Can Obamaism work?

January 4, 2008

One of the questions surrounding Barack Obama’s style is whether it actually works to “bring people together.” Charles Peters, founder of the Washington Monthly, takes a closer look at how Obama operated as a state legislator, seeing how his tack is applied to real-life example.

Consider a bill into which Obama clearly put his heart and soul. The problem he wanted to address was that too many confessions, rather than being voluntary, were coerced — by beating the daylights out of the accused.

Obama proposed requiring that interrogations and confessions be videotaped.

This seemed likely to stop the beatings, but the bill itself aroused immediate opposition. There were Republicans who were automatically tough on crime and Democrats who feared being thought soft on crime. There were death penalty abolitionists, some of whom worried that Obama’s bill, by preventing the execution of innocents, would deprive them of their best argument. Vigorous opposition came from the police, too many of whom had become accustomed to using muscle to “solve” crimes. And the incoming governor, Rod Blagojevich, announced that he was against it.

Obama had his work cut out for him…. The police proved to be Obama’s toughest opponent. Legislators tend to quail when cops say things like, “This means we won’t be able to protect your children.” The police tried to limit the videotaping to confessions, but Obama, knowing that the beatings were most likely to occur during questioning, fought — successfully — to keep interrogations included in the required videotaping.

By showing officers that he shared many of their concerns, even going so far as to help pass other legislation they wanted, he was able to quiet the fears of many.

Obama’s bill passed 35 to 0. Blagojevich didn’t want to sign it; Obama convinced him to do it anyway, and in the process, Illinois became the first state in the country to require the videotaping of interrogations and confessions.

OK, but that’s the State Senate. Has the same approach worked in DC? Actually, yes.

But getting back to Springfield, Kevin questioned how hard a fight it could have been if the bill actually passed without a single vote in opposition. One of his commenters explained:

It was fought tooth and nail Kevin. The cops and prosecutors were adamantly against it for some time including the Democratic Cook County Prosecutor.

I swore reform was dead after the commutations, Obama pulled it off. It was an incredible sight.

The end result was truly amazing. The police groups hated the idea and they hated racial profiling legislation — he passed both without angering them, but by working with them, listening, and showing good faith. I never thought it would pass with Democratic State’s Attorneys opposing it, strongly even — but he pulled everyone along and did it pretty quickly.

I know sometimes the claims sound too good to be true, but he is truly an amazingly talented politician with the right values. I like the other candidates, but every time I’ve seen him underestimated, he pulls out a victory whether it be electoral or policy.

Seeing all of this, Atrios added:

In all my dealings with Obama people, as well as the man himself, there’s always been this sense that they’re constantly telling people, “Trust us. We’ve thought this through. We know what we’re doing. It’ll work. Yes we understand that you’re uncomfortable with this, or that you think it’s wrong, but really we know what we’re doing.”

And then those of us in the cheap seats think that there’s no way all of those new/young voters show up to vote in Iowa, that Obama’s inclusive rhetoric doesn’t have the appeal he imagines, etc.. etc… And then he pulls it off. Maybe he does know what he’s doing.

There may be a method to the “consensus-building” madness? Maybe so.

You don’t get to be president of the Harvard Law Review by being an idiot. Since he’s not an idiot, he’s either very smart or very lucky, and it doesn’t look like luck to me. So all that leaves is the character issue. As for his that, how can you be a community organizer when you could be a rich lawyer* and have bad character?

I think I can trust the guy to do the right things.

* Not that there’s anything wrong with being a rich lawyer!

  • Hey Lance, follow the link above to hilzoy (“Has the same approach worked in DC? Actually, yes.”) and your questions will be answered. Mine certainly were. In spades.

  • Thanks for this post.

    And now ask yourself…
    What’s the biggest problem facing humanity and various other species?
    Everyone reading this here is super educated.
    Clearly the answer for most of us is Global Warming.

    Now ask yourself which of the candidates can possible build consensus on this issue?
    To do so is going to take heaps of charisma.
    Heaps of good faith.
    And heaps of good honest sense.

