Obama '08?

I would think a successful populist needs some personality to go with his ability to take advantage of an issue or two? The Two Americas "one trick" act of Edwards might work better if he was more likeable. Perot was kind of a good ole boy image, with his "Lets look under the hood" motto to use the economy angle that was emphasized in that election. Huckabee has his one liners, but he still needs a good issue or two to ride, and I think he miscalculated in trying to find a good one with accusing Bush of a Bunker mentality. That one may backfire.

The Democrats also would love it to run against Huckabee, because they see lots of possibilities with carving him up, so that is another reason he is able to ride a flash of support as a populist, just my opinion.

0 Replies

I think he's a one-noter: a religionist.

I don't think he qualifies as a populist.

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

I think he's a one-noter: a religionist.

I don't think he qualifies as a populist.

Indeed, Rudy is a one-note man who won't get past florida.

0 Replies

snood wrote:

Hell no.

Do you see Obama as a populist? Or not as a populist, but just not as an anti-populist?

I dunno. Populism in the US has been, what - Teddy Roosevelt; the leftists of LaFollettes third-party Farm/Labor coalition in the 1920s; Henry Wallace's Progressive presidential bid on the left in '48. In a wider definition, it's been Jerry Brown, perhaps, Howard Dean, arguably Ross Perot too, or Ralph Nader.

I see two sides of Obama's campaign that make it the opposite of a populist campaign:

In terms of style: its cerebral quality and valuation of nuance.

Obama doesnt like easy answers; he doesnt even like the whole playing to the people thing. Thats one thing that struck me in the Atlantic profile: how he was well able to do it at the NAACP event, but seemed to pretty much dislike himself for having 'given in' to the coarse tastes of the media and audience afterward.

Obama goes out of his way, as the profile also neatly illustrated, to make sure he tells each core Democratic constituency also what it doesnt want to hear. That they can't get everything they want; that he will take some positions they won't like simply because they make sense; and especially, that any change will be incremental.

All of that bolsters his reputation as a truth-teller and a man of integrity. But it's a far cry from any kind of populist insurrectionism.
In terms of substance: its consistent, even defiant focus on both pragmatism and reconciliation.

Sure Obama has progressive ideals and proposals, but not just does he temper them to take into account what is reasonable and feasible - and take a clearly more cautious interpretation on what is feasible; but he prides himself on it. Chiding Hillary as "polarising" and Edwards as "unrealistic", Obama proudly conceives his presidency as one that will work together with all relevant parties, big business and the like included (see health care); sit around the table and hammer out a pragmatic solutions. Stick to realistic, incremental reform even if the end goal is structural change.

Besides pragmatism, a second main plank of his platform is national unity and reconciliation. Bringing the people together. Republicans and Democrats, blue and red states. Building consensus whereever possible. Returning a respectful tone to the debate, where reasonable people will disagree, but still will have to work together. But populist movements embody insurgencies. "The people versus the powerful" - that's as potent a definition of populism as any. Obama seems to go out of his way to defuse popular anger among Democrats at "the other side", at Republicans, conservatives, and seems to shy away from any encouragement of anger at the rich, big business, financial and power elites.

The main populist element in his campaign I see are the attacks on "Washington politics as usual"; the thing of we the people in the country against the DC elites, in which DC Democrats and Republicans are implicitly rejected alike. But the thing that he attacks reigning "Washington politics" for is purely stylistic: the polarisation, uncivil tones, lack of cooperation. Thats more Bloomberg than LaFollette.

0 Replies

nimh, The reason I read your posts is the above example in which you analyze the current discussion about populist and anti-populist, but aimed at Obama.

I really wish you were an American, because your understanding of our politics exceeds the majority of those we call Americans.

Keep up the good work.

0 Replies

Just here for a second, longer answer later, but quick question... did you ever see my detailed response to the Atlantic article, nimh? I was not impressed with it and explained why at some length.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

I would think a successful populist needs some personality to go with his ability to take advantage of an issue or two? The Two Americas "one trick" act of Edwards might work better if he was more likeable.

Well, whether he is "likable" is a question of opinion. I think he's perfectly likable. Considering his favourability ratings, so do a lot of other people: he's rated about as favourably as Rudy Giuliani, less favourably than Obama but more than Hillary.

