Obama Headed Off-Track

The New Republic: Charasmatic Candidate Must Provide More Substance

(The New Republic)  This column was written by Noam Scheiber.

---

There comes a point in the life of every fan when he must confront the mounting evidence that he and the rest of the world part company on the object of his fan-dom — and the rest of the world may have a point. I have in mind here such historic milestones as year four of the disastrous Bobby Bonilla experiment in New York, the year I fell out of love with the Mets. On paper, the Mets of early '90s vintage looked like world-beaters. Somewhere in the middle of their third consecutive losing season, however, it became clear that this team was never going to put it together. I hung on long after that — 'til the day Bonilla was traded two years later.

Barack Obama is, thankfully, a long way from the Bonilla-era Mets. He is, for one thing, just entering his prime, not at the tail end of it like the Mets' aging stars. And, so far as I know, he has never been tempted to throw a firecracker into a crowd of people. (That would be Mets outfielder Vince Coleman.) And, yet, were it not for the $25 million he raised in the first quarter of this year — an enormous qualifier, to be sure — this might be the point at which the less steadfast among us begin to ask themselves a painful, if necessary, question: What's the flaw in this man's game?

Over the last month, Obama has earned only tepid receptions at a Democratic health care forum in Las Vegas and at two high-profile union events in Washington, D.C. The gap between his rock-star reputation and his low-key stump presence has prompted the New York Times's Adam Nagourney to proclaim that Obama-the-presidential-candidate "might startle those who knew him only from the [2004 Democratic National Convention keynote] speech that made him famous." Journalists covering Obama now routinely pepper their accounts with quotes from disappointed audience-members, like, "He left me kind of flat" (a California AFL-CIO delegate) and "a little too solemn and sober" (fire fighter's union president Harold Schaitberger).

Stylistic failings aside, the standard explanation for why Obama isn't exciting audiences is that he's too stingy with details. This creates the impression that he lacks the policy chops to be president. The problem is particularly evident alongside the preternatural wonkiness of a Hillary Clinton and the practiced incantations of a John Edwards. Clinton, as my colleague Bradford Plumer reported last month, can effortlessly touch such labor erogenous zones as "prevailing-wage laws" and deliberate worker misclassifications. Edwards has a knack for spinning riveting yarns that highlight the need for long-overdue reforms like universal health care or card-check legislation. By contrast, Obama talks "more often than not in broad, general strokes," according to Nagourney.

Of course, as Obama has pointed out in his own defense, his campaign is a mere two months old. In an ideal world, a candidate would have a binder full of intricate policy proposals before entering a race — collated, color-tabbed, and ready to go. But then, in an ideal world, the Democratic front-runner wouldn't have unfavorable ratings in excess of 40 percent. We knew Obama was going to be green just like we knew Hillary was going to be a tough sell among large chunks of voters. The bargain was that Obama's raw intellect and innate political skills would get him up to speed before long. This may not turn out to be the case, but it's much too early to conclude as much.

If there's a serious concern at this point, it's not that the fixable things aren't being fixed. It's that Obama is becoming a prisoner to broader strategic decisions that, once made, are harder to adjust. At the top of the list is the campaign's emphasis on process reform — the promise to create a less corrosive, less corrupt, more meaningful brand of politics. As it happens, it's not a message that's obviously suited to the political zeitgeist.

What's unique about this moment is the extent to which Democrats are united by their outrage at George W. Bush and the Republican Party. They think the president's rare combination of bull-headedness, cynicism, and staggering incompetence has done historic damage. The problem with Obama's reformist message is that it prevents him from singling out Bush and the GOP in a way that's very satisfying. In his speech to the fire fighters, for example, Obama only assigned blame elliptically. "It's a noble calling, what you do…But sometimes Washington forgets," he said. "Instead of making your job easier…they try to cut funding so you couldn't buy masks and the suits that you needed." Later, he concluded: "What keeps Washington from doing all that it needs to do to better protect our fire fighters… [is] the smallness of our politics."

But it's not Washington that has tried to cut funding for first-responders and won't give them the equipment they need. It's Bush's GOP. It's not the smallness of our politics that's holding these things up. It's the smallness of their politics. Pretty much every Democrat in Congress, given the chance to fix these indignities, would do it in an instant.

Obama is understandably reluctant to admit this. If any Democrat will do, it's not clear why he should be that Democrat. He has, after all, been involved in national politics for fewer than three years. So he ends up fighting a two-front war: simultaneously making the case against Bush and against Democratic insiders like Clinton. But, by lumping Democrats in with Bush, Obama creates an odd dissonance, seeming to deny the one feature of contemporary politics his audiences know to be true: that Bush, far more than Democrats, bears responsibility for their grievances.

