I’m surprised by the results of the Iowa caucuses in two ways. First, the voter turnout. It was way, way up on the Democratic side: from 125,000 in 2004 to over 200,000 this year. The campaigns were expecting something in the 150,000 range, and first-time voters and young people showed up in large numbers–this just doesn’t happen in U.S. politics, but somehow it did. And second, the Obama For Change meme. If the commentators in the corporate media (e.g., Wolf Blitzer, Chris Matthews) are correct, voters are identifying Barack Obama as the change candidate.
Of the three Democratic candidates, Hillary Clinton is of course the "dial back the clock" candidate. She’s a woman, which would be new, but she’s also a Clinton campaigning on a platform of "my husband was President and this makes me the most ready to be co-President and haven’t you missed triangulation?". Clinton politics is a change only insofar as George W. Bush would no longer be mucking stuff up (and without a constitutional amendment or a Musharrafian move, that’s a foregone conclusion). No one would seriously question that the Clintons are the Democratic establishment.
But that still leaves Obama and Edwards–and somehow Obama is the change Democrat. From an ideological purity perspective, it seems pretty clear that Edwards is the progress–the "change"–guy. This country has been drifting to the right for decades. Clintonian Democrats accepted and popularized economic conservatism. Free trade, reduced government spending, and "whatever Wall Street wants" are ideas that came to be unquestioned in this country’s two major parties. John Edwards is now running a populist campaign. He’s talking about creating jobs by fighting corporate greed and solving our healthcare crisis by taking on the pharmaceuticals and the insurance industry. (By way of illustration, I’d say that if anyone can be said to speak for the left, it’s Ralph Nader–and Nader recently endorsed Edwards as the only tolerable Democrat.)
Obama, meanwhile, is campaigning on a platform of building bipartisan coalitions, of achieving broad support by sitting down and listening to the other side. His rhetoric seeks out the Clinton territory in the middle, and he’s refusing to take any really progressive policy stands. Obama is much more favorable to corporate interests than Edwards. (Which makes it awfully convenient for the corporate media to paint Obama as the change candidate, incidentally–its own institutional interest is presumably best served by a Clinton [status quo] vs. Obama [change] dichotomy.)
To the extent that Obama’s argument is that he stands for change based on his message–less partisan bickering, conciliation with the other side, compromise–his argument strikes me as both naive (he can’t stop partisan bickering) and dishonest (political compromise/centrism/moderation is hardly change in any meaningful way).
But to the extent that an Obama election would be a big deal because he’s black–yeah, that’s a pretty big change. That would be a huge deal for this country. It would be a huge deal for the world (one might note that half the the world’s countries, irrespective of wealth, have elected female leaders; dark-skinned leaders have been decidedly less common in countries with diverse populations). In other words, the election of Obama would be the progress itself and at once a signal thereof. This narrative has real value–maybe even more than Edwards’s greater ideological purity.
And finally, if Iowa is any indication, Obama is bringing in the ever-elusive youth vote and otherwise increasing voter turnout. I wouldn’t really call that a change, since it’s a response to exceptional circumstances and probably won’t last. Those exceptional circumstances, of course, being the mess President Bush has made of this country and the world… and Obama himself. I get the sense that people want to be able to say, "I voted for Barack Obama; I helped elect this nation’s first black President." It’s kind of like being able to say that you marched with Martin Luther King–who wouldn’t like to be able to say that?
Accidental Blogger 
6 responses to “Iowa, Obama, and Change (Joe)”
Joe:
I doubt that the media types are ignoring Edwards as the authentic agent of “change” in favor of a more glamorous Clinton – Obama face off. Many people, including you, my husband, Brian Leiter, most lefty bloggers and others did see in Edwards a progressive candidate. May be he is but somehow he didn’t convince me. Dennis Kucinich is the candidate whose positions are truly what Edwards claims to champion. But DK is unelectable and this time he has endorsed Obama.
You are too young but the media (like me) remember Edwards in his previous incarnation. A bland middle of the road senatorial stint and a “yes” vote for the Iraq war which he repudiated after he was safely out of the senate. He has had time to shape his candidacy since 2004 – moving to the populist left with his “Two Americas” message. Announcing his intentions of a presidential run in Katrina ravaged New Orleans, virtually living in Iowa, bringing in bloggers – all appeared a bit staged and contrived to me. His $400 haircut, 20,000 sq ft mansion and keeping his audiences waiting for 40 -45 minutes before making an appearance at rallies didn’t help. Not that being filthy rich is a disqualification in itself. The Kennedys are rich as are many other progressive pols. But Edwards’ “passion” for everyman just didn’t convince me enough (and I may be wrong) despite his flashing eyes and angry rhetoric. And remember, I am hardly one to be put off by anger. I still love Howard Dean – scream and all!
