« Dignity | Main | I, For One, Welcome Our blah blah blah »
December 12, 2006
Explaining Obama
So the Obama hype has been a bit puzzling to many. Myself, at times, included. But watch this video of the speech he gave in New Hampshire. Just watch five minutes of it. It's one of the most remarkable addresses I've ever seen, and, in its soft and irresistible way, it explains the whole of the buzz. In possibly the most telling section, he gives a great riff on health care, which manages to totally inspire while not actually saying anything sweeping or controversial. Watching it, you'd swear he just promised the stars, the sky, and universal insurance, when he really just committed to electronic records. And yet, you scarcely mind, if you even noticed. That's some powerful political mojo.
December 12, 2006 | Permalink
Comments
So, I heard all throughout the 2004 primary season how great John Edwards' "two americas" speech was, but when I saw it at the convention it sucked. I hope I'm not disappointed in Obama's.
Posted by: Ugh | Dec 12, 2006 5:08:26 PM
The convention edition of the Two Americas speech was much abridged. It's a much better speech in its full length.
It's also much better when Edwards can move a little more.
Obama delivered a version of this in Seattle for his book signing. It's a good proto-stump.
More than anyone, even Edwards, Obama openly talks about changing the fundamental organizing principals and goals of our government. He talks about the problem of the "smallness in our politics"; he talks about communitarianism and civil renewal; he talks about the lack of leadership and the desire to do Big Things.
Now, he doesn't promise much in the way of Big Things in the speech. He does have big ideas; he says "we should be able to cover everyone for the amount of money we spend on health care"; and he keeps pushing a grand-bargain on health care & fuel economy. But yes, he makes remarkably few policy proposals. Then again, most stump speeches don't make much in the way of policy proposals.
Posted by: Nicholas Beaudrot | Dec 12, 2006 5:31:59 PM
I could only take a couple of minutes of it. I thought it was as vapid as most stump speeches. Sure he looked more comfortable giving it than most politicians, but he NB is absolutely right: he talks about the desire to do Big Things but doesn't actually propose a goddamn thing. That's what he did in his speech at the 2004 convention, too. So far, long on rhetoric, short on policy.
Posted by: Antid Oto | Dec 12, 2006 5:58:38 PM
The convention edition of the Two Americas speech was much abridged. It's a much better speech in its full length.
It's also much better when Edwards can move a little more.
Well, that would explain it, and it also seems incredibly stupid to mess it up that way when it's when the most people are watching.
Posted by: Ugh | Dec 12, 2006 6:00:25 PM
So perhaps Obama is our Carcetti? I mean, isn't this (by your own description, Ezra) just the Health Care verison of Carcetti's speech at the end of Season 3, where he finally really embodies all of the advice from all of his consultants about saying nothing while appearing to say everything?
Posted by: isaac | Dec 12, 2006 6:15:00 PM
Ezra sez: "...which manages to totally inspire while not actually saying anything sweeping or controversial"
That is my whole problem with the Obama. I don't want another slick politician who can tell me what I want to hear. I want some competence this time. That fact that he doesn't actually say anything sweeping or controversial means that he is so attuned to the polls and the spin doctors and word-smithers that he has already been corrupted by the beltway as far as I can tell. He seems to be learning how to triangulate way too quickly. I know it won't happen, but give me an intelligent President with a love of history and a strong curiosity and the willingness to say something that hasn't been poll tested. I want Gore or Dean or Alec Baldwin for that matter! Obama is the Republican pick for the Democrats. They'll be sooooo nice until he wins the nomination and then you'll see swiftboating like it's never been done before!
Posted by: Doubting Thomas | Dec 12, 2006 6:56:19 PM
I join Ezra and the others above in concern that while the hopes and dreams that Obama talks about seem within reach, the actual grasp is for the little things that Clinton was so good at delivering in payment for soaring and inspiring rhetoric.
Why can't he say medical care is an obligation that we owe to each other as citizens?