But yeah, point granted - Edwards is not the most likely person to spearhead a populist insurgency. He's got that humble origins son-of-a-millworker thing going for him, but he's not exactly got that strong personality, infectious charisma that successful populists usually benefit from.

But then again, perhaps his affable, low-key personality makes the strident progressive themes he pushes more palatable for MOR voters than they were coming from Howard Dean.

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

Just here for a second, longer answer later, but quick question... did you ever see my detailed response to the Atlantic article, nimh? I was not impressed with it and explained why at some length.

Sorry, I did read it, but never got round to answering.

From what I remember though, your problem with the article was about how it described the character of the relationship between Hillary and Obama and the role both played in it; the suggestion that Obama was less than loyal in it. Not about how it portrayed the dynamics of the Obama campaign itself - I dont think you said anything about the large parts of the article that weren't about their relationship, specifically?

I dont actually agree that the article made Obama look bad in its portrayal of the relationship between the two candidates; I think there's a bit of a Rohrshach effect going on in how we read the article (as I predicted already), depending on what things we ourselves feel defensive or eager about. I see how the characterisation of their relationship as a kind of Teacher/Student relationship gone wrong would not lie well with you, but I actually came away with the opposite impression, in terms of whom it ultimately portrayed in a good or a bad light. To me, the description of how things went awry made Hillary sound a lot worse than Obama: the whole impression it gave off of the Hillary campaign feeling it is "entitled" to the Presidency and that Obama is just being "uppity".

But yeah, that's specifically about the part about their relationship. What I thought the profile was very good at was at describing the feelings and perspectives within the Obama camp, in itself. That's the stuff I quoted again here - all the things I excerpted under the header "Obama, a candidate torn between ideals and effectiveness". None of that is about his relationship with Hillary, it's just about him and his campaign. So how does your criticism of the article relate to that?

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

Lash wrote:
I think he's a one-noter: a religionist.

I don't think he qualifies as a populist.
Indeed, Rudy is a one-note man who won't get past florida.

What is Rudy's one-note?

0 Replies

"I'm the hero of 9-11 in NYC."

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

sozobe wrote:
Just here for a second, longer answer later, but quick question... did you ever see my detailed response to the Atlantic article, nimh? I was not impressed with it and explained why at some length.

[...]

So how does your criticism of the article relate to that?

It doesn't really, hence the quick question, longer answer later, etc... I skimmed and saw "Atlantic" and remembered that I'd posted about the Atlantic article at some length but I didn't remember you responding.

I'm still not going to have time to do the thorough response that I want to tonight, but a quickie:

nimh wrote:

Obama doesnt like easy answers; he doesnt even like the whole playing to the people thing. Thats one thing that struck me in the Atlantic profile: how he was well able to do it at the NAACP event, but seemed to pretty much dislike himself for having 'given in' to the coarse tastes of the media and audience afterward.

Context:

Quote:

But Obama seemed to recoil from many of the tasks that have come to be expected of someone serious about running for president. Cerebral and loquacious, given to lengthy disquisitions, Obama chafed at the sound-bite culture of politics and disliked criticizing opponents by name. One day in New Hampshire, caught up in the moment, he called Hillary "Bush-Cheney lite"-a phrase he never again repeated. Occasionally, Obama behaved as if conventional expectations were beneath him and [1]an insult to voters' intelligence. "The one thing I am absolutely certain of," Obama told me, "is that if all I'm offering is the same Democratic narrative that has been offered for the last 20 years, then there's really no point in my running, because Senator Clinton is going to be very adept at delivering that message. What makes it worthwhile for me to run is the belief that we can actually change the narrative and create a working majority that we haven't seen in a very long time-and that, frankly, the Clintons never put together." Though he dislikes cattle-call interest-group forums, he prepared diligently for a June forum on black issues at Howard University in Washington, D.C., understanding that, by dint of his race and life experience, he had a chance to shine. Obama believed he'd excelled during the debate, and was stunned when [2]press coverage focused on a single applause line-from Hillary Clinton. "If HIV/AIDS were the leading cause [of] the death of white women between the ages of 25 and 34, there would be an outraged outcry in this country," she had declared. Obama, by contrast, [3]was chided for his long-winded answers. "He was very, very frustrated," one of his friends recalls.

