Category: Barack Obama (’04-’08)

Times for a Change.

“The U.S. senator from Illinois distinguishes himself as an inspiring leader who cuts through typical internecine campaign bickering and appeals to Americans long weary of divisive and destructive politics. He electrifies young voters, not because he is young but because he embodies the desire to move to the next chapter of the American story. He brings with him deep knowledge on foreign relations and on this nation’s particular struggles with identity and opportunity. His flair for expression, both in print and on the stump, too easily leads observers to forget that Obama is a man not just of style but of substance. He’s a thoughtful student of the Constitution and an experienced lawmaker in his home state and, for the last three years, in the Senate.“

The Los Angeles Times endorses Barack Obama for president. “In the language of metaphor, Clinton is an essay, solid and reasoned; Obama is a poem, lyric and filled with possibility. Clinton would be a valuable and competent executive, but Obama matches her in substance and adds something that the nation has been missing far too long — a sense of aspiration.“

C’mon aboard, you won’t hurt the horse.

It’s the Friday before Super Tuesday, and no Edwards and no Gore…yet (and neither look to be choosing before Tuesday, if at all.) But some other big endorsements for Obama this morning:

  • Move On votes to endorse Obama, and will encourage its 1.7 million members in Super Tuesday states to follow suit. The movement said recently they’d back a primary candidate if two-thirds of their members agreed on one. “The vote favored Senator Obama to Senator Clinton by 70.4% to 29.6%.” Says Obama: “In just a few years, the members of MoveOn have once again demonstrated that real change comes not from the top-down, but from the bottom-up…I thank them for their support and look forward to working with their members in the weeks and months ahead.“

  • The California SEIU, 650,000 strong, has switched from Edwards to Obama. “Obama’s pledge to ensure working families have a strong voice, that health care is not a luxury and that our children are given the tools to succeed best represents the values that our members care about,” said Annelle Grajeda, president of the SEIU California State Council.“

  • CT Rep. Rosa DeLauro endorses Obama tomorrow, which is a big deal because she’s higher-profile in DC than most (her husband is also former Clinton pollster Stan Greenberg.) That being said, Connecticut’s biggest prize, Chris Dodd, is announcing today that he staying neutral.

  • Perhaps eyeing a Harlem rout for Obama, Charlie Rangel’s wife, Alma Rangel, endorses Obama for president. “I believe Barack Obama has the ability to unify this country and the character to stand up for what’s right instead of what’s popular. Barack is a man of principle, a man whose faith in the greatness of our nation gives us hope, showing us what’s possible if we work together.“

  • ABT principal ballerina Gillian Murphy endorses Obama for president. Good goin’, little sis.

  • The Yale Daily News foregoes their famous alumni and — like the Harvard Crimson — decides to back Obama. “[T]he time has come to abdicate Yalie rule over America, at least for now…An Obama presidency promises a reassertion of the natural, American optimism for which JFK stood, but also new reforms of which he could only have dreamt. Let us not let this moment slip away.“

  • George Clooney, already an Obama backer, speaks well of his candidate, but seems gunshy to stump for him (for legitimate reasons).

  • California’s Asianweek backs Obama: “A native Hawaiian, Obama’s personal and political background reflects the multicultural future of America. The energy Obama has ignited among young Asian Pacific American activists is unprecedented for presidential politics and could pave the way for future APA involvement.“

  • Word is that Bill Richardson won’t endorse anyone until after February 5. Given that my sense is he leans Clinton (although others argue he just wants a job either way), this is good news for Obama. Update: Bill and Bill will be Superbowl buddies. Doesn’t sound like he’s heading Obama’s way.

  • “‘This week helped me make up my mind between two great candidates – that I was going to be supporting Sen. Obama,’ Blumenauer said.” And other House endorsements of the past few days: “Reps. Jim Oberstar (D-Minn.) and Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) endorsed Sen. Barack Obama for president Friday…Reps. John Larson (D-Conn.), Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) and Earl Pomeroy (D-N.D.) all announced their backing for Obama on Thursday. Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.) endorsed him on Wednesday. All of their states except Oregon will vote Tuesday in the so-called ‘national primary.‘”

    • In the City of Angels.

    Heya. Sorry this is going up so late…I spent the evening at the Generation Obama event in Midtown, so my usual prObama take on the debates got even more reinforcement than usual…

    First off, it was heartening to watch a surprisingly substantive debate. The Nevada roundtable was too sweet, and the Myrtle Beach slugfest was too sour, but tonight’s much-heralded showdown in Los Angeles actually seemed just right. [Transcript.] Both candidates were able to tease out and discuss notable differences in their policies, particularly on health care, immigration reform, and Iraq, while keeping a civil, friendly tone that didn’t seem as unnaturally forced as back in Vegas.

