Obama's Path To Victory

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=c8aebe97-6289-4ec2-b6c8-ad14e59ccc0a

Obama Rising by John B. Judis
Where Hillary went wrong--and how Barack took advantage.
Post Date Thursday, November 15, 2007

snip//

Obama's speech at the Jefferson-Jackson dinner advanced the argument for his own candidacy. None of the other Democratic or Republican candidates can match his sheer rhetorical brilliance: his ability to be at once cool and passionate, cerebral and emotional. Earlier in the campaign, his eloquence appeared superfluous. It was negated by Clinton's polish and experience. But as Clinton's vulnerabilities have reemerged, Obama's oratorical powers have suddenly become relevant again. They are seen as his means of transcending his inexperience and race (which will be a disadvantage in a general election campaign). They are a promise that, unlike Clinton, he will actually do what he says he is going to do without getting caught in the maelstrom of Washington party politics.

The speech Obama gave that evening was the best I've seen during this campaign. (Here's the video and full transcript.) He appeared focused on the future and on what he would do differently than George W. Bush ("We have a chance to bring the country together in a new majority "), while ticking off the reasons for doubting Clinton's sincerity and her commitment to "meaningful change" without ever naming her. Americans don't want "the same old Washington textbook campaigns." They don't want "triangulating and poll-driven positions." They want to be led "not by polls, but by principle; not by calculation, but by conviction." They don't want Democrats who think "the only way to look tough on national security is by talking, and acting, and voting like George Bush Republicans." They "don't want to spend the next year or the next four years re-fighting the same fights that we had in the 1990s."

Obama has tried to portray himself as a twenty-first century version of Abraham Lincoln, whom he evoked repeatedly in his speech in Springfield, Illinios, last February when he announced his candidacy. That's understandable. Obama wants to use the example of Lincoln (who served only two years in Congress) to show that experience in Washington is not a prerequisite to presidential greatness. But Obama, who riffed on Lincoln's fateful words, "a house divided against itself cannot stand," to explain his own program of political unification, wouldn't want to press the comparison too far. Lincoln needed a civil war to unify the nation. Obama promises to do so through political inspiration.

But there is a more telling comparison to Obama's campaign. As blogger Matt Stoller pointed out last spring, Obama's challenge to Clinton most clearly recalls Gary Hart's 1984 challenge to Walter Mondale in the Democratic primaries. Obama, like Hart, is running a classic outsider campaign, promising "meaningful change" against the insider candidate of the "special interests" in Washington. If you look at Hart's campaign ads from 1984, it feels as if Obama's ads were modeled upon them.

Hart's campaign fell short, and Obama's could as well. As the vote nears, he will face questions about his electability--just as Howard Dean did in 2004. His outsider rhetoric tends to reinforce arguments about his inexperience. And the premise of his campaign--that he can unify a divided Washington and nation--may prove unsustainable, in so far as it relies on the assumption that the polarization of the Clinton years was primarily due to Clinton's triangulation and not to a combative Republican majority determined to destroy his presidency. To date, the media has given Obama pretty much a free pass on his political assumptions.

Still, there now seems to be a path by which Obama could gain the nomination. Aided by Edwards' votes and, perhaps, by further Clinton missteps, he could win Iowa and New Hampshire. He would then have established sufficient credibility with South Carolina's black voters to win that state's primary. On Super Tuesday, February 5, he would have to win California, a few Southern states, and one or two Midwestern states in addition to Illinois to be competitive for the long haul. Obama would still not be home free, but he would certainly be in position to challenge Clinton well into the spring.


John B. Judis is a senior editor at The New Republic and a visiting scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Cheers.

:hi:

He's proven himself, or his handlers have, to be a totaly hypocrite. Misses the vote on Iran, but publicly attacks Hillary Clinton for her vote. Can't seem to find ANY records of his time as Ill. senator, but trashes Hillary about hers. I just don't like him.. he's creeping me out more and more. I was so willing to support him at first, but either he or his staff are the worst kind of sleazy... and I"m tired of sleazy politics. Frankly, I also had liked Edwards, and had initially supported him, but he is also all about attacking Hillary Clinton now instead of promoting his own good ideas. A spoof website against HIllary Clinton that Edwards has released.. classy, really classy. And don'tcha love how Senator Clinton is the only Democratic Candidate referred to by her FIRST name?? Is that a GUY thing to make her seem more trivial??

I hate the flame and mud slinging. Obama at first was a very very good candidate then you took a look at what he was saying and doing.

You found out he had connections to a Chicago gangster, which in itself might have been innocent. But his campaign bashed Hillary for the fundraiser who was a crook. She didn't know at the time he was, but Obama KNEW this guy was a gangster. Then like you said the records thing. And I can't stand the way the people who support him are bashing Hillary. If this is the type of democrats that want him to be president than God help this country....I thought Republican style politics would never ever be performed by the democrats. And then they sit and giggle about it.

to do more than enough of it, every chance you get, even in threads where Obama isn't mentioned. You-pot-kettle-black. Get it?

for you, but thanks for the kick! :toast: And FTR, Hillary calls herself Hillary, which is why others do. I don't much like it either, and try to refrain, but she brought that on herself. And if you'd like me to dredge up some Clinton negatives, just ask, or look around. They're voluminous!

"I agree with Joe" A LOT during the debate

Barack makes more sense then the whole crew...

actually pick a candidate, but I do have some favorites.