If it takes this kind of Obama to beat McCain (or whomever the GOP nominates, then I'd settle for that, but my hopes and dreams wildly exceed the kind of progressive reforms and programs that Obama is willing to offer.
I also share Doubting Thomas' fear that this 'don't make waves' centrism is up to the task of beating back the negative crap that would undoubtedly be thrown at him. Is there any figthing spirit behind his Audacity of Hope?
Posted by: JimPortlandOR | Dec 12, 2006 7:33:31 PM
so you are so he would be make a great actor? I mean sense we are so focused on performance that would make sense
Posted by: akaison | Dec 12, 2006 7:36:21 PM
he talks about the desire to do Big Things but doesn't actually propose a goddamn thing. That's what he did in his speech at the 2004 convention, too. So far, long on rhetoric, short on policy.
[...]
That is my whole problem with the Obama. I don't want another slick politician who can tell me what I want to hear. I want some competence this time. That fact that he doesn't actually say anything sweeping or controversial means that he is so attuned to the polls and the spin doctors and word-smithers that he has already been corrupted by the beltway as far as I can tell. He seems to be learning how to triangulate way too quickly. I know it won't happen, but give me an intelligent President with a love of history and a strong curiosity and the willingness to say something that hasn't been poll tested. I want Gore or Dean or Alec Baldwin for that matter!
[...]
"I just want to say one final thing, and thank you for hearing me out. I think sometimes in politics – I talked about this mystery there is, and I love it. I love it. Harold, you’ve been around forever, you know what I’m talking about. It’s connections with people. And I think sometimes we think you move people on 10-point programs. You don’t. You move people on their sense of right and wrong. I like to talk a little bit – just a little bit – about values."
-- Netroots Hero Paul Wellstone, May 5, 2002, DFL Convention Speech
[...]
"You know what George Bush’s best campaign technique is? He goes into these folks between the Alleghenies and the Rockies, and below the Mason-Dixon Line, and says, “You know, those elite people, those elitists, bi-coastal intellectuals, they don’t respect you, they look down on you. I’m one of you. Now let’s go kick their butts.” And it works because we talk to them as if we do look down on them. We laugh, we say, “Well, we have a program to fix that: early childhood education, universal health care for kids, after-school programs.” You know what they hear? They hear, “Oh, we’ll raise your kids for you if you can’t do it. No problem...”
"We need to talk differently to reach out to these people. You know what our problem is? We think that government is all about policy and voting from here [points to head], and 75 percent of Americans make policy and vote from here [points to chest]. And until we start doing it from here, we’re not gonna win. You know what Bill Clinton would have said? You know what Bill Clinton would have said? We all would have laughed. He would have said, “I feel your pain.” And you know why Bill Clinton won, and he would have won a third and fourth term if the Constitution hadn’t been changed after FDR? Because he did feel their pain. We need to acknowledge these folks’ fear.
You know what we don’t need to do? We don’t need to change anything we’re doing, we don’t need to change what we believe in, we don’t need to give up our commitment to civil rights for every single American, we don’t need to give up our belief that a woman has a right to make up her own mind about her health care. We don’t have to change any of these things. But we do have to communicate to people who are afraid that we’re with them, in the way that FDR did and the way that Bill Clinton did. We have to learn how to do that, and it’s not so easy, because what we want to do is come out with a program. “Here’s our four-point plan to fix this.” That’s not what they’re looking for. What they’re looking for is an understanding that we know how hard it is for them to do the one thing they’re really terrified of, and that’s raising kids and raising a family under difficult circumstances. So, we’ve got a lot of work to do."
--Netroots Hero Howard Dean, ACLU Fundraiser, April 20, 2005
[...]
If only there was some kinda way to bridge this vast an terrible ideological gap!
Posted by: Chris | Dec 12, 2006 7:56:25 PM
he talks about the desire to do Big Things but doesn't actually propose a goddamn thing. That's what he did in his speech at the 2004 convention, too. So far, long on rhetoric, short on policy.
But, so are most stump speeches. I encourage everyone to go back and read Clinton's nomination acceptance speech and see how little policy there is in there.