    With all that being said, and to no one’s surprise, I thought Barack Obama came out ahead this evening. (In fact, I agree with Andrew Sullivan — this might’ve been his best debate thus far.) He showed a clear and nuanced command of policy. He made a solid case for his strengths, most notably on the question of judgment (“Right on Day 1.”) He explained well how he’s more electable, particularly against John McCain. He was wry and personable. And — when it came to the Republicans — he was often devastating. (That Romney takedown was too rich.)

    Hillary Clinton was also good tonight, but she gave more than a few answers that were real groaners. On immigration reform, her attempt to be Obamaesque by invoking the Statue of Liberty was strange and flat. More problematically, her answer on drivers’ licenses for illegal immigrants made no sense (She’s against licenses for illegals, to protect illegals?) And, worst of all, when given the chance to defuse a zero-sum understanding of the immigrant issue, she instead told a story about an African-American man who blamed Latinos for his job loss, and it was hard not to read an off-putting Bendixen subtext into it.

    Most notably, when it came to Iraq in the final third, Clinton was terrible. Rather than just admit she made a mistake in either [a] supporting the war or [b] believing Dubya, she seemed unwilling to concede any possibility of error, and got stuck in an increasingly tortured answer about her position on the AUMF vote. It was unseemly, to say the least, even Dubyaesque. And the more she spun her wheels, the better Obama looked. Update: Apparently, she also butchered the truth about the Levin Amendment.

    Still, my general impression is that CNN’s Jeff Toobin basically got the larger chess game right: As a TPM commenter well put it: Hillary Clinton is currently in the lead and is trying to run the four corners until the clock runs out. Barack Obama is surging massively right now and didn’t want to upset that o-mentum unduly. So neither candidate felt they needed to shake up the current paradigm all that much, which helped keep everything friendly.

    Instead, Obama wanted to show undecideds that he has presidential gravitas and can policy-wonk as needed. Clinton wanted to staunch her negatives and get the focus back on her rather than Wild Bill. (Which reminds me, no question about Kazakhstan?) In that sense, both candidates accomplished what they came to do.

    Now, it’s up to us.

    32 Large.

    “Obama’s one-month tally is the most ever reported for January of a presidential election year, Federal Election Commission reports show…Plouffe said the Obama campaign counted 170,000 new donors in the last month, bringing its total to 650,000.” Whatever happens Tuesday and thereafter, it looks like Sen. Obama has the money to play. “‘Our strongest day of the whole month was the day after the New Hampshire primary,’ which Obama lost to Clinton, Plouffe said. ‘We took a lot of encouragement from that because it showed the resolve of our donor base.’” Update: As TNR’s Christopher Orr deadpanned, 32 million? Pff. Bill Clinton can make that over dinner.

    Kennedy Chats Up El Piolín.

    “Only two senators marched for immigrant rights on May 1, 2006, one in Washington and the other in Chicago. I marched in Washington and Barack Obama marched in Chicago. He was not afraid to stand up when others wouldn’t.” Ted Kennedy pitches Barack Obama for 20 minutes on the El Piolín radio show, which happens to be the most popular radio show in America. Notes the article: “You simply cannot pay for advertising like that, nor underestimate its impact on the vote next Tuesday particularly in California.”

    O-Momentum?

    Since the New Hampshire debacle, I’ve been trying to swear off on posting poll information around here. Still, if you’ll forgive one lapse, the trend lines are looking surprisingly good for Senator Obama right now. Recent polls put Obama down 6 nationally (he was down 16 last week), down 6 in Massachusetts (a poll had him down 37 last week), down 12 in New York (a poll had him down 28 a few days ago), and down only 3 in California. Particularly given the proportional allotting of delegates, he’s right in there.

    Granted, the political landscape has proven nothing if not volatile of late, none of these polls factor in Edwards’ exit, and there’s a big debate tonight. But, like I said, we definitely seem to be moving in the right direction. Update: Make that down four nationally. Ok…no more polls.

    Lakoff on the Dem Divide.

    There is a reason that Obama recently spoke of Reagan. Reagan understood that you win elections by drawing support from independents and the opposite side. He understood what unified the country so that he could lead it according to his vision.

    Obama understands the importance of values, connection, authenticity, trust, and identity.

    But his vision is deeply progressive. He proposes to lead in a very different direction than Reagan. Crucially, he adds to that vision a streetwise pragmatism: his policies have to do more than look good on paper; they have to bring concrete material results to millions of struggling Americans in the lower and middle classes. They have to meet the criteria of a community organizer.