Two weeks later, at an NAACP forum in Philadelphia, Obama, according to The New Republic's Jonathan Cohn, "played to the crowd." [4]The press rewarded him. A friend e-mailed him a note of congratulations. "Well, but all I did was throw sound bites back at them," Obama wrote back.

I think this passage is clearly about Obama's frustration with the PRESS, not with his frustration with people. Numbers below correspond with numbers I inserted, above.

1.) He doesn't want to insult the intelligence of voters. He thinks voters are intelligent. He'd rather be talking directly to them at all times rather than via the press. Nothing anti-populist here. ("Despise, won't have it," etc.)

2.) Not about people -- about what focus groups thought, or what polls revealed. It's about the press coverage.

3.) In context, also about the press coverage.

4.) In context ("the press rewarded him,") also about press coverage.

He's annoyed that the PRESS likes soundbites and won't report the more nuances stuff. He gets it -- he's willing to do the soundbites if that's what it takes to get the message out to people he can't speak to in person. But this passage is not accurately summarized by saying that he doesnt even like the whole playing to the people thing" or that he was upset about giving in to the coarse tastes of the "audience." I think this is very much about the press. (And it's certainly something we've complained about often enough, starting with the fact that Kerry had way more nuanced and thorough proposals than he was given credit for in the 2004 coverage.)

0 Replies

A lot seemed sloppy in the article btw though I mostly focused on the way the author cherry-picked to get a compelling storyline. This is something else that I find suspect:

Quote:

Though he dislikes cattle-call interest-group forums

Says who? Where does that come from, exactly? In the more recent New Yorker profile, the fact that he really enjoyed talking to people, digging in, learning new stuff (I think the opening anecdote was talking about ethanol with Iowa farmers, I can find it), was a major feature of the article. There was a recent feature about a woman at one of those interest-group forum-type things who talked about having cancer and losing health insurance, with an emphasis on how her story obviously impacted him a lot ("red eyes") etc., etc. I see this stuff all the time.

0 Replies

yeah, Soz,

I guess we are out for Nevada and South Carolina too. Bummer! I was willing to go out in the cold of Iowa...travel from Chicago by car with all my cold weather clothes and emergency road equipment and now....NADA! I joke but my husband is really upset...more than me about the Obama campaign. I say...the thing is too large to comprehend the little stuff! He thinks the right hand should know what the left hand is doing! I don't! Things are WAYYYY beyond that! If I could guess what will happen with Iowa and beyond I would be a soothsayer with ESP and more.

That said... I am committed enough to go to South Carolina and Nevada. I lived near him in Chicago...know him and really care about him.

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

A lot seemed sloppy in the article btw though I mostly focused on the way the author cherry-picked to get a compelling storyline. This is something else that I find suspect:

Quote:
Though he dislikes cattle-call interest-group forums

Says who? Where does that come from, exactly?

That would come from observations like these (also in the article):

Quote:

Indeed, candidate Obama has ignored the old rules. To an audience of Detroit auto executives, for example, he proposed tough new fuel-economy standards. Before black pastors, he spoke about eradicating homophobia from black churches. To the National Education Association, he used a phrase-merit pay-that's practically an epithet. Unlike Clinton, who was solicitous of every conceivable interest group, Obama was selective. He stiffed firefighters in New Hampshire and the AARP in Iowa. He nearly skipped the winter meeting of the Democratic National Committee, which would have been a very big deal (the campaign didn't want to waste money hosting parties for DNC members); in the end, Obama appeared before the jubilantly partisan crowd just long enough to deliver a broadside against partisanship, and left.

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

What is Rudy's one-note?

In the words of Joe Biden, "noun verb 9/11".

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

1.) He doesn't want to insult the intelligence of voters. He thinks voters are intelligent. He'd rather be talking directly to them at all times rather than via the press. Nothing anti-populist here. ("Despise, won't have it," etc.)

