The Feel Of The Ground: The Democrats

** Note correction

** Obama's closing argument is more audacious than it seems; it's an end-run around the established interests of the Democratic Party. He is angering -- often deliberately -- some of the party's core constituencies; Markos "Daily Kos" Moulitsas and my Atlantic colleague, Matt Yglesias, have both (sort of) withdrawn their endorsements of Obama because of his penchant for allegedly using right-wing talking points to smear his Democratic rivals. Correction: ** Moulitsas has not endorsed Obama.

** But if Barack Obama is drawing all those independents...if he can get Republicans to increase their turnout at the Democratic caucuses by 400%...if he can get independents to almost outnumber Democrats at the Democratic caucuses, most Democrats here would agree that he deserves to be their nominee.

** And there is no chance whatsoever that the Democratic Party would not be as united around Obama as it would around any nominee of comparable star-power.

** By the way: long-term political observers here and the media cognoscenti seem to think that of Edwards, Clinton and Obama, Obama has the least compelling closing argument. But it may not matter; he may have already sealed the deal with enough voters; independents may really be getting what he says. So the gut feeling of reporters may not be correct.

** Some of the second tier candidates are beginning to draw large crowds, like Joe Biden, for whom 500 showed up in Des Moines, 300 in Mason City, and 250 in Dubuque. I doubt that Biden will finish in the top three, but he's clearly got the deepest well of support among the second-tier Dems, and he's a strong second choice candidate for many supporters of the top-tier Democrats. His strength is found in cities like Dubuque -- he did very well there the last time he ran.

Comments

Obama has the weakest argument for his candidacy - he's a media creation, but in a consumer country that likes American idol he just may fit the bill

seriously, no one knows what Obama would do that's why he's gathering indys

Posted by OUtside the Beltway | January 2, 2008 8:22 AM

Well, it has been pretty clear for a long time now that "long-term political observers and the media cognoscenti" tend not to understand Obama's appeal with actual voters.

Posted by DTM | January 2, 2008 8:38 AM

"seriously, no one knows what Obama would do that's why he's gathering indys"

Historically, he's Jimmy Carter in 1976. No one knew where he stood, and he was able to ride that.

Worth remembering that Carter left office with higher approval rating among Republicans than among Democrats (!)

Posted by Petey | January 2, 2008 8:57 AM

"And there is no change whatsoever that the Democratic Party would not be as united around Obama as it would around any nominee of comparable star-power."

Yup. This is what happens when you seek the Democratic nomination by continually bashing unions.

Posted by Petey | January 2, 2008 8:58 AM

This post, as well as Yepsens piece in today's DMR, seems to be be the process of the punditocracy ducking from getting any egg on their faces about Obama's performance.

First, regarding Kos and the so-called progressive blogosphere that has had knives out for Obama since the start despite the fact that his record is the most consistently progressive of all the major canddiates, but they refuse to enthusiatically back him because he does not toe to the line rhetorically. They are much more interested in style over sustance, it seems.

But their arguments show how out of touch they are with the democratic party and the rest of the coutry. Just like all those group think political reporters who think Obama's closing argument is the weakest. Kos is always whining on his blog about how he doesn't really like any of the dem candidates, when most dems are very happy with their choices and if they are undecided its not because they dislike them all, like Kos, but because they like them all. The Kos people are major party poopers.

You would think that the progressive blogosphere might have a little bit of an open mind regarding issues of speech and rhetoric. But when all Obama did was refer to Edwards as a "trial lawyer," Kos had a breathless hissy fit about how once again, Obama is echoing republican talking points:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/12/31/16617/845

To me, it's really sad to see progressives as generally smart and thoughtful as Kos reduce themselves to becoming hypersensitive arbiters of all rhetorical/style points that might slightly offend dem interest groups, such s trial lawyers (who even a progressive can admit can often act in a greedy exploitive way). The Kos people also have their panties in a buinch over the fact that Obama said he would be a better, less polarizing candidate than Gore or Kerry. "Infidel!" they shout as Kos issues a fatwah against all those who dare even state the obvious limitations of the Gore and Kerry candidacies that they themselves would even acknowledge. Unlike Kos, Gore and Kerry are big boys and do not have such fragile egos that Obama can't try to build on their mistakes a little. Obama and Gore speak every 3 weeks and Kerry is said to have advised Obama as well.

