Obama at NC Central in Durham

Ah, the promise -- and the frustration -- of Barack Obama's presidential campaign. I saw him speak at North Carolina Central University this afternoon to a multi-ethnic crowd of several thousand people who paid $15-$25 just to hear him speak. And he delivered -- as expected, Obama is funny, dynamic, and moving on the stump.

But, as always, I have the same two objections. First, Obama will not let the goo-goo dream die. He said the reason he ran for president is to "change politics" -- a goal that is, frankly, absurd and borders on the anti-democratic. The forces driving the trend toward increased partisanship won't go away if he's elected. Consider the only time in recent memory that the two parties "got along" and "worked together" -- the aftermath of 9/11. During that period, President Bush's high approval ratings silenced dissent among Democrats, providing the context for approval of the resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq in fall 2002. It's not a great model.

I was also frustrated at Obama's continued reluctance to go after Hillary Clinton directly on issues -- a theme I've mentioned before (here, here, and here). Despite the local paper's claim that Obama "[hammered] away at both President Bush and his chief rival, U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton, on the Iraq war," I only heard him say her name when criticizing her vote on the resolution labeling Iran's Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. It's a start, but not enough. I know he's reluctant to go after her in front of Democratic audiences, but this is primary season.

The best way to square the circle is to link Obama's desire to change politics with Hillary's negatives, which, he could argue, will prevent us from making progress on issues. Wouldn't this be a more effective argument than what he said at the debate?

Senator Clinton has served our country and our party with distinction for more than two decades, but we can't move forward on the issues that matter to this country if she is the Democratic nominee. Like it or not, the baggage she brings with her into the race will mire us in the tired politics of the 1990s, make it harder to take back the White House, and prevent us from making progress on issues like health care and energy independence. I ask Democrats to give me the chance to start a new political era in this country.

Comments are open.

Update 11/4 1:51 PM: I should note that Obama came reasonably close to this pitch during an exchange with Hillary at the end of the most recent Democratic debate

One last point I want to make: Part of the reason that Republicans, I think, are obsessed with you, Hillary, is because that's a fight they're very comfortable having. It is the fight that we've been through since the '90s. And part of the job of the next president is to break the gridlock and to get Democrats and independents and Republicans to start working together to solve these big problems, like health care or climate change or energy.

And what we don't need is another eight years of bickering. And that's precisely why I'm running for president. Because one of the things I've been able to do throughout my political career is to bring people together to get things done.

More of this please.

Comments

[Howard]

Sounds like you should go work on the Obama campaign...

By the way, that's different than "attacking Clinton" as you've phrased it before. This is more saying "we need change - in both parties - and I'll be more effective in that role."

That may be a good posture to take in a campaign but how real is it ? If, as you say, partisanship isn't going to diminish how does Obama better deal with it ? Or do you think it is simply a better strategy for galvanizing voters ?

[Dave White]

I think you may be misreading what Obama means by a "change in politics" because what he's talking doesn't seem to be that different from your own goals in Spinsanity or on this blog.

He talks in The Audacity of Hope of being "convinced that whenever we exaggerate or demonize, oversimplify or overstate our case, we lose...It is such partisanship that have turned Americans off." In other words, claiming "dissent is treason" or using an airline worker's post-9/11 suicide to bash President Bush is the sort of partisan maneuvering he's hoping to move away from.

I have never seem him claim that political disagreement is somehow bad, or really anything like it (usually I hear just the opposite). His book even provided a pretty spot-on criticism of Lieberman-style "bipartisanship", something that can often "come to mean getting chronically steamrolled, although individual senators may enjoy certain political rewards by consistently going along with the majority and hence gaining a reputation for being a 'moderate' or 'centrist'."

[Dave White]

Consider the only time in recent memory that the two parties "got along" and "worked together" -- the aftermath of 9/11.

One other thing...

I know it generally goes unremarked, but I don't necessarily think this is true. Just this morning 17 Republican Senators joined just about all of the Democrats to pass increased funding for S-CHIP.

Bush will obviously veto, and the petty partisan smear jobs will be launched from either side ("Bush hates adorable children" vs. "that 12 year old boy is an opportunistic liar") but that doesn't change the fact that a large, filibuster-proof group of Senators form both parties did indeed just "work together" to pass a bill meant to deal with a real problem.

Take out the unnecessary smear jobs, and I think this is the political utopia Obama is dreaming about on the stump.

[Rob]

Brendan noted that the crowd at the Obama event was "multi-ethnic." I would have thought that in 2007 pretty much any Democratic fundraiser or rally in the Raleigh-Durham area would be multi-ethnic. Was there something particular about the venue or the circumstances that made this noteworthy?

[Ben]

I think the quote you provide shows Obama actually making the point you wish he would make; he's just making it more artfully, in the form of an insinuation.

The meaning is still clear (to me, and I think to many others as well): If Hillary is elected, she won't be allowed to get anything done because 1) the media will return to the "Clinton Rules", and 2) the GOP will filibuster everything to score points with their own partisans.

I'm not convinced she can win the whole enchilada, but I do think both those points are not necessarily fixed in stone. The media seem to be emerging from their slumber (or is it a hangover?) that made them behave so terribly in the '90s and so impotent after 9/11. And the GOP will be less of a problem when, as expected, their Congressional minorities shrink further in Nov 2008.

[Caro]

Brendan, the Democrats started caving to Bush before 9/11.

And Ben, the GOP won't be "less of a problem" until Democrats start fighting for us and our issues as strongly as Republicans fight for the privileges of the wealthy.

Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com