Elsewhere Obama has said lots of things that make him sound like a Big Things kind of guy. More so than anyone in the field in '04, except for Dean.
Posted by: Nicholas Beaudrot | Dec 12, 2006 7:57:23 PM
I don't think we should confuse the question whether Obama has substance and good policy views and so on with the question whether he puts enough wonkery into a speech early in the path to a presidential run. If a politician has great policy views and the skill/will to get them enacted once in office (and I don't know yet if that's true of Obama), then I don't really care whether his or her speeches appeal to me -- I want whatever speeches will get the dude elected.
Posted by: Christopher M | Dec 12, 2006 7:58:04 PM
If only there was some kinda way to bridge this vast an terrible ideological gap! (Working link.)
Posted by: Chris | Dec 12, 2006 8:05:00 PM
I encourage everyone to go back and read Clinton's nomination acceptance speech and see how little policy there is in there.
I agree with you, Nicholas, but many people here see Clinton as among the enemy. They're talking about what they want, not necessarily about what can win. Some maintain that more lefty content can win, so we await their winning candidate.
Posted by: Sanpete | Dec 12, 2006 8:26:10 PM
It's understandable that political junkies hunger for lots and lots of substance. However, most people are not political junkies. There's no pleasing everyone.
Posted by: Steve | Dec 12, 2006 8:38:22 PM
I don't see Clinton as an enemy, but I do require something more substantive than he was able to give a great speech to denote greatness. By the way Sanpete, when are you going to list out the things that made his Presidency historically a great one? And yes steve, it's only political junkies who want substance from Washington. I mean we didn't just have an election on people's discontent with the same-old, same old. And yes, political junkies should be in the business of telling the American people what they want.
Posted by: akaison | Dec 12, 2006 8:45:24 PM
But, so are most stump speeches.
I believe I did acknowledge that. But I like to compare Obama's speech at the 2004 convention to Bill Clinton's speech...at the 2004 convention. Exact same political moment, but the latter was way more substantive. It can be done.
Posted by: Antid Oto | Dec 12, 2006 8:58:00 PM
the thing with politics is you have to be passionate. You have to believe alittle and you look for someone who can deliver a sense of Can do Anything that only few make you feel. Like FDR, Kennedy, Reagan for the righties, that kind of feeling of going along for the ride as you know it will be fun and you and the country will be better for it. That is what Obama is.
Clinton is bloodless and pandering and uninspiring. No, it is Obama who will take this country needs to go which is repairing our image, rebuilding the bridges and restoring faith and confidence. After 6 years of secrecy and fear mongering, that is what we need.
Posted by: vwcat | Dec 12, 2006 9:01:00 PM
By the way Sanpete, when are you going to list out the things that made his Presidency historically a great one?
Most likely sometime after I actually make the assertion implied. I've explained to you several times that you just imagined I ever said such a thing. Considering the likely alternatives, I'd happily settle for another Clinton, though. Bill, that is.
Posted by: Sanpete | Dec 12, 2006 9:18:48 PM
Obama is eloquent and tells you what you wish to hear. What has Obama really accomplished?
Posted by: Fred Jones | Dec 12, 2006 9:20:01 PM
I love the "what has he done for you lately" question. As if the only way to find great leaders is to look for people who have already led. As if the only people who do great things are ones who have already done them before.
Great leaders throughout American history aren't the ones who themselves have done "great things." They are the ones who have called, inspired, and led us to do do great things together.
JFK's gift was to call us to be a better people. It's why we still remember him so wistfully today. It's not what he did; its what he asked us to do.
Obama gets that in the same way that JFK did. And in the same way Reagan did, for that matter.
Does is would mean he would make a great president? Honestly, the only way we have ever discovered that is to elect someone to the office. Remember Hoover? He was the most experienced, well qualified person ever to hold the office. How'd that work out?
Posted by: Alex | Dec 12, 2006 10:00:46 PM
What a fickle crowd.