As for Obama, why I believe he will and should succeed, I will copy here what I wrote at another blog:
“From everything I have heard/ read about Obama so far, the man IS what you see and has been for a long time. Since he figured out who he was – black, white, foreign father, heartland mother, Christian, Muslim, multi-culti, whatever. His comfort in his own skin is not a new found thing. His Harvard law school buddies have attested to that. Obama’s appeal may be a bit like that of Tiger Woods. Tiger did not have to “play” black to inspire young African Americans to take interest in golf and feel pride in his achievements. But unlike him, Obama is married to a very impressive black woman.
This time the choice on the Democratic side is going to come down a lot to style over substance and Obama is the most stylish of the lot by far. I don’t know how much of a “change” Obama will really bring about but it sure will be a change from a Clinton-Clinton sequel of grotesque Twist & Tango. And given that Bush-Cheney are surely gone at the end of the year, that is change enough for most people.
I also agree on how Iowa (and hopefully New Hampshire) will affect the African American voter mindset, for many of whom Hillary was the safe choice until now. I too see an AA swarm toward Obama now. Bill Clinton warned voters that voting for Obama is a roll of the dice. He wants us to choose his tried, tested and fireproofed wife. The Billary administration worked for the nineties and looks particularly glorious in light of what happened next. But this time around Americans may well prefer a roll of the dice over the old play book of triangulation.
As for race in general, a whole generation of Americans of all races are now of the voting age who may consciously decide to jump the last hurdle in American politics which their Selma era baby boomer parents couldn’t bring themselves to do.”
LikeLike
P.S. Edwards did the best in tonight’s ABC debate.
LikeLike
That was a fun debate. I loved Hillary’s response where that idiot asking questions said asked her about Obama beating her in likability.
I’ll say that, unlike you, I do believe in Edwards. His Senate record isn’t Ted Kennedy’s, but he’s been the person (with all due respect to Kucinich) consistently driving the conversation among the ’08 Dems to the left. And I take his record as a trial lawyer as fitting the narrative he’s running on: helping poor plaintiffs seek justice against large businesses and corporations (rather than, say, doing transactional work at a corporate law firm).
But I think that your comments about Obama are spot-on — and I think it’s important enough that it’s hard it’s hard to really argue with someone for supporting Obama, even someone who believes that Edwards is the progressive candidate.
LikeLike
Did you notice how Edwards was guarding Obama’s flank (for change) and Richardson, much less effectively, Hillary’s (for experience)?
I can’t believe the amount of energy and stamina these people must have to carry on this marathon campaign on the road and on TV.
I agree with you that Edwards’ skills as a trial lawyer are very sharp. I seriously doubt that Edwards will agree to run as Obama’s running mate if the latter is nominated. He sure won’t want to be the second banana one more time. But I was wondering that in the event that we do have a Democratic president in November, whoever that might be, that person will do well to create a special post for Edwards in the administration to negotiate with the insurance and pharmaceutical companies. A Health Care Czar? Edwards will be superb.
LikeLike
I did notice that. I’d guess that Richardson is trying to get himself a spot on the Clinton ticket (or at least in her Cabinet), whereas Edwards is trying to knock Clinton out of the race. He needs this to turn into a two-person race quickly to have a shot at the nomination; that message also implicitly argues that Democrats have been voting against Clinton and in favor of change–without having decided which of the two change candidates will bring them the change they want.
LikeLike
It was a lot of fun to watch last night’s debate (though I had to get an unruly kid to bed and missed the last half hour) I did have the strong impression that there was some kind of ‘agreement’ between Edwards and Obama on highlighting the ‘change’ issue. Edwards was as feisty and passionate as ever, but seemed a little shorter on substance than Obama, who seemed to do a better job of illustrating his policy positions. It may not have been black and white, but it was clear.
My guess is there’s some kind of tacit agreement to try and keep the attacks going on Clinton’s position, so as to try and knock her out of the equation. Then the jockeying will begin, once they have her out of the way, despite her efforts to reposition herself(Note that she actually committed to having all US forces out of Iraq within a year or so- don’t remember that from earlier debates).
Richardson always sounds as though he is running to be the Clinton VP, or at least Sec. of State.Yesterday was no exception, and his hogging the mike was so annoying that I switched to watching the Red and Green Show on PBS out of sheer desperation.
Yesterday’s ratings:
Edwards : 4 1/2 stars
Obama : 4 stars
Clinton : 3 1/2 stars
Richardson : 2 1/2 stars
Moderator Charlie Gibson : 2 stars
LikeLike