The invective of the blogosphere against Obama is probably because, like Paul Krugman , most have a bizarre fetish for hyperpartisanship. Indeed, when bloomberg announced his little bipartisan meeting, I saw some of the progressive commenters speak of a "centrist cult!" Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

These folks benefit from a polarized country because their raison de etre is to fight against somebody, anybody! The notion of a less polarized country, and thus less decay for them to parasitically live off of, scares them enormously. That's why the Kos people and the national press core, who make their living off of the hyperpartisan circus, have been so invested in taking Obama down throughout the course of this campaign. These people don't really want what is best for this country, they want what's in their interest: division.

So much so that they throw out all pretenses of intellectual honesty when comparing Obama to other candidates. They nominate Johnny-come-lately-to-progressivism as the saint du jour of the progressive movement, selling their souls by attacking the more consistenly progressive Obama simply because he refuses to rhetorically act towards republican voters like the Bush crowd used to act towards us. These people are so blinded by revenge that they have taken on many of the characteristics of those they have opposed over the years. But sadly, they have adopted little of the political saavy that the the Rove people had pre-2006.. If they had one iota of political saavy, they would see that Obama is a progressive in moderate clothing (i.e. our "Prudent Progressive" to Bush's "Compassionate Conservative") and that with his inclusive/independent rhetoric which they find so dangerous and heretical that he is best positioned to move the country in a progressive direction than any other candidate we have had in a long time. But these folks don't particularly care; they would rather have the fight than the result. Memo to progressive blogosphere: Grow Up!

But then again, their ankle biting is serving a useful purpose in the long run if Obama wins the nomination, because its going to make it tough for the wingers to paint him as a "lib-rul," when the Krugmans and Kos's of the world think he is too conservative. Thanks again for playing the Sista Souljah role of the the 2008 cycle. Its much appreciated how you are willing to marginalize yourselves for the greater cause!

Posted by RKA | January 2, 2008 9:49 AM

"First, regarding Kos and the so-called progressive blogosphere that has had knives out for Obama..."

This is what happens when you run to the right in the Democratic Party.

Obama's been slashing progressives and unions for the past year. Are you really so astonished that they'd veto his nomination?

Joe Lieberman didn't far very well in 2004 either.

We're taking back the Democratic Party and the nation in 2008 under the banner of progressivism. Triangulators like Obama are out of luck.

Posted by Petey | January 2, 2008 9:54 AM

And there is no chance whatsoever that the Democratic Party would not be as united around Obama as it would around any nominee of comparable star-power.

I think Marc is wrong on this score.

If you study the Democratic performance in recent elections, mobilizing the women's vote is the key. It was the key in 2006. And, Kerry's poor performance with women is THE reason he lost badly in 2004 while Gore won the popular vote in 2000.

Given her popularity among Democratic women nationally, Clinton losing the nomination, fueled as it has been by sexist biases in the media (see Andrew Sullivan's call for Hillary to learn to speak in a deep male voice), significant numbers of Democratic women voters will be de-energized.

Not to mention the loss of the world's most popular Democrat, Bill Clinton, as an enthusiastic campaigner.

Posted by hwc | January 2, 2008 9:59 AM

Oops. My bad.

I missed the "not" in Marc's awkward double-negative comment above.

I agree that the party would NOT be united around Obama. "Not united" in a way that would almost certainly cost the Democrats the 2008 election.

Posted by hwc | January 2, 2008 10:02 AM

I read every political blog (non partisan) from Ben Smith to First Read and I can feel the passive-agressive feelings the press has with Obama right now. It is not outright hostility but you can tell they don't believe he will win.
Thanks for actually wording that belief Mark. The others are not honest enough to tell us their guts think differently from the polls, because they want to cover their asses in case he pulls it off.
The good news for Obama's supporters is that it means that the expectation game is actually more lenient on him than one would expect from the DMR poll. If he wins, reporters will actually be surprised and will treat it as a much bigger surprise.

Posted by Benjamin | January 2, 2008 10:04 AM

HWC: That's not necessarily true. To begin with an Obama nomination would play HUGE for African American men and WOMAN as well as Latino men and WOMAN who actually appreciate that he has not tacked right on Immigration as Hillary Clinton has done. If he picks someone like Gov. Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas as his running mate he would lock up the woman's vote as well and you would have a historic candidacy.

And I doubt that Bill Clinton would not campaign for whomever won the nomination; but he's not needed. The beauty of an Obama nomination is he has the charisma and charm to be able to pull it off on his own.

Posted by Rhoda | January 2, 2008 10:07 AM

Kos has jumped the shark.

Posted by lampwick | January 2, 2008 10:11 AM

"Kos has jumped the shark."

The problem is that Team Obama keeps identifying folks on the left who have jumped the shark.

