolutely invaluable political tool.

Posted by jmt | February 13, 2008 1:34 PM

Is Megan new to politics? Has there ever been a candidate who doesn't set unrealistic expectations?

What about McCain when he talks about winning the war in Iraq? Is that believable to anyone here?

Every politician does this. You set far-reaching goals that may not be acheived, but indicate your committment to getting there. The question is whether we want to fight for Obama's goals or McCain's.

Posted by Mike | February 13, 2008 1:39 PM

But without hope, how can there be any desire for change?

But without capacity to make hard choices and work smartly how can there be a desire for change?

I like this game. We can play this all day long.

Posted by gregor | February 13, 2008 1:41 PM

Nail on the head, Matt.

The idea that Clinton would pass great legislation because she's an expert backstreet knife fighter is absurd.

An inspiring figure sways some legislative votes, but also positions the opponents into "the past" and "anti-progress" and "anti-pragmatism" so that the opposition really loses by opposing legislation they dislike.

By fighting Clinton tooth and nail, Republicans will always win their base and many other Americans who don't like Bill and Hill.

So if he's an inspiring that's good for our team!

Posted by jvoe | February 13, 2008 1:46 PM

Clinton actually hasn't been all that great a Senator, but I think the only thing holding her back was that she was running for president the whole time. She's certainly talented enough.

Posted by Katherine | February 13, 2008 1:47 PM

Not making fun of RKU's comment above, but it's been amusing to watch how fast the "warnings" about Obama have changed in this race. In a matter of weeks they've gone from questioning his ability to win a primary, to winning certain kinds of voters, to winning the nomination, to winning the general election...but this is the first time yet that I've seen someone warn that Obama may disappoint if he doesn't get our troops out of Iraq fast enough.

Personally, I'm worried that he won't be able to deliver on all of his 2012 campaign promises in his last, lame duck year of 2015. Nor am I convinced that he'll be nearly as good an ex-President as Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton, even though he'll only be 54 when he starts.

[This is a joke I have made.]

Posted by mrsaturdaypants | February 13, 2008 1:48 PM

" don't believe that Obama is going to change Washington, eliminate lobbying, etc."

this from a libertarian? what kind of magical animal does she think is going to get any of the policies she advocates for implemented in any serious way? bizarre criticism from someone who thinks policies would be a lot better if only she could get ober the political problem that only 1% of the population agrees with her.

Posted by theCoach | February 13, 2008 1:52 PM

I'm not interested in what Ayn Rand readers think about contemporary politics. And you shouldn't be either.

Enough with this little Atlantic blogger circle jerk.

Posted by Exile on Ericsson St. | February 13, 2008 1:52 PM

You know, when I think about Hillary As Executive -- at least in the realm of domestic policy -- her style reminds me of no one so much as LBJ. He was a goal-oriented, expert-level arm-twister with a Texas-sized chutzpah gland, and had a pretty fine grasp on policy. All that said, there's pretty little dispute that it took JFK getting his head exploded before Johnson was able to deploy that talent to any considerable effect.

Bracketing, for a moment, the morbid analogy this implies, I think the overall point is that skilled maneuvering isn't worth so much without the ability to unite people around a broad agenda. Hillary has *things* she'd like to *do*, but I really don't see her having a super-clear vision of where she'd like to take the country.

Hill for Majority Leader? Although considering she's shown herself to be as good as Reid on FISA, Dodd for Majority Leader is looking a helluva lot better.

Posted by Daniel Munz | February 13, 2008 1:54 PM

If you're trying to sell something to the American people and you actually have the power to rally them so that their legislators have little choice but to go along with the will of their constituents, that's an absolutely invaluable political tool.

I think we are all aware that our legislative branch is not going to succomb to the people's will all that easily just because one person or another is president. That is, of course, unless you're republican because those guys just march right behind whatever is touted regardless of fact or consequences and alot of the democrats are right behind them unfortunately. Where is the proof (or at least some anecdotal evidence) that our democratic representatives and senators would change their ways under an Obama presidency?