    Really there is only one choice here: Barack Obama.
    I hate to say it, but Oprah was right in so many words: It’s now or never.
    Or… to paraphrase another great performer:
    If not now… then when?

  • Triangulating and compromise. Both things progressives hate. Of course part of the answer is that a lot of progressives really need to grow up a little. The question is, will they?

  • Consensus building works when there’s a certain amount of good faith on all sides of an issue or problem. The Rethugs, however, have shown more interest in pure obstructionism for ideological reasons than for getting anything done. If Obama can break the lockstep loyalty of the Rethugs to their blind, deaf and dumb leadership he will be a genuine American hero. How he will insert a spine, however, into the Dim-Dem congressional leadership is an operation I definitely want to watch up close.

    Let us remember, however, that this is still AmeriKKKa.

  • The Obama “win” in Iowa only proves there are suckers born every minute.

    Jesus, people, get the eff real: This guy cannot win shit in a general election. There are millions and millions of morons in this country, and not all of them have voted for Bush. There are scads of morons who will vote for somebody hyped in the media as the political American Idol.

    I for one will not vote for this piece of shit candidate in the general election, should he get the nomination. I will write in Edwards’ name, and my conscience is clear. I will NOT aid and abet the Republican-owned media in their attempt for foist a ringer on us Democrats. Even if that means the inevitable Republican landslide.

  • Yeah, Obama IS an idiot. So fucking what if he was editor of the law review at Harvard. Guess what? There are morons in the Ivy League schools. Take a look at Bush for one.

    You Obama supporters don’t know shit about your candidate.

  • The truth is that Obama is playing the game on a much higher field than everyone else.
    The bloggers are looking for someone to pander to them and tell them what they want to hear. John Edwards does that. Notice how he jumped onto the Natalie story in his concession speech. Obama rejects all that. He’s more concerned about doing what it takes to win in November.

  • For some time now I’ve seen Hillary as too much of a divider — just what we DON’T need in the White House. And I’ve worried about her scripted campaigning being too much like Bush’s “Supporters Only” campaign events. But, I’ve grudgingly bought into to the whole inevitability thing.

    But deep down, I do want someone who at least gives the illusion of being able to speak from the heart. I do want someone who isn’t changing his/her mind every couple of days or couching every idea with safetalk. I do want someone who seems more than competent on the world stage. I do want someone who walks and talks like a leader of the free world, who can ignite and inspire and elevate, who thinks and acts inclusively, not for show, but for sure. I do want someone who, by simply opening his/her mouth, can make me feel this nation isn’t just a greedy trawler of drunken, lusty, filthy pirates.

    And all of the sudden I’m thinking Obama could be the one. I know I’m not talking about policies here, just impressions. And that’s dangerous. But for the last seven years one jackass has made a mockery of democracy. I’m tired of living in a shitty America. And having a president who can make a decent impression is a pretty good start.

  • How he will insert a spine, however, into the Dim-Dem congressional leadership is an operation I definitely want to watch up close.

    Rich, it pains me to say this at this early point in the process being a Clinton supporter, but part of me thinks the best thing that could happen is if Biden, Dodd and Clinton were to take what they have heard our traveling America, take the skills they have honed on the trail, take the organization and goodwill and go back to the Senate with an intense new resolve to absolutely lead that body, come hell or high water; that the three of them would be the pillars of the Democratic agenda in that body and use their combined abilities to prevent the Republicans from running the show from the minority.

    It is going to take more than one person, even if people seem to think Obama has superpowers, to find and unwind all of the damage BushCo has done. We need solid, skilled champions in every corner of the political apparatus – those three would serve the country well to fill that role in the Senate.

  • Friends of mine in Illinois tell me Obama is the most discipline,d, organized guy they ever saw, and his oorganization works the same way. I think we all saw last night that this is true. As someone who worked in professional politics, organization and discipline and vision are EVERYTHING.

  • Susan Nunes,

    I support Edwards too, but damned if most of his other supporters are nasty pieces of work like you, I’ll rethink that vote. Obama is a good man. I just don’t necessarily think he is the best candidate.

