05
Jan
Barack Obama’s wildly over-rated Iowa victory speech
Barack Obama’s speech following his Iowa caucus victory has been described as inspirational. The reaction seems much more a measure of how desperate many people are for inspiration than of any inherent value in Obama’s oratory, which seemed to me to be a largely substance-free exercise in exceptionalism.
Obama used the word “change” six times, and “hope”, 11. He described his victory as singular, something upon which people would look back years from now and remember as “the moment when it all began”, “the moment … when we rallied people of all parties and ages to a common cause”, “the moment when we finally beat back the policies of fear and doubts and cynicism”. He said his supporters “came together as Democrats, Republicans and independents*, to stand up and say that we are one nation. We are one people. And our time for change has come.”
But hope is not a plan; it’s a thing with feathers. And change is guaranteed, assuming there’s an election.
The lone policy specific in the speech was Obama’s promise to do for health care coverage nationally what he did for it in Illinois. So, what did he do for it in Illinois? Not much, even under the most favorable interpretation: he helped pass a law that required the state to establish a commission to devise a plan to increase health care coverage, in unspecified ways that the state is still wrangling about today.
Powerful stuff, there.
Obama threw a bone to John Edwards, saying that “the time has come to tell the lobbyists who think their money and their influence speak louder than our voices that they don’t own this government — we do. And we are here to take it back.”
But that’s not exactly the Obama style. If he’s to be believed in his less exalted moments, he wants to bring lobbyists and their clients to the table and ask them to give our government back.
Maybe he plans to tickle them into submission with hope’s feathers. That would be a change.
*The claim that Obama united Democrats, independents and Republicans is something of an exaggeration. Only 3% of the Democratic caucus voters were Republicans, and Obama garnered less than half of their votes, at 44%, with John Edwards doing relatively well at 22% (in fact, it was Republican and independent voters who moved Edwards past Clinton). Among independents, Obama polled 41% and Edwards 23%. Among Democrats, Obama polled 32%, Clinton 31% and Edwards 23%. Interestingly, Edwards did very well among self-described conservatives, polling 42% to 22% and 21% for Clinton and Obama, respectively.
![[del.icio.us]](http://www.btcnews.com/btcnews/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/delicious.png)
![[Digg]](http://www.btcnews.com/btcnews/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/digg.png)
![[Google]](http://www.btcnews.com/btcnews/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/google.png)
![[LinkedIn]](http://www.btcnews.com/btcnews/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/linkedin.png)
![[StumbleUpon]](http://www.btcnews.com/btcnews/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/stumbleupon.png)
![[Windows Live]](http://www.btcnews.com/btcnews/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/windowslive.png)
![[Yahoo!]](http://www.btcnews.com/btcnews/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/yahoo.png)
![[Email]](http://www.btcnews.com/btcnews/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/email.png)
This isn’t news. This sucks. BTC sucks. Whine and complain.
January 5th, 2008 at 12:53 pmHope for a change, Derick …
January 5th, 2008 at 1:05 pmBarack Obama for President of the United States of America
January 5th, 2008 at 2:49 pmA human’s greatest weakness is
January 5th, 2008 at 3:32 pmDOUBT. Not believing.
You (BTC) of such little
faith, why do you doubt?
Obama08
Berlin, you know that’s the same question my Christian friends continue to ask and my socialist friends asked me in my youth. I’ll argue with you: a human’s greatest weakness isn’t doubt, but the capacity for uncritical faith.
January 5th, 2008 at 3:48 pmMan, I was leaning toward the party of optimism, but now I’m sure I’m for the party of hope. Thanks for elevating me, Mr. Obama!
Nice work, WB.
January 5th, 2008 at 6:22 pmBTC sux…whining and complaining like a bitch
January 5th, 2008 at 8:09 pmWeldon, thanks. Your observations are cogent and appreciated. Which is probably the polite/modest way of saying, “I agree with them.” (And icing on the cake is the Emily Dickinson reference! I’m gonna use that, okay?)
Obama-mania is sweepin’ the land, and the acolytes wish no argument to stain their fervor. Even rational arguments: “Where’s the policy?” Their riposte is, “BTC sux.” That’s hopeful, eh?
I’ll vote for him if he’s the nominee, but this old voice won’t be stilled from pointing out the blaring gaps and contradictions and deficiencies in his positions. I hope yours won’t be either.