I admire Obama's ability to inspire the people, but the people aren't the problem - it's the legislative branch.

Posted by Julene | February 13, 2008 2:04 PM

The lofty rhetoric of Obama did not help Kerry, Kenyans wouldnt even take his calls. How exactly is he going to change things? He has turned Robinson ,Rich, Dowd. Jesse Jackson Jr. into unhinged people. So much for inspiration and hope. His supporters hardly sound inspired into any thing other than personality worship.

Posted by rakesh wahi md | February 13, 2008 2:06 PM

He's the kind of person whose support for an idea makes the idea seem more compelling than it otherwise would have.

Hence a lot of the worrying over Obama's statements about Social Security's future solvency, and his Harry and Louise style mandates ads. After all, Bill Clinton had a similar ability to deal directly with the public and used it to push through NAFTA and welfare reform and telecom deregulation and the first big steps at eroding habeas corpus.

And I say that as someone who voted for Obama.

DMunz, on your LBJ comparison: LBJ had, what, 2 decades in Congress, including long stints in leadership positions, before becoming VP. Clinton may be capable of that kind of arm-twisting and caucus leadership, but I don't think she has nearly the track record that LBJ had.

Posted by Pesto | February 13, 2008 2:09 PM

"I've read her blog a few times. Her thinking is anything but coherent."

Some people, like Obama, actually listen to others with whom they disagree--they realize that people with different values and beliefs are not necessarily morons. It is this kind of leadership that allows us to set aside our ideological blinders and weapons, and inspires.

Posted by Andrew | February 13, 2008 2:09 PM

"If you're trying to sell something to the American people and you actually have the power to rally them so that their legislators have little choice but to go along with the will of their constituents, that's an absolutely invaluable political tool."

I don't know that we know that Obama is good at rallying the electorate on specific issues and policies. I think at least part of Obama's appeal is that he remains untainted by the muck and grime of politics. How does he remain above that without governing from the center? Will liberals overlook his actual policies and love the man the way they did Bill Clinton?

Posted by Linus | February 13, 2008 2:10 PM

But if in Summer 2010, we still have something like 100K troops in Iraq under President Barack "Hope" Obama, the Democrats are going to get annihilated in Congress...

Only if the Bull Moose party makes a come back. The voters are going to go to the party of "100 years in Iraq" McCain??? Fat chance. The Republicans are suddenly going to be pushing to get out? Possibly (see their pusillanimous ravings against B. Clinton's interventions in Kosovo, etc.) but not credibly.

Posted by David in NY | February 13, 2008 2:13 PM

'Will liberals overlook his actual policies and love the man the way they did Bill Clinton?'

That's a loaded question.

Posted by willyjsimmons | February 13, 2008 2:16 PM

So then why bother writing about politics if nothing will ever change about the way things get done in Washington? Conservatives,ironically, are not nearly as cynical about government as Megan even though they are suppossed to be the anti-government party. That is why despite what they say they will do anything to continure governing.Will Obama "change Washington"? Probably not.But make no mistake, republicans indeed fear what he will do as president.

Posted by aj suri | February 13, 2008 2:17 PM

Scott Adams has a good blog today talking about the experience question. It also does a good job of supporting Matt's position in string of posts.

http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2008/02/experience.html

Posted by dantonj | February 13, 2008 2:19 PM

I think it is equally important that Obama views the campaign as a mechanism of persuasion. Clinton's view of politics is elite technocratic maneuvering. The idea that the game can be changed by persuading people doesn't really compute, a 50% + 1 tactical victory is what she is looking for.

This is common thinking in Democrats, and it reminds me of the French revolutionary looking at the mob: "I must find out where those people are going, so I can lead them there."

Posted by PTS | February 13, 2008 2:20 PM

All this hem-rending over optimism. I can't remember, in all my 2800 years on the planet (estimated from limb creakiness), another political campaign where optimism sparked so much dolor.

More evidence that we've all died and gone to Hell.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | February 13, 2008 2:22 PM

'The idea that the game can be changed by persuading people doesn't really compute'

Obama is going to 'persuade' republicans to not block universal healthcare legislation?