    The Clintonian policy wonks don’t seem to understand any of this. They have trivialized Reagan’s political acumen as an illegitimate triumph of personality over policy. They confuse values with programs. They have underestimated authenticity and trust…

    This nomination campaign is about much more than the candidates. It about a major split within the Democratic party. The candidates are reflecting that split. Here are three of the major “issues” dividing Democrats.

    First, triangulation: moving to the right — adopting right-wing positions — to get more votes. Bill Clinton did it and Hillary believes in it. It is what she means by “bipartisanship.” Obama means the opposite by “bipartisanship.” To Obama, it is a recognition that central progressive moral principles are fundamental American principles. For him, bipartisanship means finding people who call themselves “conservatives” or “independents,” but who share those central American values with progressives. Obama thus doesn’t have to surrender or dilute his principles for the sake of “bipartisanship.”

    The second is incrementalism: Hillary believes in getting lots of small carefully crafted policies through, one at a time, step by small step, real but almost unnoticed. Obama believes in bold moves and the building of a movement in which the bold moves are demanded by the people and celebrated when they happen. This is the reason why Hillary talks about “I,” I,” “I” (the crafter of the policy) and Obama talks about “you” and “we” (the people who demand it and who jointly carry it out).

    The third is interest group politics: Hillary looks at politics through interests and interest groups, seeking policies that satisfy the interests of such groups. Obama’s thinking emphasizes empathy over interest groups. He also sees empathy as central to the very idea of America. The result is a positive politics grounded in empathy and caring that is also patriotic and uplifting.

    For a great many Democrats, these are the real issues. These real differences between the candidates reflect real differences within the party. Whoever gets the nomination, these differences will remain.

    It is time for the press, the pundits, the pollsters, and the political scientists to take these issues seriously.

    Linguist and cognitive scientist George Lakoff — also the recent author of Don’t Think of an Elephant — attempts to explain what he sees as the crucial differences between Clinton and Obama.

    The Aloha of Obama.

    Honolulu is no utopia; its socioeconomic climate is far from Edenic. However, Honolulu’s complexity and diversity are great gifts for a reflective future leader. To grow up in Hawaii is to see the United States from the inside and the outside. The inside view comes from pride in statehood and military tradition. Long before September 11, residents of Hawaii knew what foreign attack was like and valued American protection–Pearl Harbor remains a vital piece of Hawaiian history. The outside view of the United States comes from geographic distance. The Hawaiian islands stand as tiny meeting points for immigrants from Japan, China, Korea, the Philippines, and the far reaches of Polynesia. Hawaii is an outpost among many nations, not a state connected by highways to other states. As a meeting place, the islands are cosmopolitan. As an isolated island chain, the islands are also parochial. The haves in Hawaii travel and see the world. The have-nots, many of them native Hawaiians, lack the means to get away. To grow up in Hawaii is to envision the future of a multiracial society, and also to view up close the disappointment of those left behind.

    In TNR, Allegra Goodman makes a case for the importance of Barack Obama’s Hawaiian youth. “To envision a world where racial identity is more fluid, where men and women are more mobile, and where segregation is a thing of the past is not to envision a post-racial world. Obama knows this, as anyone who has lived in Hawaii must.”

    “Empty Suit”…with a Stovepipe Hat.

    The whole thing, really, is a fairy tale.

    I mean, give me a break: The guy gives a good speech. Yes. Give him that. But are we electing a toastmaster or a president of the United States? Let’s look at his record to see what qualifies him for the highest office in the land:

    Eight years in the Illinois legislature? He was a party loyalist and a temporizer who too often put politics ahead of principle and was cautious rather than bold when it came to controversial issues.

    Two years in Washington? Yes, he pontificated about how he opposed the war, but at crunch time he voted to fund it. And his legislative record on Capitol Hill is thin.

    Other accomplishments? The enthusiasm for his candidacy was sparked by one big successful speech and is carried along by his gift for uplifting rhetoric.

    Consider, in contrast, the senator from New York who is his top rival for the nomination: A history in public life going back 30 years. Solid reform credentials. Clearly far more ready for the Oval Office than the younger, audacious Mr. Slim Silver-tongue from Illinois.

    Take that, Lincolnbots. The Chicago Tribune‘s Eric Zorn makes the “experience” case for William H. Seward of New York.

    “Obama’s no Abe Lincoln. But, as I observed last February…Abe Lincoln was no Abe Lincoln at this stage of the game either. I point this out simply as a reminder that Lincoln and history went on to make fools of those whose obsession with his shortcomings and failures blinded them to the singular promise of his gifts. Not often, but fairy tales do come true.”