  • No doubt Obama is a charismatic guy and charisma goes a long way in getting people to work with you. The other half of the picture is who are you trying to get to work with you. The Republicans in Congress who have spent the last two years simply saying “no” to everything need to go. This fall’s election is their accountability moment too. Getting every Republican currently in Congress out of office this fall will give whomever clinches the nomination and the presidency a better to chance to accomplish something, anything. This is something we all need to get to work on.

  • After reading the ObWi article, let me just note that anyone who can find a way to craft halfway decent legislation and get a feckless unprincipled idiot like Coburn on board deserves some serious kudos. I still get a little nervous about people who talk consensus with all the bad blood in the air, but seriously, if you can build something worthwhile with Coburn, you can build something worthwhile with anyone.

  • Hey, I share Obama’s dream too. I want a change in Washington and believe in a united, United States. I also am a great public speaker and am a nice, friendly person. I have about as much executive experience as Obama (International business for ten years). Why don’t you people elect me as the democratic candidate? Seriously, why does Obama get a pass on credentials? Would you want an inexperienced co-pilot to fly your plane with you on it in a storm? Would you let a junior resident doctor operate on your child, even if he was nice, charismatic and you trusted he wanted to do a good job? I wouldn’t.

  • Why does anyone believe that Obama can build consensus in national politics? He hasn’t even established a voting record in the Senate. Consensus doesn’t mean you have no opinion, Mr. Obama, it means you have an opinion and you try to convince others you are correct while listening to their side of things too. In consensus building,the first thing to do is establish your position. doing this is to cast a vote, yes or no, on issues being voted on in the Senate. Voting present doesn’t count as a position, Mr. Obama. Why does you, Mr. Obama, get a pass on credentials and experience? His piddly resume of national service is a joke in comparison to other democrats. When it comes to the election, how would Obama compare to the Republicans? Even that clown Huckabee has been a Governor.

  • Amy Parsons,

    Look at W’s cabinet in 2001. Plenty o’ experience. And look where its gotten us. I’ll take vision and leadership over cheney and rumsfield “experience”

  • To Amy Parsons and Lance, both of whom suggest that Barack Obama has no legislative record that they know of…

    Um. The article to which you left your comments contains a link to a 2006 article – yes, dated – that includes a pretty detailed list of what Senator Obama had done in Washington. And that article is more than one year old. With minimal research (I am only now beginning to take a serious look at Obama), I have a feeling the list can be updated. But you can click the link for a start.

  • To add to Edo’s comment, @20

    Not only W’s *cabinet* had experience — he himself had been a governor. Experience, by itself, is a useless piece of crap, if you’re too stupid to learn on the go. If you never learn anything from your “experience”, you’re sentenced to repeating the same mistakes, ad nauseam; you stay the course, even if it leads down the cliff, at high speed.

    My husband’s one of those who keeps pounding on Obama’s “lack of experience” (makes for interesting conversations at the dinner table); he doesn’t think a couple of years in the (US) Senate and several in the *State* (sneer) legislature is worth squat, because only executive, “managerial” experience counts. But… W’s had “executive experience”, Huckster has had “executive experience”… And, still, they’re both dim bulbs; neither of them is more than 5 Watt or so.

    jen, @15,

    My guess is that the only reason Susan (@9 &10) would write in Edwards is not that she’s an Edwards supporter but that no one in her own party excites her enough. If Obama is the Dem nominee, writing Edwards in is equivalent to writing Mickey Mouse in — something that several of my Repub acquaintances did in ’04, out of sheer frustration.

  • Well, I see we have some classy new posters here, whom I’m sure have won a lot of people over with their eloquent, respectful and positive statements.

    Then again, it probably stands to reason that Obama-haters wouldn’t tumble to the whole government-works-better-when-you’re-engaged-in-attempted-persuasion thing.

    The single thing I hate most about Bush is that he’s been exclusively the president of those who supported him–the president of the Republicans, and at this point the president of the 30-odd percent. The more I read the supposedly progressive blogs, though, the harder it becomes to escape the conclusion that many who post on these sites want precisely that–except the guy or gal is on your “team.”

