Sean posted an article from Atlantic Monthly yesterday and it struck me as perhaps the most eloquent and poignant analysis of why this nation needs Barack Obama yet put to print. If you care at all about 2008, please read this article. I know he already posted this yesterday, but I can’t help but put up another excerpt:
The paradox is that Hillary makes far more sense if you believe that times are actually pretty good. If you believe that America’s current crisis is not a deep one, if you think that pragmatism alone will be enough to navigate a world on the verge of even more religious warfare, if you believe that today’s ideological polarization is not dangerous, and that what appears dark today is an illusion fostered by the lingering trauma of the Bush presidency, then the argument for Obama is not that strong. Clinton will do. And a Clinton-Giuliani race could be as invigorating as it is utterly predictable.
But if you sense, as I do, that greater danger lies ahead, and that our divisions and recent history have combined to make the American polity and constitutional order increasingly vulnerable, then the calculus of risk changes. Sometimes, when the world is changing rapidly, the greater risk is caution. Close-up in this election campaign, Obama is unlikely. From a distance, he is necessary. At a time when America’s estrangement from the world risks tipping into dangerous imbalance, when a country at war with lethal enemies is also increasingly at war with itself, when humankind’s spiritual yearnings veer between an excess of certainty and an inability to believe anything at all, and when sectarian and racial divides seem as intractable as ever, a man who is a bridge between these worlds may be indispensable.
We may in fact have finally found that bridge to the 21st century that Bill Clinton told us about. Its name is Obama.
Again, in context this is an even more powerful passage and I implore you to read the entirety of the article.
Andrew Sullivan’s points about Obama’s potential bipartisan appeal are especially salient today as Zogby’s recent polling becomes a topic of national conversation. The short story: Zogby’s head-to-heads show Hillary losing to every single Republican candidate for President. How does Obama fare? He wins against every single Republican candidate for President. (Edwards is somewhere in between)
Some of the stark contrasts: Clinton loses to McCain by 4 points, Obama wins against McCain by 7 points. Clinton loses to Huckabee by 5 points, Obama wins by 6. Clinton loses to Guiliani by 3 points, Obama wins by 5.
Look, I’ll fully admit that putting too much stock in polls like this at this point is somewhat foolish; especially when the margins are so close. But I strongly feel that these polls are indicative of a larger factor that needs to be given a lot of thought before people go to the polls on primary day: Clinton is old news and Obama is the future. I don’t mean that in as grand terms as it may be taken. I think Clinton is an admirable politician and I’d be happy with her as President, but she is an extension of today’s (read: yesterday’s) politics. She is of a generation that’s been in power for 16 years, she carries with her the baggage of her husband, and she’s been (improperly) demonized by the right more thoroughly than anyone else in politics today. Obama on the other hand represents a leap forward. Sure, it’s unknown and that may make a few people timid but along with that uncertainty comes hope. The hope of a new chapter for America, the hope for a new style of political thinking, a hope for a fresh start for America. And right now if there’s one thing this nation needs it’s hope.
Obama is a fresh start. He’s a symbolic (in more than one way) mending of some of America’s deepest wounds. And I think he’ll fare better in the general because of it. People have yet to really know Obama in the way they (think) they know Hillary and McCain. And I’m confident that once people are given the chance to know him well the contrast between him and the competition will become so stark that this gap will only widen further.
We need Barack Obama. America needs Barack Obama. And Barack Obama can win. Need I say more?
Loading ...
I agree with Matt, but I don’t trust Zogby polls.
That Zogby poll is worthless. They do two types-phone polls and interactive online polls. Guess which one is completely inaccurate? Guess which type got the Hillary results?
I like Obama, but those Zogby interactive polls are complete shit.
It doesn’t really matter though. Obama is the better candidate. He has the opportunity to do great things for this country, and Clinton just doesn’t have the same potential.
Check out the Daily Kos blog “Zogby “interactive” polls are junk”
yeah, yeah, yeah, we all agree that these polls are garbage but I was using it to make a larger point.
What the point is - Clinton already SAID she will be the democRat choice with Katie C.
Anyone here want to bet against Hillary? The democRats will put on a show like the nomination is open but the fact of the matter is Hillary already bought this one. :)
On a policy level I see very little difference between Obama and Clinton. On the leadership level in the Senate on important issues, I see very little difference. On electability, I see very little difference. Obama has the ability to give a good speech, but that’s all I’ve seen from him. The one time I saw him in person, he wasn’t impressive. I went and saw Clinton 10 minutes later and thought she was better.
People say they can’t trust Clinton. I have that problem with both her and Obama. Obama has been in DC for 3 years now, and already he has become one of the biggest insiders there. Look at his campaign staff. They are all old-guard anti-progressive democrats that are part of the entrenched machine, just like Hillary’s.
I won’t support a non-progressive candidate in the primary, so both Obama and Clinton are out for me.
“yeah, yeah, yeah, we all agree that these polls are garbage but I was using it to make a larger point.”
If the point was to mislead the readers of your blog then mission accomplished. If you knew the numbers were BS, then I think morally you should either omit them or put a disclaimer. Better yet, also cite the Gallup’s (more reliable) numbers from the same day showing Clinton winning against every Republican by margins larger than Obama’s.
Archer Dem: “garbage” was too strong for me to use. I do think they are of some use, Zack and Sean may disagree with me. And I do think that my analysis follows from the polls despite those polls somewhat suspect methodology. This is why I said this in the post: “Look, I’ll fully admit that putting too much stock in polls like this at this point is somewhat foolish; especially when the margins are so close.”
Hillary has it locked up, spending time on Obama is an excersize in futility
Matt,
I still don’t think you’ve addressed the point I was making. I know it is common practice in all forms of media to use only the facts that fit the narrative, but I was hoping you would go beyond that. Instead this post shows you shilling for a candidate by using misleading numbers. Yes, the analysis that followed it was correct IF the numbers themselves are any good. Analysis has shown Zogby to have twice the error of other polling outfits. Solid analysis doesn’t mean much if the premise upon which it is all based is about as sturdy as a rotting board.
To be clear, I have no problem with a blog endorsing a candidate for President. If I had someone I was convinced was the answer and I was a blogger, I’d definitely make a public endorsement. I just disagree with your use of polls that you know to be suspect to make your point, especially when a more reliable poll with a different conclusion was released the same day. I believe Obama probably would do even better than Gallup has him simply because he has a relatively low (compared to Clinton) name recognition, so his numbers would probably go up as more people get to know him. He is, after all, a likable guy. I’d have no problem if that was the point that was made. I would find it valid and convincing.
Forget about the polls - read the full Atlantic Monthly article - and while you’re at it, check out “The Relaunch [of Obama]” in this past week’s New Yorker.
Then come back and comment on what you read.
One article in the Atlantic Monthly isn’t going to change the mind of someone who has been following Senator Obama’s career since he was elected and has paid careful attention to his campaign. I guess I’m just not drawn in by his talk of abstract concepts like “hope”.