They think Kos has jumped the shark. They think Krugman has jumped the shark. They think Atrios has jumped the shark. They think the unions have jumped the shark.

Obama jumped the shark this past summer when he came out with a non-universal healthcare plan. And he's been running furiously to the right ever since.

It's a good strategy if Obama wants to be Mike Bloomberg's VP, but it's a lousy strategy to win the Democratic nomination for the Presidency.

Posted by Petey | January 2, 2008 10:17 AM

Listen. Obama's rhetoric may not closely follow progressive talking points but to say he is running from the right is SO out-of-whack I can't believe anybody reasonable would believe that.
You are free to resent him for some of the comments he made but let's keep things in perspective here.

Posted by Benjamin | January 2, 2008 10:23 AM

The most pressing question after Iowa is this: what happens to this Petey 'bot when Edwards finishes 3rd? Does this program automatically shut down, or will it continue to litter its fanboy drivel all over the blogosphere even after Edwards drops out and endorses Obama?

Posted by Ryan | January 2, 2008 10:30 AM

Ryan, the question is misleading.

The question is what happens to Petey when Edwards sinks like a stone in NH and SC? Or when his stupid decision to get public financing catches up with him and he's got no money to spend, other than what his bodies in (wink wink) independent organizations do for him? Or when his angry populist rhetoric which is designed for the rural, working class working folk of the midwest find little chord with people in the coasts and the south?

Posted by Nick Kaufman | January 2, 2008 11:02 AM

Edwards, together with the 30% of Americans who noisily support him, will surely be an effective instrument for change. Like Ralph Nader, say, or the Green Party.

Posted by lampwick | January 2, 2008 11:11 AM

"The most pressing question after Iowa is this: what happens to this Petey 'bot when Edwards finishes 3rd? "

Dream on.

It's been so many decades since we've had an electable and progressive Democrat that no one understands how easy this nomination race is going to be for him.

Posted by Petey | January 2, 2008 11:12 AM

"Edwards, together with the 30% of Americans who noisily support him, will surely be an effective instrument for change. Like Ralph Nader, say, or the Green Party."

Edwards is doing better in general election matchups than Obama or Clinton, y'know...

Posted by Petey | January 2, 2008 11:13 AM

Also let me say once again - and that's true if my favorite candidate wins- that the Iowa caucus is no way to elect a president.

Tomorrow the election results will show percentages which would be a distorted count of voting choices because it would be the percentage of delegates, not voters each candidate got.

Then, you might think that one man, one vote is a given right hard-won many years ago, but think again, it's not true in Iowa. Apparently the vote of 10 rural voters in a remote place counts for more than the vote of 10 voters in De Moines. Why? Because of a complicated electoral formula which favors certain districts over others.

The tragedy is that the media are going to take these distorted results representing something like 4-5% of Iowans only to make wild ass extrapolations about the will of millions of Americans...

This is no way to elect a president.

Posted by Nick Kaufman | January 2, 2008 11:14 AM

Because, surprisingly enough, Edwards is not as well-known. People still have 2004 sunny golden-boy-as-WP Edwards in mind.
I can guarantee you once they hire his shtick about "them vs us" his numbers will go back down in line

Posted by Benjamin | January 2, 2008 11:15 AM

What Benjamin said. The tragedy is that Edwards message is basically Shrum on steroids. Shrum didn't only lose because he was incompetent, he lost because he drove Gore to run as a populist instead of running on the prosperity of the Clinton years. And don't let me hear that he won. With the economy and the candidates being who they were, Gore should have gotten a landslide.

The same with Kerry. Instead of making a cogent national security argument, an area in which IMO Bush won pivotal voters in the suburbs, he went again with the same tired old populist bromides.

So after that experience, the idea is that "gee, why don't we try this again, except this time, let's do it in an unhinged and angry way".

Posted by Nick Kaufman | January 2, 2008 11:21 AM

"Obama's been slashing progressives and unions for the past year"

Huh?

Posted by Democrats Against Hillary | January 2, 2008 11:26 AM

RKA, Benjamin - I completely agree with most of what you both said. The idea that Obama is trying to win a DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY by running from the right is absurd. Primary candidates don't win by pretending to be from the other side of the aisle. And Kos's stated disgust with our candidates is sad for him more than anything -- if you cannot find a candidate to support with the slate we have, then no one will ever be good enough. Too bad for him Dean doesn't run in every election.