    This is no way to run a democracy. The point of Peters’ article is that Obama not only talks about taking on difficult political fights, but has fought and won them–unlike Edwards, whom I respect but who did very, very little of consequence other than push himself forward for the vice-presidential bid in 2000 and then start running for president a year later, and Clinton, who might have worked hard on useful things like streamlining the adoption process but has never, EVER shown the least bit of political courage.

    Obama’s tough–based on the records, he’s easily the toughest Democrat left in the field.

  • Based on what, CalD?

    Her courageous and foresighted Iraq vote?

    Her principled leadership on telecom immunity, or pushing back against the Bush economic agenda, or filibustering right-wing judges?

    The yes vote on Kyl-Lieberman?

    Her strong stand with Rick Santorum against video-game violence?

    Arguing not to settle with Paula Jones in 1996? (That worked out great!)

    Keeping the details of the health care commission secret from the Democratic congressional managers who were going to have to carry the ball in the 103rd Congress? (Another example of her superb judgment!)

    Not castrating Slick Willie after the evidentiary fruits of that bad Jones decision ripened?

    Show me a single example of anything even slightly contentious on which Hillary Clinton has led. I don’t think you can, because she never has. Her “experienced and ready on day one” shtick is the biggest crock this side of 9iu11iani; she’s got the same kind of claim on national political leadership that Chauncey Gardener had in “Being There.” She, too, was There.

    I keep waiting to get an answer, and it’s already been eighteen months so I’m not too optimistic anymore, to one question: why, other than simple I-want-this, is Hillary Clinton running for president? And I’ll throw in a second question, also unanswered thus far: what possible claim would she have if she weren’t a Clinton (which IMO is totally meaningless) or a she (which I do credit, though I have to wonder how much of a triumph for feminism it would be to have the first female president the wife of a former president)?

  • I’ve seen “Obamaism” work lots of times.
    Problem was charm was used to pass bad trade agfreements and wars.
    We were told to trust the charming people and that they sympathzied but knew what they were doing.

    It’s great to know the same techniques can be used to do GOOD things.

  • i dunno, dajafi, that it is particularly fair (and it comes off more than a little like she is being penalized for her marriage, which is uniquely anti-woman candidate) to say she wouldn’t be where she is without being married to Bill. near as i can tell from what has been said and written, because he was more gregarious and ambitious, he did the political thing – but going back to when they were first starting out, by all accounts that could just as easily have been her. but women weren’t exactly ideal candidates for much in Arkansas at the time.

    but to address your assertion more directly, it seems she has pretty traditional experience for a presidential candidate: she is a re-elected US Senator – a very common path, one often taken post-reelection when you’ve given one full term to your state and your seat is in a safe year. In this regard, she has the same or more experience, certainly in the US Senate, than both Obama and Edwards, and dozens before them.

    So you may argue she never would have been a Senator but for being married to Bill. Again, I say “why not?” Before running for US Senate, she had been in leadership in a major progressive advocacy organization (Childrens Defense Fund), she had been staff counsel in Congress (during Watergate), and was not only a lawyer, but was in National Law Journal (or American Layer, I cant recall which) Top 100 Lawyers in America list. That strikes me as pretty common, and perhaps towards the higher end, of experience for US Senators. Yeah, many of them stop at the state legislature or US House first, but certainly not all. It seems the main criteria anymore is to be a lawyer first – and usually not in the Top 100.

    the First Lady stuff (and her book, etc.) are icing both as experience and selling points/name ID, but it seems pretty unfair to suggest that she would never be where she is without Bill when her background removing Bill is identical to probably half of the Senate and is now comparable to half of the Presidential candidates in the past 20 years.

  • NObamaism! It could work, but for the sake of the country, I have the audacity to hope it won’t work. I’m no hate spewer. I’m a dem, black, female, educated, voter, under 30. I can’t support NObama.

