Today's Article
The Illinois senator
may have the
people's hearts, but
can he get the
backing of the
Democratic Party
elite?
may have the
people's hearts, but
can he get the
backing of the
Democratic Party
elite?
The American Spark
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Will Obama Now Show More Than Just Potential?
By Cliff Montgomery - Feb. 20th, 2007
The first days of Sen. Barack Obama's (D-IL) presidential campaign have displayed all the promise one could
hope for a new candidate, with large crowds, pulsating energy and a charismatic leading man. But political
wonks are whispering that Obama faces several challenges in the coming days if he hopes to convert such
potential into a winning campaign.
There will be the cheesy comments about his dashing form, and recognitions about his capacity to provide
stirring rhetoric at just the right moment. There will be the unfortunate--but unavoidable--questions about his race,
and his name. But the most significant hurdle will be overcoming concerns about the relative inexperience of this
first-term U.S. senator, who only three years ago was a member of the Illinois Senate.
Next will be striking the balance between the demands of political elites for Obama to flesh out the details of his
ambitious policy agenda, against the hopes of thousands of Americans who have been drawn to the Illinois
senator as a fresh contrast to traditional politicians.
But the race could ultimately turn on his ability to overcome the power and resources of Sen. Hillary Clinton's
(D-NY) battle-tested operation, which is already working hard on her behalf, and is aching to profit from any
missteps by Obama's smaller and less experienced organization.
Day 3 of the Obama campaign brought the candidate to New Hampshire, the state with the nation's first primary
and a rich tradition of political independence and citizen participation.
Along the way, he "absolutely apologized" for recently saying that the lives of U.S. servicemen and women killed
in Iraq had been "wasted." But Obama countered that there are "pretty substantial" differences between his
position and Sen. Clinton's on the Iraq War, a stance which will serve him well among many voters.
Frankly though, Obama should not have apologized. He should have demanded that others who voted for a
useless war be the ones to apologize to the nation's troops and their families, not the ones who out of
compassion tell the truth about its uselessness. This could be an early evidence that the young senator may flinch
when the political heat is on him.
Obama says his most obvious difference with Clinton involves the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. He favors
pulling out all combat troops by March 31, 2008, and claims Clinton "does not begin a phased redeployment."
Sen. Clinton in fact does favor such a redeployment, but has not set a timetable.
Asked if senators who voted for the war in Iraq--like Sen. Clinton--bear some responsibility for it, Obama pointed
out that the authorization has allowed the administration to wage a war that has damaged national security.
But he added, "I leave it up to those senators to make their own assessments in how they would do things
differently or not."
To be honest, Obama has had little time to develop a Senate record of great significance. His advisers hope the
public will embrace a broader definition of readiness, one that will as much prize the candidate's unusual
biography as a community organizer and a professor of constitutional law at the University of Chicago as his
record in the state and national Senates.
But Obama may have a way to go if he expects to court the elites at the top of the Democratic Party structure. A
recent speech to the Democratic National Committee (DNC), in which he seemed to dismiss the significance
of policy white papers, has rippled through top party circles as a sign that he believes other characteristics carry
more weight with voters than coming off as a policy wonk.
The committee should not feign surprise. They almost surely know that Obama has made a point in speeches
elsewhere of telling audiences that his campaign is their vehicle for a national movement to change the politics of
the country.
Of course, the last thing those at the top of any entrenched political party organization want is the people's voice
being deeply involved in anything. It ruins all their plans.
All one has to do is remember how the political elite of the Democratic Party had to be dragged back, kicking
and screaming, to its liberal core values in recent years.
How well Obama wears over time will be his campaign's ultimate test. But he shouldn't expect favors from those
who hold the reins of party power. Party bigwigs are usually much happier telling people what to think--which is
why they will almost surely back Sen. Clinton instead of the promising man from Illinois.
By Cliff Montgomery - Feb. 20th, 2007
The first days of Sen. Barack Obama's (D-IL) presidential campaign have displayed all the promise one could
hope for a new candidate, with large crowds, pulsating energy and a charismatic leading man. But political
wonks are whispering that Obama faces several challenges in the coming days if he hopes to convert such
potential into a winning campaign.
There will be the cheesy comments about his dashing form, and recognitions about his capacity to provide
stirring rhetoric at just the right moment. There will be the unfortunate--but unavoidable--questions about his race,
and his name. But the most significant hurdle will be overcoming concerns about the relative inexperience of this
first-term U.S. senator, who only three years ago was a member of the Illinois Senate.
Next will be striking the balance between the demands of political elites for Obama to flesh out the details of his
ambitious policy agenda, against the hopes of thousands of Americans who have been drawn to the Illinois
senator as a fresh contrast to traditional politicians.
But the race could ultimately turn on his ability to overcome the power and resources of Sen. Hillary Clinton's
(D-NY) battle-tested operation, which is already working hard on her behalf, and is aching to profit from any
missteps by Obama's smaller and less experienced organization.
Day 3 of the Obama campaign brought the candidate to New Hampshire, the state with the nation's first primary
and a rich tradition of political independence and citizen participation.
Along the way, he "absolutely apologized" for recently saying that the lives of U.S. servicemen and women killed
in Iraq had been "wasted." But Obama countered that there are "pretty substantial" differences between his
position and Sen. Clinton's on the Iraq War, a stance which will serve him well among many voters.
Frankly though, Obama should not have apologized. He should have demanded that others who voted for a
useless war be the ones to apologize to the nation's troops and their families, not the ones who out of
compassion tell the truth about its uselessness. This could be an early evidence that the young senator may flinch
when the political heat is on him.
Obama says his most obvious difference with Clinton involves the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. He favors
pulling out all combat troops by March 31, 2008, and claims Clinton "does not begin a phased redeployment."
Sen. Clinton in fact does favor such a redeployment, but has not set a timetable.
Asked if senators who voted for the war in Iraq--like Sen. Clinton--bear some responsibility for it, Obama pointed
out that the authorization has allowed the administration to wage a war that has damaged national security.
But he added, "I leave it up to those senators to make their own assessments in how they would do things
differently or not."
To be honest, Obama has had little time to develop a Senate record of great significance. His advisers hope the
public will embrace a broader definition of readiness, one that will as much prize the candidate's unusual
biography as a community organizer and a professor of constitutional law at the University of Chicago as his
record in the state and national Senates.
But Obama may have a way to go if he expects to court the elites at the top of the Democratic Party structure. A
recent speech to the Democratic National Committee (DNC), in which he seemed to dismiss the significance
of policy white papers, has rippled through top party circles as a sign that he believes other characteristics carry
more weight with voters than coming off as a policy wonk.
The committee should not feign surprise. They almost surely know that Obama has made a point in speeches
elsewhere of telling audiences that his campaign is their vehicle for a national movement to change the politics of
the country.
Of course, the last thing those at the top of any entrenched political party organization want is the people's voice
being deeply involved in anything. It ruins all their plans.
All one has to do is remember how the political elite of the Democratic Party had to be dragged back, kicking
and screaming, to its liberal core values in recent years.
How well Obama wears over time will be his campaign's ultimate test. But he shouldn't expect favors from those
who hold the reins of party power. Party bigwigs are usually much happier telling people what to think--which is
why they will almost surely back Sen. Clinton instead of the promising man from Illinois.