Posted by cms | January 2, 2008 11:42 AM

Petey (or frankly0 or Dream On or whatever name you're using on blogs these days) AND hwc-

You both need to go back to remedial 8th grade English class. Mr. Ambinder used two negatives in that sentence not one.

"And there is no chance whatsoever that the Democratic Party would not be as united around Obama as it would around any nominee of comparable star-power."

Meaning: Obama can affirmatively unite the Democratic Party as well as any nominee of comparable star-power.

Posted by Michael's Mom | January 2, 2008 12:31 PM

First, regarding Kos and the so-called progressive blogosphere that has had knives out for Obama since the start despite the fact that his record is the most consistently progressive of all the major canddiates, but they refuse to enthusiatically back him because he does not toe to the line rhetorically. They are much more interested in style over sustance, it seems.

Exactly the opposite. Liberal bloggers are policy wonks by nature. They're far more interested in substance than style. Far from not backing him because he doesn't toe the line rhetorically, they've understandably grown skittish about his candidacy because he doesn't toe the line from a policy perspective. He just doesn't seem very progressive, in other words. Union bashing, harping about the faux Social Security crisis, attacking plaintiff lawyers and coming out against universal health insurance will tend to make one look not so progressive.

Posted by Jasper | January 2, 2008 12:38 PM

Except that all of those are wild overstatements of what Obama has actually said Jasper.

Posted by mad6798j | January 2, 2008 1:07 PM

"Far from not backing him because he doesn't toe the line rhetorically, they've understandably grown skittish about his candidacy because he doesn't toe the line from a policy perspective. He just doesn't seem very progressive, in other words. Union bashing, harping about the faux Social Security crisis, attacking plaintiff lawyers and coming out against universal health insurance will tend to make one look not so progressive."

So it's been BHO's *policy* choices that have "bashed unions," "harped" about social security, and "attacked" trial lawyers? Sure that wasn't his rhetorical style?

Oh, wait, that wasn't it either because he doesn't done any of those things in word or in deed.

Posted by Leo | January 2, 2008 1:10 PM

"Exactly the opposite. Liberal bloggers are policy wonks by nature. They're far more interested in substance than style. Far from not backing him because he doesn't toe the line rhetorically, they've understandably grown skittish about his candidacy because he doesn't toe the line from a policy perspective. He just doesn't seem very progressive, in other words. Union bashing, harping about the faux Social Security crisis, attacking plaintiff lawyers and coming out against universal health insurance will tend to make one look not so progressive.

Posted by Jasper | January 2, 2008 12:38 PM"

Actually, Kos is rather explicit that he is a partisan Democrat, not an ideological Democrat. He has mentioned this as a reason he doesn't really talk about policy issues like Darfur. His focus is on elections.

Posted by Reality Man | January 2, 2008 1:47 PM

If the bloggers were the purist they claim to be when attacking Obama, they would be uniting behind the real purist Kucinich instead of Johnny-come-lately-to-liberalism Edwards. They make practical compromises for Edwards or Dodd, but they refuse to for Obama. I really think they simply hate the fact that Obama's rhetoirc is concilliatory, even if his positions and record are very progressive.

Posted by RKA | January 2, 2008 2:11 PM

If the bloggers were the purist they claim to be when attacking Obama, they would be uniting behind the real purist Kucinich instead of Johnny-come-lately-to-liberalism Edwards.

Talk about straw man arguments. I can't think of any prominent lefty blogger who claims to be a purist. It ought to be possible to walk and chew gum at the same time. In other words, it ought to be possible to have an optimal combination of electability and ideological acceptability. That rules out someone like a Kucinich. The pre-GOP attack Obama seems to have the former attribute down pretty good (although note the use of "pre."). The second one looks pretty dicey to me.

Posted by Jasper | January 2, 2008 2:45 PM

I will give Kos credit for one thing.

Letting this guy blog on his site. He nails it, I think. I especially love the Obama eats children post.

http://mark-warner-is-god.dailykos.com/

Posted by RKA | January 2, 2008 3:14 PM

Saying that Obama "bashed unions" or trial lawyers is simply untrue.

Note that no one who makes that untrue claim can provide any link to prove it.

Posted by Petey Lies! | January 2, 2008 3:23 PM

Anyone who doesn't realize Obama has been running to the right this primary season is an idiot. The only debate is whether this is purely tactical or Obama really is that moderate. Obama's campaign manager has stated they are actively courting Republicans and independents both in their rhetoric and gotv operations in Iowa since those groups favor Obama over his two main rivals.

Posted by Obama supporters are young and dumb (mostly dumb) | January 3, 2008 8:56 AM