January 6th, 2008 at 8:17 amThe fact remains that the next (hopefully) Democratic president will have to work with an adverse majority in Congress. If those in that majority cannot be indicted and convicted of something, it will be necessary to deal with their votes in order to accomplish much of anything. Screaming at them that they are assholes is probably not the most efficacious way to begin. Doesn’t mean that you have to do what they want but it does mean that you have to work with some of them to get things done.
January 6th, 2008 at 1:25 pmI don’t recall advocating screaming at them that they’re assholes, but on the other hand, it seems to work on Democrats*. I can’t imagine you’re really arguing that if Obama is nice to Republicans, they’ll cooperate with a Democratic president.
*but only when Republicans and the press do it; not when their constituents do.
January 6th, 2008 at 3:13 pmI’m arguing that I’ve seen his success in working with Republicans in the State of Illinois senate to get progressive legislation enacted. Being nice doesn’t mean being soft, but you knew that.
January 6th, 2008 at 4:08 pmHe’s not running as a progressive, Jack, at least so far as I can see; he’s running as a unique historical figure with possibly magical conciliatory powers. On policy, he seems pretty much right there in dead armadillo territory with his fellow candidates.
I really don’t understand what possible disadvantage there is in pointing out that Republicans, in the White House and Congress, have seriously damaged the country and that one good way to begin remedying that is to vote the fuckers out. If Obama or any other Democrat wants a more edifying Congressional environment, they’re going to have to offer people good reasons for dumping their GOP senators and representatives. I don’t think saying “hey, keep your assholes, I can work with anybody” is necessarily the best approach.
If Democrats don’t score big gains in Congress next year, then no expertise in the laying on of hands will suffice to prevent Republicans from attempting to deligitimate and dislodge whichever Dem wins the White House.
January 6th, 2008 at 5:06 pmYou misunderstand me. Obama is certainly working for Democratic candidates generally as well as for his own candidacy. He’s also strongly advocating the defeat of the Republicans on all levels. He certainly is not suggesting that “they” keep their assholes. He is saying that he is able to work with the opposition without giving up his principles.
Certainly he’s running a progressive campaign. The Clintons say he’s dangerously progressive. I mean, look at his record: insisting on videotaping interrogation of felony suspects (and getting Republicans to go along with that) and advocating removing mandatory minimum sentencing in the federal system. He’s soft on crime! Of course, that’s all in the past. The fact that John Edwards says there isn’t that much difference between them on current issues I suppose suggests he’s what? A corporatist?
I realize you didn’t like his allowing the anti-gay singer to participate in the tour in South Carolina and I agreed with you about that. Gotta admit though that he certainly isn’t running on an anti-gay program and that he has the ability to inspire people, particularly young people, and possibly to get them involved. See Iowa.
We could use a candidate that inspires enthusiasm instead of one who is, thank God, not “them.”
I know him and have seen his work in Illinois and believe in him even as I criticize some of his actions and inactions. Face it, friend, you’re not going to get the perfect candidate. However, he’s not chopped liver!
January 6th, 2008 at 5:29 pmI know I’m not going to get the perfect candidate. I’d just for once like one that I don’t find abysmal other than by comparison to the Republicans. I’ve already decided I can’t vote for Clinton, and I’m on the cusp with Obama and Edwards. I’m so tired of settling.
It’s nice that Obama is able to inspire people, but toward what? A health care plan that promises an insurance company windfall without ultimately solving the problem? A defense policy that involves increasing the size of the military and, consequently, military expenditures? He likes faith-based programs; further blurring the separation of church and state isn’t a progressive tack.
Clinton’s assault on his liberalism is much more a reflection on her than on him, or his policies, and you’ll recall that he has attacked her from the right as well. Edwards, his new-found populism notwithstanding, is a moderate Democrat.
I suppose to some extent our disagreement turns on defining “progressive;” I don’t see Obama or Edwards or Clinton advocating the things that define the term for me. None of them have talked about a living wage; none of them have talked about rational tax policies; none of them are genuinely advocating universal health care; none of them have talked about transforming foreign policy or defense policy–the best they’ve done is advocate a return to the mainstream from the radical.
“The perfect is the enemy of the good” devolves after a while into “the good is the enemy of the mediocre” and “the mediocre is better than nothing.”
No, he’s not chopped liver. I’d like to see him putting his vaunted persuasive powers to work in the Senate. Maybe if he does something there, I’ll be a believer too. Not, I think, this time around.
January 6th, 2008 at 6:06 pmWhere you going, Edwards?