  • Dajafi,

    Based on the voting on Kyl-Lieberman for one thing. Now you and I both know this isn’t about video games. I also know there are still a few folks out there too dim to understand that for the Democrats in Congress — with the possible exception of that other great decrier of “partisanship,” Joe Lieberman — the AUMF Iraq was an attempt to slow down a march to war, not start one, and the George W. Bush rushed into war in spite of the provisions of that resolution, not because of them. I also imagine that people haven’t figured that out by now, probably never will.

    So burn Hillary Clinton in effigy along with everyone else who voted for the resolution if it makes you feel any better. But from what we’ve recently learned of Barack Obama’s record when it comes to voting on potentially career-threatening legislation, if he had been in the US Senate when that resolution came up for a vote, I’d have to call it at even odds that he would have had the flu that day.

  • I have serious reservations that as someone posted the other day (perhaps here) about Obama, “He can’t nice people to death.” How do you meet halfway the Republican opposition that in it’s current form takes the axiomatic position that government is the problem, that government is to be reduced to the point where it can be drowned in the bathtub, whose ears are only atuned to the wishes of wealthy corporations? How do find common ground with those who favor above all loyalty to Bush, a president whose entire time in office has been spent pursuing winning on his terms alone? How do you find common ground with a Party that doesn’t object to attacking our freedoms under the false premise that denying those freedoms are simply the cost of keeping us safe? How do you find common groud with a Party that has demonstrated a continuing failure in upholding any vestige of accountability for the corruption and failures of this administration. I believe Edwards is entirely on the mark when he says that we won’t see an America where all voices are heard and the notion of the common good is restored unless we fight to take it back. It won’t be handed over willingly, and it won’t be easy. Obama may be an inspirational speaker, but he will need to demonstrate the spine to challenge entrenched power and win. It’s good to inspire hope, but hope itself is not a plan for success.

  • Getting back to the topic at hand though (sorry, I’ll try to keep it short), someone the other day brought up LBJ in a discussion about Barack Obama and it makes for some interesting comparisons. When it came to moving legislation, Lyndon Baynes Johnson was among the most formidable deal-makers, arm twisters, movers and shakers the US Senate ever knew. His accomplishments in over 20 years in the House and Senate included Medicare and Medicaid and important legislation on civil rights, education, economic opportunity and urban renewal.

    But as president he still managed to escalate our involvement in the tiny southeast Asian nation’s civil war from a handful of military advisers JFK had sent there into a conflict that saw half a million US service personnel in country at its peak and claimed the lives of over 90,000 US soldiers and 1,000,000 Vietnamese. It wasn’t because he was a bad person. It wasn’t because he wanted war. It wasn’t because he was too “divisive” or lacked “judgment.” It was mainly because as much as he may have known domestic policy inside out, when it came to foreign policy and national security, he was a relative neophyte who became a captive of his own cabinet and advisers because he lacked a broad perspective of his own.

    So I guess maybe Barack Obama is right. There probably is such a thing as the right kind of experience and the wrong kind of experience. To that I would just add that there’s also a lot more to being president than raw political talent and legislative deal-making skills.

  • Fortunately for this nation, the incredibly dense, moronic, and “vocabularianism-challenged” howler monkeys such as the cracked-beyond-repair, irreversibly-clogged toilet bowl found lurking within posts #9 and #10 constitutes a squeamishly-minute percentage of the electorate. If Edwards welcomes the support of such a used piece of toilet paper, then he is welcome to it. His has-been, recycled campaign is steaming at a crippled pace for a great big brick wall.

    So Suze—you actually liked his answers on Countdown the other night? You actually have the unmitigated gall to stand before intelligent people and declare unwavering allegiance to canned rhetoric and recycled spewage that’s been rehearsed by a candidate with more handlers than Saddam Hussein could even imagine? Edwards is about as real as Judas Joe Lieberman; his investment-company friends are not going to carry him through to victory, and neither are nattering fools like you.

    He’s a washout. Moving on now, with the rest of the nation….

  • 1-I suggest everyone (Obama supporters included) ignore the baseless claims about Obama’s “lack of substance” or “lack of a record” in the comments section to a post detailing his substantial record both at the Federal and State levels of gov’t.