No.

Posted by willyjsimmons | February 13, 2008 2:26 PM

I thought that was part of McArdle's schtick:

Inspired by Obama, but troubled by Obama's inspiring nature

Vegetarian, but loathes other vegetarians

Concerned about the environment, but hates environmentalism

etc. etc. etc.

Beyond that, though Exile has it exactly right. Why does anyone give a rat's hiney about what Rand enthusiasts think about anything? They're the Scientologists of the political world.

Posted by Woody Bombay | February 13, 2008 2:29 PM

"I think it is equally important that Obama views the campaign as a mechanism of persuasion. Clinton's view of politics is elite technocratic maneuvering."

There's another word for it: self-discipline.

(That's two words Linus.)

Kind of.

Anyhow, Mrs. Clinton had a front seat view to the debacle that was her husband's first two years in office. Given this lady's highly disciplined voting record (arguably the most highly disciplined voting record of anyone in the Senate), her desire to be Historically Significant, and the fact that 40% of the country loathes her (as well the fact that the 10% of swing voters aren't enthusiastic about her), I'm more optimistic that she will steer to the left on economic issues (which is what the country wants and needs) while avoiding the mistakes of Gray Davis (who gave away the house to prison workers and school bureaucrats as well as Democratic-leaning corporations because he wasn't disciplined enough to resist his party's special interest and some of the worst instincts of the Democratically controlled state legislature).

Posted by Linus | February 13, 2008 2:33 PM

her opinions on these things are much more fixed and coherent than are the average American's

you must be kidding. She's a joke intellectually.

Posted by mq | February 13, 2008 2:39 PM

It is entirely realistic to believe Obama can transform Washington in some significant ways. For one thing, Washington under Bush is about as dysfunctional and ineffective as it has been in my lifetime. Megan might be too young to appreciate what it is like to have a government that is not a complete joke, where at least some basic things like national disaster relief work most of the time. But it's hard to overemphasize what an unprecedentedly weak and incompetent national leader Bush is: It's not just his wrong-headed policies; it's that he's been in way over his head since day one, and Washington has degenerated into a parody of government under his inept, clueless leadership. So even if Obama were just a regular old competent professional politician, things would get much better.

But in fact there is now a fairly solid empirical basis for thinking Obama is a very above average politician with superior leadership and communications skills, an acute mind and deft political instincts. The managerial and political skills that have already been on display in this very ably-run campaign are going to be brought to bear in Washington as well.

Obviously no one thinks Obama is going to "eliminate lobbying". That wouldn't even be constitutional, since we all have the right to petition the government. From what I can gather, his strategy for diminishing the role of lobbyists is based on some ideas about communications techniques and transparency initiatives that will help to build citizen engagement and attention, and thus help build a constituent counterweight against lobbyist influence. When he talks about "change from the ground up", about broadcasting health care deliberations on C-Span, says "we are the change we are looking for" etc., don't think these are just throwaway phrases or empty abstract concepts. We have seen, for example, concrete examples of ground-up organizing in action in his campaign, and it has been very effective. It really is possible to reinvigorate and restructure democratic institutions, but you need leadership to do it.

What I think we are going to see from Obama are some innovative efforts to change the institutional structure of national debate and engage the public more actively in government. The way to diminish the power of lobbyists is not to kick them out of the temple. What you try to do instead is make sure that when lobbyist X visits Senator Jim-Bob, the latter says "Look buddy, I'd like to help you out and kill this bill, but I've got 100,000 constituents breathing down my neck and they're all worked up about this infrastructure initiative." When people are engaged, informed, paying attention, and effectively organized and networked, then the playing field is not abandoned to the lobbyists.

Obama isn't asking people to believe in miracles. He's just asking us to recognize that there is such a thing as an art and science of government, and that some people are much better at governing than others, and can use their aptitude and leadership skills to bring about needed changes. He's also going to continue to remind people that democracy is hard work, and call on people to get more engaged. In the end, Washington doesn't work because people spend more time watching what Britney Spears is doing than watching what their Member of Congress is doing.