As to specifics, when he talks about increasing the size of the military, he’s talking about ground pounders, not anti-missile systems. He has advocated for tax reforms. I’ve never heard of him advocating for faith based programs. On the medical front, his position is practical, not intended to benefit the insurance companies, although he would allow them to continue to exist. Basically, he argues that eliminating them would not be doable because people who currently have coverage would not want to give it up. I have real difficulty understanding your point about transforming foreign policy. That strikes me as one of his stronger points.
In any event, to my perception, he’s a lot better than a sharp stick in the eye and can even do the country and the culture a lot of good. But that’s just me.
January 6th, 2008 at 6:23 pmI’m going on foreign policy from his essay in Foreign Affairs, which struck me as a thinly-wrapped ode to American exceptionalism that cozied up to the Bush Doctrine at the same time as it decried Bush policies. What do you suppose he wants more ground-pounders for if not to pound someone’s ground?
On the question of faith, he said in that speech last year, the one that initially ruffled my feathers about him, that while he supports the separation of church and state he can envision circumstances in which government should support faith-based programs. If I recall correctly, he was talking about drug and alcohol programs and anti-recidivist efforts.
I know his primary focus on health care isn’t the care and feeding of insurance companies, but that’s going to be the practical outcome: a collection of government programs guaranteeing subsidies to the insurance industry. This is where we get into “mediocre is better than nothing” territory.
The one area where I agree with you is on his potential to elevate the culture. My fear, though, is that the end result will be that we feel better about ourselves without accomplishing much, a state of affairs that strikes me as dangerous.
Adding … on Edwards, yes, I’ve pretty much painted myself into a corner with him, by process of elimination. The question remaining is whether or not I can actually bring myself to support him as opposed to simply refraining from attacking him as enthusiastically as I do the others.
January 6th, 2008 at 7:06 pmHope is not the “thing with feathers.” The thing with feathers has turned out be my nephew.
(We can’t be e-friends if you don’t grok this reference.)
January 7th, 2008 at 12:36 amWoody or Groucho, don’t remember which or where … does this mean our love is done?
January 7th, 2008 at 5:39 amChuck, thanks for the kind words. I’m choosing to believe that those were pre-schoolers blowing through, not actual voting-age Obama people.
January 7th, 2008 at 5:41 amI’m sympathetic with Weldon’s bottom line but as to “settling,” it reminds me of a discussion I had recently with someone who hates all the candidates basically, though sorta likes Rudy on some things.
These people represent a country that is rather imperfect and expecting too much, surely at the moment, is a stretch. The fact the public accepted for so long things WB et. al. found appalling underlines the point — since such people do the voting too, lower expectations on some level seems woefully practical.
You still have to take the best shot and I think one or two of these people can be voted for, and with less disgust than Nov. 2004. FWIW.
January 7th, 2008 at 8:39 amDon’t get me wrong, I’m not advocating cynicism and despair for everyone; it’s just my frame of mind. My point with respect to Obama’s speech is that I, me, personally, found the wild enthusiasm it inspired to be somewhat pathetic considering the lack of content in the speech and the lack of what I regard as progressive content in Obama’s campaign generally.
Can he win with that shtick? Maybe so. Would he make a better president than any of the Republicans? Of course, barring the breakout of some genetic predisposition to madness. Will I be happy with him as a president? Not bloody likely.
That’s all. I’m a middle-aged guy who has never once had the opportunity to vote for someone who 1) I genuinely like and 2) has a chance to win, and I’m pissed off about it, especially in a year tailor-made for someone to win by aggressively pushing my issues, something I’d like to see happen just once in my lifetime.
January 7th, 2008 at 9:00 amHey, you’ve got time. Try it in your late 60′s.
On the defense point, bear in mind that the Bushies have seriously damaged the Army/Marines with their excellent adventure and not rebuilding those forces will not sell. Paddy Bauler is reputed to have said, “Chicago ain’t ready for reform.” Were he around today, he might say, “We ain’t gonna be no Costa Rica.” The one sure way to elect another Republican is to say you don’t want a “strong” military, whatever that may mean.
I’m a little sceptical that this is a year tailor-made to win aggressively pushing your issues, depending of course on how you prioritize them and which ones you are willing to be less aggressive about.
January 7th, 2008 at 2:07 pm[...] of the response to Barack Obama’s Iowa victory speech—I said that the speech was rhetorically fluffy and the response was overheated—was fairly intense. The most pointed comments (not so much [...]
January 9th, 2008 at 10:24 am