    2-As has been explained multiple times now, by Mark Schmitt at the American Prospect, by Ezra Klein, by Matt Yglesias, by Obama himself, when he talks about reasoning with Republicans, what’s he’s talking about his reasoning with Republican voters. You win your base, and kill with Independents, and siphon support away from the opposition base, and make significant gains in both the House and Senate…and every GOPers in purple or blue states will be scared shitless of going against you. With ~55 seats in the Senate, you’re looking at maybe needing to peel off 4 or 5 GOPers. That’s not implausible if the conditions I described hold.

    There’s no other way to pass major progressive legislation. Period. Its funny that those trying to snidely disregard Obama’s approach as “naive” have yet to offer a concrete way “fighting” will get anything done. Unless the Dems have 60 votes in the Senate (and guess what, no matter who’s at the top of the ticket, that’s not happening), they’re going to need most likely 3-6 GOPers to vote for cloture for their bills.

    So, what do you think will resonate more with voters to get you those big numbers you need behind you? So far, Obama’s got pretty good evidence his rhetoric and approach will get him big numbers; Clinton and Edwards, not so much. Obama won in Iowa among self-described “liberal” Democrats, “somewhat liberal” Democrats, “moderate Democrats”, self-identified “independents” and self-identified “Republicans”

    That’s how you build an electoral mandate.

    So what do you think works better for peeling them away? Increasing the partisan atmosphere? It seems almost plainly obvious to me that such a strategy encourages more adherence to party line voting, not less. Meanwhile, you come in having co-opted the language of bipartisanship to mean “whatever the fuck i say it is”, and you have a lot of clout with the public to get passed what you want. And you get that clout in part by recognizing the concerns of not just the base, but Indies and moderates too (oh noes! republican talking points!)

    And of course, lastly, any good tactic of persuasion uses both carrots and sticks. We’ve gone through the “sticks”: you kill them at the polls, you take more seats in both houses, you co-opt the language of bipartisanship in favor of your agenda, and you shrink their base by siphoning their moderates.

    The carrots? By using their language, you give them political coverage when they defect from the party line. “Hey, its not like we’re capitulating to some liberal firebrand…its the totally reasonable Obama. This isn’t ‘socialized medicine’, its just a massive gov’t run public insurance market! Totall not the same”

    This won’t make the entire GOP party swoon and turn into good-faith negotiators. But you get the entire country behind you, put them in an incredibly vulnerable position, and start from a position of negotiation strength that puts pressure on them to actually act in good faith and go after their 4 or 5 must vulnerable members.

    That’s how you do it.

    No amount of “experience working the levers in washington” can help you manufacture 60 votes in the senate. No (possibly-empty) threats of taking away Congress’ healthcare can manufacture 60 votes. The only thing that can do it is massive electoral pressure.

    The suggestion that anything but electoral pressure can do it is what strikes me as naive

  • Zeitgeist and CalD,

    Your responses were reasonable and well thought out as always, and effective at poking through the weak points in my arguments. Both of you are a credit to your candidate–not something I would say of many Clinton supporters (though more here than anywhere else I’ve looked; CB draws a class crowd).

    But I still don’t see either why Hillary Clinton is running for president, or where she’s ever led on an issue even as “tough” as the one Peters wrote about in regard to Obama’s work to stop police beatings of suspects.

    In all sincerity, if you’ve got responses, I’d like to read them.

  • But I still don’t see either why Hillary Clinton is running for president

    Same reason anyone does – to fulfill a desire they’ve had since kindergarten. 🙂

  • Clever.

    So… you don’t know either. 😉

    Seriously though, you can divine a rationale for every other major candidate, save one, still in the race:

    Obama: post-partisan reconciliation, change the conversation from the Boomer Wars
    Edwards: economic security for the middle class, moral crusade against poverty
    Richardson (remember him?): experience counts, and I’ve got more of it than anyone

    Giuliani: CRAP YOUR PANTS! THE MUSLIMIACS ARE COMING! (And did I mention 9/11?)
    Thompson: My wife really, really, really wants to be First Lady, and I more or less want to keep nailing my wife
    Huckabee: let’s try compassionate conservatism with someone who’s actually compassionate and might be competent
    McCain: “national greatness conservatism” (NB: this was also his rationale in 2000)

    The other candidate who has no clear rationale is Romney. You can gin up answers for both of them; for Clinton, it’s “I’m a woman, and I’m a Clinton, and for Romney it’s “‘It slices! It dices! It can even peel a tomato–what do I have to do to get you in my camp today?”