Posted by Dan Kervick | February 13, 2008 2:42 PM

You say if Obama gets behind an idea he can inspire other to follow. Can you give one example, just one?

Posted by phg | February 13, 2008 2:46 PM

Obama seems to me to be much further toward the "makes more popular by espousing" side of the spectrum

As a US Senator, Obama has used this power to do what, exactly? Not a damn thing, as far as I can tell. When Bush said he'd veto a military spending bill that contained timelines, guess who caved and gave him a spending bill with no strings? While he might have some legitimate leadership ability, I've yet to see him put it to use to advocate for any meaningful legislation of policies.

Call me when he uses his leadership skills for the forces of good.

Posted by Nordy | February 13, 2008 2:48 PM

phg, that's exactly what I'm sayin'!

Also, Exile is spot-on. Please stop the Atlantic circle-jerk. At your old site, you didn't quote as many conservatives, unless it was to criticize their comments. Now, you quote McArdle and Sullivan quite often, like they've got opinions worth legitimately considering. It's not a good look.

Posted by Nordy | February 13, 2008 2:55 PM

I opened up the NYT this morning and saw that there was a pretty big opposition to krugman's hit piece. All of the letters (maybe 10 or so) were about it and only 2 were against. I'm sure that the ratio of letters received was even more imbalanced but they included the token pro letters in the name of evenhandedness.

Posted by Ben | February 13, 2008 3:02 PM

Unlike the vast majority of pols- Obama isn't a bore. He's fun. And, that's a very big plus. I think G.W. Bush an inadequate, ill-informed, incompetent man became President because he possessed the same quality. And, Obama unlike G.W. has the requisites to be a superior President. Now, McCain has the quality too, but to a much lesser degree than Obama. Partly because of his age, and partly because of his background. Who the hell says: "My friends..." except superannuated old dogs?

Posted by Trevor | February 13, 2008 3:11 PM

Megan's listening to this speech and she doesn't really agree with what he's saying, but she's not snorting with derision.

Being able to appeal to the L.C.D. voter is really important.

Posted by John Emerson | February 13, 2008 3:16 PM

You completely missed her point.

The point is "I wish Obama would stop telling me stuff I don't believe."

And that is precisely what I and a lot of others take issue with. I don't want to hear another stump speech filled with platitudes of "Change" and demonizing "Old Washington".

If he really wanted to "change" "old washington politics" then maybe he would've told John "Don't Taze Me Bro" Kerry, that he was happy for the endorsement, but didn't find it necessary to stump with him.

How in the fuck can you accept Kerry's help, after he let an innocent college student be tazed right before his eyes? Why wouldn't Kerry jump off the stage himself, and stop it? If this isn't "old washington" then what the fuck is?

Talking one thing, saying another. THAT is the problem here.

Posted by Volum | February 13, 2008 3:16 PM

You completely missed her point.

The point is "I wish Obama would stop telling me stuff I don't believe."

And that is precisely what I and a lot of others take issue with. I don't want to hear another stump speech filled with platitudes of "Change" and demonizing "Old Washington".

If he really wanted to "change" "old washington politics" then maybe he would've told John "Don't Taze Me Bro" Kerry, that he was happy for the endorsement, but didn't find it necessary to stump with him.

How in the fuck can you accept Kerry's help, after he let an innocent college student be tazed right before his eyes? Why wouldn't Kerry jump off the stage himself, and stop it? If this isn't "old washington" then what the fuck is?

Posted by Volum | February 13, 2008 3:17 PM

You say if Obama gets behind an idea he can inspire other to follow. Can you give one example, just one?

Yes We Can!

Posted by Daniel Munz | February 13, 2008 3:27 PM

"But without hope, how can there be any desire for change?

But without capacity to make hard choices and work smartly how can there be a desire for change?"