I read this differently. What I see him saying here is that he considers the kind of "conventional" appeals politicians engage in as an insult to voters' intelligence - he thinks the voters are more sophisticated than all that. Well, the conventional appeal would be stuff like us vs. them, would be stuff like drawing contrasts with your opponent - the representative of the Democratic DC elite, in this case - as "Bush Cheney lite". Which he did once and then recoiled from, apparently on the principle that voters are sophisticated enough to deserve a more nuanced approach.

But drawing such rhetorical distinctions between us, the people, and them, the establishment, as in "Bush Cheney lite", seems like a pretty credible populist appeal. "Changing the narrative" in the sense of creating a kind of post-partisan "working majority that we haven't seen in a very long time and that the Clintons never put together," on the other hand, well, thats hardly people vs the powerful stuff. Thats more pragmatic Bloomberg type stuff.

"Cerebral," the article called Obama, "given to lengthy disquisitions, [..] chaf[ing] at the sound-bite culture of politics and dislik[ing] criticizing opponents by name". I think that's a fair description, and these things dont actually speak badly of him as a person; but they are pretty hard to reconcile with a populist appeal. Populism that shirks from calling the opponent by name?

sozobe wrote:

I think this passage is clearly about Obama's frustration with the PRESS, not with his frustration with people. [..] this passage is not accurately summarized by saying that he doesnt even like the whole playing to the people thing" or that he was upset about giving in to the coarse tastes of the "audience." I think this is very much about the press.

I dunno about that. Cohn observed that at the NAACP meeting, Obama "played to the crowd" - and that's what got him plaudits; but he himself felt bad about doing that kind of speech, apparently.

I mean, I remember that speech, as in, we talked about it here. You were encouraged by it, posting a glowing review of how, this time, "Obama [..] got off more than a few crisp one-liners while crafting a message that at times elicited thunderous applause that drowned out some of his words".

Note, it was the audience that responded to his one-liners with thunderous applause, and it was that which had the press consequently writing about how "Obama seemed to have found his stride". Yet it was of this performance that Obama wrote a friend who complimented him, "Well, but all I did was throw sound bites back at them."

It's interesting to look at that post in retrospect, having a hint of Obama's own evaluation of his speech. From what the article says, it seems it was one of the more populist speeches I've read of him making. It did reiterate that the insurance and drug companies have to be involved in negotiations, but in the most populist possible phrasing: "In negotiations, it's OK for them to have a seat at the table, but they can't buy every single chair." So it's interesting that he himself thought little of it.

On the same note - and acknowledging that I'm going on just a handful of cited excerpts here - this was the kind of thing in his NAACP speech that got him thunderous applause: "If you are poor in this country, it is hazardous to your health. If you are black and poor, that's downright deadly." Whereas this was the kind of approach he took in the previous June speech at Howard University, which he valued more highly but was labelled a "tepid appearance":

Quote:

Obama continued a balancing act in which he points out the unfairness African Americans face in their daily lives but also criticizes the negative behaviors often found among the impoverished.

"We live in a society that remains separated for opportunities for African Americans, for Latinos," he said. "It is critical for us to recognize that there are going to be [expectations] on the parts of African Americans and other groups to take personal responsibility to rise up out of the problems that we face. ... There has to be a political will in the White House to make that happen. That's the reason why I'm running for president."

Cant get much less populist than that.

So yes - with a big caveat of course that I'm going on snippets here - if the June Howard speech is what his heart lay in, while he considered his NAACP more of a compromise with more vulgar tastes, then yes, I think he doesnt hold much of populism. And I mean, that fits with other things we know of him: that he considers us vs them rhetoric facile, insists on inclusiveness and respect for ambiguities, et cetera.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:
Thomas wrote:
I suspect that you and Krugman merely disagree on your usage of the word "populist". By your standards, is Edwards's platform populist?

It's about as populist as a responsible candidate can get, I suppose.

And in your opinion, how populist is that? Populist enough to belong in the category of what has "historically failed"?

So far, I think Edwards is proving it. Granted, I'm not sure what Krugman meant when he used the term "populist," and if that label can be applied to Teddy Roosevelt and Bob LaFollette (as nimh has done), then I guess it has no meaning left at all. Still, I think Krugman is wrong on this one.