    But those are both about who they are, not about what they want to do. I honestly have no idea what Hillary wants to do–why she’s running. And with the exception of George H.W. Bush in 1988, I’m hard pressed to think of a candidate in modern times who’s won without providing an answer to that question.

  • dajafi, i suspect (although in the current climate she could never say it this way) that her rationale is actually pretty simple and similar in formulation to the others you list.

    “Clintonism worked – for putting the party in the Presidency, and for improving the country when compared to GHWBush – and the way to restore those gains, both political and substantive is, obviously, to put a Clinton back in the WH.”

    (Although the woman part surely needs worked into there as well.)

    Which just leaves Mittens, and the best he can come up with is:

    “Ive bought everything else, all that’s left is the WH.”

  • Okay, but that’s still an identity argument: “I’m a woman, and I’m a Clinton.”

    By contrast, Obama’s race has little to do with why he’s in–which isn’t to say it isn’t a factor one way or another (looks like a strength right now, if anything).

    Also, your point that “Clintonism worked–for putting the party in the Presidency, and for improving the country when compared to GHWBush…” is really problematic for her this year. For one thing, there’s debate over what “Clintonism” means; if you haven’t done so, I strongly commend Matt Bai’s piece in the NYT Sunday magazine a few weeks ago.

    My personal take (strongly informed by Bai’s analysis, though he doesn’t articulate this conclusion) is that Clintonism circa 2008 is a lot different from Clintonism circa 1992-93. At that time, Bill was Obama: he was running against an entrenched political orthodoxy, with new ideas that were politically courageous and designed to appeal to indies and sensible Republicans. It was audacious–and effective, certainly for winning in that weird year.

    After ’94, though–after Hillary’s stunning mismanagement of health care reform, which IMO would have passed if she had brought in the congressional sachems earlier–“Clintonism” transmuted into “Pennism/Morrisism”… the focus on small-bore initiatives, the embrace of triangulation and the retreat from big ideas and policy specificity. And during his second term, of course, the Republicans’ feverish attacks on Bill made “Clintonism” synonymous with Democratic partisanship; even those of us who weren’t totally enamored of Bill and deplored his irresponsibility (not for the sexcapades themselves, though that was deplorable enough–but because all the possible good of his second term was unnecessarily sacrificed on the altar of his political survival) came to hate his enemies so much that defending him felt like a task of honor.

    This is a long way of saying that I don’t think “Clintonism” looks like a very attractive commodity these days. And that doesn’t even include the obvious truth that she’s nowhere near the political salesperson Bill was.

  • And now ask yourself… What’s the biggest problem facing humanity and various other species? Everyone reading this here is super educated. Clearly the answer for most of us is Global Warming.

    Well, we’ll leave aside that super educated assumption. I, too, believe that Obama probably has the greatest consensus-building skills of all of them, which is why I so desperately wanted to offer him my upcoming book containing an actual plan (technology, economics, politics, etc) to eliminate anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. Sad to say, I don’t believe he ever got a chance to look at it. Despite extensive communication with his energy and environmental policy advisors, it got no farther. They aren’t scientists, they’re political junkies, and it seems their advice consists mainly of telling Obama what they think people want to hear. Is that sensible in the case of such a serious set of issues? I suppose it can be argued that it is, and that his success so far vindicates those advisors’ decision. I’m hardly objective in my opinion that embracing an actual solution instead of the wishy-washy pie in the sky smorgasbord approach that he and the other Dems offer would have boosted his campaign even more. It was extremely frustrating, though, to have an actual solution not even presented to the man himself. My consolation is that if he gets the nomination he’ll be exposed to it before the election because the book will be out before next November. I’m hoping he’ll be the president to make it happen.

    • Comments are closed.