True in the abstract, but since when has Clinton ever shown either of these choices? Her supporters end up granting her the titles "experience" and "results" despite serving in the Senate only 2 years longer than Obama and never showing any results. The best cases are like Linus's above, which point to her failures as a way to steer her towards success. However, running on "I've failed before and someday I might succeed if you give me more power after I backed one of the dumbest wars in American history" isn't exactly a reason to vote for someone. She is looking more and more like an empty suit, which is why she keeps on having to steal Obama's campaign rhetoric.

Posted by Reality Man | February 13, 2008 3:33 PM

I dunno... I guess you can put me down as snorting with derision. Except that I don't expect campaign rhetoric to be particularly truthful; as long as Obama doesn't actually believe what he's saying, it isn't a big problem.

Obama strikes me as a master panderer, almost in Bill Clinton's league. Which isn't a bad skillset for a President.

Posted by AlanC9 | February 13, 2008 4:21 PM

In all of these more or less well-meaning posts, one shines. Dan Kervick, you have some eyes on you and express your thoughts well.
For those still wanting evidence of Senator Obama's likely political capabilities, please look at the results of his campaign effort thus far. Organization of effort, his own and that of many others. Ability to inspire action at the "grass roots" level. The ability to produce positive and successful action from "day one" where previously there was none. All in the face of established adversaries.
What the hell more do you want from a politician? From a man?

Posted by Mark Lough | February 13, 2008 4:32 PM

Daniel your link proves my point. If that is best example you can show, you have nothing.

Posted by phg | February 13, 2008 4:47 PM

Some people, like Obama, actually listen to others with whom they disagree--they realize that people with different values and beliefs are not necessarily morons. It is this kind of leadership that allows us to set aside our ideological blinders and weapons, and inspires.

I hope this snark. You can't really be this full of yourself, can you?

Posted by Exile on Ericsson St. | February 13, 2008 5:09 PM

>but another thing I like about Obama is that Megan's listening to this speech and she doesn't really agree with what he's saying, but she's not snorting with derision

That's okay, there are plenty of us out here snorting with derision and who find Obama as inspiring as the Head On commercials.

There was an actual progressive candidate in the race-his name was Edwards. Now we have to choose between a moderate Democrat and a "visionary" who speaks in cliches. Not a great choice, but I'll take the moderate: at least I can imagine her actually dealing with Congress.

Posted by tdraicer | February 13, 2008 9:14 PM

How in the fuck can you accept Kerry's help, after he let an innocent college student be tazed

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Seriously, that's good spoof.

Posted by Tractarian | February 13, 2008 9:47 PM

Daniel your link proves my point. If that is best example you can show, you have nothing.

So an example of precisely what you asked for an example of doesn't count? Why, too many black people?

But seriously, folks -- what kind of thing *would* satisfy your high standards of evidence?

Posted by Daniel Munz | February 13, 2008 9:54 PM

"You say if Obama gets behind an idea he can inspire other to follow. Can you give one example, just one?"

Sure. Videotaped interrogation legislation in Illinois.

Charlie Peters gives an overview here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/03/AR2008010303303.html

Nickel summery: it became apparent the suspects were being beaten to induce confessions. Obama sponsored a bill that required all interrogations to be videotaped. The cops were against it. Many legislators wouldn't support it for fear of looking soft on crime. Obama was able, after a long and difficult campaign, to get it passed with bipartisan support.

To be sure, all this occurred at the state level, and if you believe that any non-federal experience is essentially meaningless, then this shall not persuade you. I confess that to me it seems many of the skills are the same --- the ability to persuade and to negotiate, to frame an issue and defend your position. The stage is larger, the pressure far greater, but talent will out.

Posted by diablevert | February 13, 2008 9:55 PM

Obama did tradeoffs for that interrogation thing--and we're all still waiting to hear about exactly what it was he promised the cops in exchange for what he wanted (something the WaPo leaves out, sadly). It was that old kind of horsetrading politics he derides so often, you know. He wanted his back scratched, so he scratched theirs.

"even going so far as to help pass other legislation they wanted, he was able to quiet the fears of many."

No one ever says what that other legislation was.