0 Replies

Zogby Poll: Obama Leads Top Republicans

Telephone survey shows fellow Democrats Hillary Clinton and John Edwards would defeat some GOPers, lose to others

UTICA, New York - Illinois Sen. Barack Obama would defeat all five of the top Republicans in prospective general election contests, performing better than either of his two top rivals, a new Zogby telephone poll shows.

His margins of advantage range from a 4 percent edge over Arizona Sen. John McCain and a 5 percent edge over Arkansas' Mike Huckabee to an 18 percentage point lead over Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, the survey shows. Against New York's Rudy Giuliani he leads by 9%, and against Fred Thompson of Tennessee he holds a 16 point edge.

Romney Huckabee Giuliani McCain Thompson
Obama Obama leads 53%-35% Obama leads 47%-42% Obama leads 48%-39% Obama leads 47%-43% Obama leads 52%-36%

The telephone survey included 1,000 likely voters nationwide and carries a margin of error of +/- 3.2 percentage points. The poll was conducted Dec. 12-14, 2007.

Democrat Hillary Clinton of New York would defeat Romney by a narrow 46% to 44% margin and Thompson by a 48% to 42% margin. She would lose to Huckabee 48% to 43%, to Giuliani 46% to 42%, and to McCain by a 49% to 42% margin. The data suggest that Clinton has improved her position slightly. A November Zogby Interactive poll showed her losing by small margins to all five of the top GOP candidates.

Romney Huckabee Giuliani McCain Thompson
Clinton Clinton leads 46%-44% Huckabee leads 48%-43% Giuliani leads 46%-42% McCain leads 49%-42% Clinton leads 48%-42%

Democrat John Edwards of North Carolina would beat Romney, Huckabee, and Thompson, but would lose to Giuliani and McCain, the Zogby survey shows.

Romney Huckabee Giuliani McCain Thompson
Edwards Edwards leads 50%-38% Edwards leads 47%-41% Giuliani leads 45%-44% McCain leads 46%-42% Edwards leads 51%-35%

The performance of the Democratic candidates among independent voters is notable. For instance, Clinton trails Giuliani by one point (43% for Giuliani, 42% for Clinton among independents), but Obama leads Giuliani among independents by a huge 56% to 31% edge. Edwards leads Giuliani, 52% to 38% among independents. Clinton has similar trouble among independents against McCain, in that she trails with 37% support to his 46% support. In a prospective Obama versus McCain match-up among independent voters, Obama leads, 51% to 35%. Edwards and McCain are tied at 42% apiece among independents.

As among independents, Obama is the Democrat moderates like best, but his edge among moderates over Edwards is not nearly as pronounced as with independents. For instance, against McCain, both Edwards and Obama lead, but Clinton loses badly. Obama leads McCain by a 51% to 37% edge, while Edwards leads McCain by a 47% to 41% margin.

Clinton loses to McCain among moderates, with McCain winning 51% and Clinton winning 38%.

In polling stretching back to last year, Zogby International has identified moderates and independents as key voting demographics in the 2008 election cycle.

Among Republicans, McCain performs the best among moderates in the general election match-ups, with Huckabee running a close second. Romney and Thompson run worst - in prospective contests against Obama, the Democrat leads Thompson 59% to 27%, and leads Romney by a 62% to 23% margin. Obama leads all five Republicans among moderates. Against Clinton, McCain and Huckabee lead among moderates, while the Democrat leads the other three Republicans.

For a detailed methodological statement on this poll, please visit:
http://www.zogby.com/methodology/readmeth.dbm?ID=1241

0 Replies

Joe, I love the avatar.

0 Replies

Quote:

The performance of the Democratic candidates among independent voters is notable. For instance, Clinton trails Giuliani by one point (43% for Giuliani, 42% for Clinton among independents), but Obama leads Giuliani among independents by a huge 56% to 31% edge. Edwards leads Giuliani, 52% to 38% among independents. Clinton has similar trouble among independents against McCain, in that she trails with 37% support to his 46% support. In a prospective Obama versus McCain match-up among independent voters, Obama leads, 51% to 35%. Edwards and McCain are tied at 42% apiece among independents.

Describes me almost to a "T" -- right down to the strength of my conviction with the exception of Edwards vs Giuliani where I'm closer to a coin flip.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know