Posted by: DRR | Dec 12, 2006 10:07:13 PM
There's a point in his speech where he says something like "The American people want a government that shares their values" - and I think, Yes! Finally! But what does he go on to talk about? Corruption. And penny-ante corruption - Congressmen getting plane rides or some such.
For fuck's sake. I want a government that DOESN'T TORTURE PEOPLE. That's MY American values. But no, we can't talk about that. Why? Because that's "ideological". That's not a criticism that he can turn into an "everybody does this" point.
For someone who tries to bring such a moral tone to what he says, he is singularly unwilling to recognize what's going on and say, "This is wrong. We have to stop this." About anything. What's wrong with Iraq? An illegal war that's killings tens of thousands of people years later? No, what's wrong is that it's dumb.
It was also ironic to hear him praising people for taking up the reins of citizen control again...
Posted by: tatere | Dec 12, 2006 10:19:48 PM
Not impressed.
So Obama's learned to give an inspiring words. So what?
He offered not a single policy proposal. He took no position whatsoever, nor did he even offer up a single detail.
Not once did he mention the Constitution, nor torture, nor habeas corpus--and this man's a lawyer! He DID NOT stand up in the well of the Senate and say 'No! At long last, enough!' So that Spectre, and Bush, and Gonzales, and Leahy would all have to wake up from their comas. Nor the NSA wiretaps, nor the intel lies, nor the required Declaration of War.
WE were right about Iraq, about our national security, about the nature of the Bush administration, about the Constitution, and especially, about the ELECTION.
Should he be the nominee, he will never get my vote.
tatere has it right. Never has a man been so able to adopt a Moral Tone as has Barack Obama--all WITHOUT EVER having taken a single concrete step towards grappling with the MORAL IMPERATIVE operating in national politics today.
Had Obama made a point about impeachment, about torture, it would be different. But he only suggests what must never be covered over. And that too, is a kind of lie that corrodes this country's body politic.
Posted by: SombreroFallout | Dec 12, 2006 10:35:17 PM
The Clinton presidency was okay, but no one getting excited about a speech like this one is going to think they're signing on to another Clinton administration--they're gonna expect big change.
It's true that he didn't actually state any big policy changes. But for that matter he didn't actually say he's running for president. I think that's an noteworthy parallel and shows you how Obama works--he doesn't just come out and state what he wants, he builds a giant wave of enthusiasm, then with coy mock reluctance allows himself to be carried wherever he wants to go.
It's no guarantee that Obama will either run for president or change health care--but this speech is clearly aimed at making it easier for him to do both. Roosevelt said "go out and make me do it", Obama seems to be trying to make us make him do it.
Posted by: Consumatopia | Dec 12, 2006 10:46:55 PM
Well, I think it's a measure of Obama's stength that he's drawn this much thoughtful response. We really do have to take this seriously...
...but still. You get to make the speeches with the soaring rhetoric and little substance...after you have a record to back it up. The point of Clinton's "15% head, 75% heart" speaking style (Dean, as usual, has that dead to rights) is that Clinton had a record of accomplishment in Arkansas and a laundry list of future policy plans (remember, his wife was supposed to help solve the healthcare crisis?). Even Reagan had a record as Governor of California to back up his soaring rhetoric. I would even venture to say that people (at least those who voted for him) had a good sense of what Kennedy stood for and what he would do.
I think the point about Obama - and I like the man, honest I do - is that many of us who watch these things a lot are doing what we often do - filling in the blanks of what we don't know with what we think he stands for (which is, usually, what we ourselves favor). We forget that most people don't do that, and we assume, blithely, that our expectations won't be dashed this time when the specifics come out (hope springs eternal, I think, especially for the optimistic liberal).
Here's my suggestion - and what I'm planning to do regardless - hold out for specifics. Admire his speaking style, give him credit for being good with crowds... but don't substitute charisma for policy or judgment. Obama needs to do the work, not just show the style. Then, and really only then, can we take him seriously on his big ideas.
Posted by: weboy | Dec 12, 2006 11:00:49 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