Posted by amberglow | February 13, 2008 10:39 PM

Matt will no doubt approve when Obama "inspires" everyone to get behind sending 160,000 troops to Afghanistan to "finish the fight" there.

Then Matt will no doubt approve when Obama "inspires" everyone to get behind "taking the fight to Al Qaeda" by sending another 100,000 troops across the border into Pakistan - with or without Pakistan's permission.

And finally, after his "inspiring" diplomacy with Iran falls to the floor like a lead weight, no doubt he will "inspire" everyone to get behind a "Coalition of the Willing" to remove Iran as a - perhaps "imminent" - "threat".

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | February 14, 2008 1:25 AM

I got as far as Megan McCArdle, then I stopped reading.
I don't respect her as much as you do, and won't waist time reading her bullshit.

Posted by merlallen | February 14, 2008 3:46 AM

Exactly, amberglow. He practices ordinary politics in ordinary ways, except that he does it well. And if he actually denounces those means, it's only because there are so many people around who eat that rhetoric up.

Posted by AlanC9 | February 14, 2008 3:51 AM

phg, here's another link that details some of Obama's more impressive but lesser-known legislative accomplishments.

Posted by Daniel Munz | February 14, 2008 10:21 AM

"He's the kind of person whose support for an idea makes the idea seem more compelling than it otherwise would have."

This will change very quickly once he's trying to push ideas that arouse serious opposition by powerful interests. Obama's whole schtick is to pretend that he is beyond the dirty and lowly business of politics. But he'll have to condescend to it to get certain things done. And once he does, the claim that he transcends politics and that can unite everyone through polite and inspirational talk will unravel. His whole political capital is such that it can't really be used to get anything done that'll require a real fight. Since he's a smart guy, he knows all of this. Hence, my guess is that he won't actually make any serious attempts at structural reform in a progressive direction should he attain office. He's not going to go to where it'll hurt. Rather, he's going to give the world more of his pompous professorial blather.

Posted by gr | February 14, 2008 10:57 AM

"You can imagine him getting people interested in things that didn't previously interest them..."

That's what is so great about Obama. You can imagine him doing whatever you want. No telling what he will actually do, though.

Posted by kialama | February 14, 2008 11:44 AM

After reading a lot of what's been written in these posts, I am beginning to understand what many conservatives find so maddening about many American liberals. There's no sense of realism. Barack Obama's rhetoric is the anti-thesis of straight talk.

When historians look back on 2008 they might well refer to it as 'The Year of Magical Thinking.'

Posted by Tim K | February 14, 2008 4:14 PM

There has been nobody like him in my (62 year) lifetime! Bobby came close - the difference was that you knew Bobby came from wealth - Obama didn't - so right off the bat he just seems more approachable and knowledgeable about the problems of the average person in the U.S. When you see him in person, if you are lucky enough to shake his hand and speak to him, you can see into his soul the decent honest person in front of you. I don't discount at all his ability to totally change the landscape in DC. I think both the citizens and a lot of the elected officials are sick and tired of business as usual. I think those elected to office are tired of spending most of their time raising money for reelection and want things changed. I think most get into politics for the right reasons.The temptations once in office are just too much for the average person. The money, gifts etc are just too much to refuse - especially when they see all their fellow officials doing the same thing. If we actually have a President who hasn't done these things, who has a transparent administration, I think others will follow his example. I think most want to be proud of their service again - they just need an inspirational leader.
We are so used to being cynical about politics we can't or won't believe that anybody can change that. I believe - I really do. The Obamas (I include Michele in this equation - she is just as impressive as her husband) will change DC - both from the top down and from the bottom up as all of us passionate supporters will stay involved and will do anything to help him accomplish what he has set out for US - he expects us to participate and we will. All you have to see is the reaction of young people when he tells them he will give a $4000 credit each year for their college education but they will have to give back by doing community service or joining the Peace Corp - they cheer like he has told them they have won the lottery!! We the people have been waiting for our leaders to ask something of us - something besides "just go out and shop!!"

Posted by Jayne | February 16, 2008 5:01 PM