Ultimately, I don't think Obama gives himself enough credit. What I found so compelling about his message in 2004 was that it offered one of the more common-sense critiques of Bush-style conservatism (and defenses of liberalism) I'd ever heard. It began with the premise that the American people had exceedingly modest expectations from government: They just wanted to know that they'd get paid a living wage if they worked hard, that they wouldn't go bankrupt if they got sick, that their kids could get a decent education, and that they'd be able to retire with dignity. "That's it. That's not a lot," Obama would conclude. "And when you tell [Americans] that we could be delivering those things with just a slight change in priorities, if we stop just cutting taxes for the wealthy…then people respond. They want to hear the truth. And they'll even hear it from somebody whose name they don't recognize."

Obama doesn't need to sell voters on a new brand of politics. And he doesn't need to take veiled shots at the rest of the Democratic Party. (The contrast with them should be obvious enough from his biography.) He just needs to articulate the critique that he, more than anyone else, is capable of articulating, at least if one can judge from 2004. The rest will take care of itself.

[larryebbya7]

Why is CBS now so aggressively attacking Senator OBAMA. Is it because he was the one Statesman who had the guts to call CBS on their indulgence of this racist IMUS blabber. Kind of hit CBS in the pocket since racism sells for CBS. Shame on you. There is no more depth to any other candidate than there is to Senator OBAMA. In fact, the junior Senator from Illinois is the salve that America needs on her sick appetite for race based bashing of all sorts. This man is a healer and that is why the majority of decent Americans want him. He is a breath of fresh air. It doesn't get much staler than the others in this race.

[bill575]

Obama will never get the white male vote now that
he has piled on Don Imus, I bet this alone cost
the democrats the presidency. Once people figure
out Jackson and Sharpton are actually pulling the
strings he's finished. Good going Obama you
just lost millions of white male voters who
actually do vote. Have fun in oblivion democrats,
Hillary and Obama will both lose support over
the Imus firing.

[wattchie]

Bill-575,you are flatly wrong!

Obama will only forsake votes from whites who are racist.Imus was condemned by every right thinking American, not only Obama.If you're thinking he will loose votes from whites by condemning Imus comments, then you are wrong because,in the first place, he has never had any support from these racial grps of whites.A section of whites who are racist are either in Clinton, Edwards or Republican side.

Those of us(whites) in Obama's camp, he can't loose because we dont have the same racial mindset you portend.

Got it?

[wattchie]

How comes, I dont hear the demand of the so called "specifics"from other pottential candidates?
I have never heard Hillary, Edwards, MCain, Gulliani or Romney talks of "specifics"?CBS shd stop using the same story line on and on...its becoming boring.

You guyz need to ask other presidential candidates the same quiz.Besides, I think Obama has been more specific on forein policies like Iraq war,Israel/Palestinian conflicts,Afganistan and so on.Obama has told us how he intends to transform health care, education, immigration and so on.

If you ask, "specific" areas where Hillary or Gulliani stand on these issues so many people whill be scraching their heads-blank!

[rfritschen]

Mr. Obama's message is compelling and as an American looking for change, I want to believe that Barak can decrease the corruptiveness of the upper echelons of government. I want to believe that health care reform is possible under his guidance. I want to believe our education systems will start seeing an increase in funds and I want to beleive that he can bring about tax reform for the poor and middle class. His baseline political stance rings true with my ethical thermometer. And at the beginning of this editorial I found myself becoming angry with the writer and devensive of Mr. Obama, with one caveat... Barak does address his audiences (both live and through all media forums) with a broad brush stroke to issue remediation. With the fundraising component of this whole election mess over, I hope that he will really sit down and focus on defining some solutuions to these issues he speaks about. I need some meat. And while I agree that none of the politicians are providing that meat, I can't put my faith or my vote in Mr. Obama until he's got some -- no matter how much I want too.

[mudman75]

This call for "substance", supported by a rewrite of two week old articles from AP, is getting a little stale. Obama's approach is different, and I am liking it more as I see him work. He took some time to respond to the Imus thing, and now is focused on the larger issue of the hypocrisy of firing Imus, while accepting trash talk in rap lyrics. This is a thoughtful and intelligent man. Edwards has reshaped himself as an old fashioned Democrat, while Hillary, is just barely to the left of Lieberman. Obama has my vote.

Thanks for the read,
best regards,

Mark Flanders

[mudman75]

This call for "substance", supported by a rewrite of two week old articles from AP, is getting a little stale. Obama's approach is different, and I am liking it more as I see him work. He took some time to respond to the Imus thing, and now is focused on the larger issue of the hypocrisy of firing Imus, while accepting trash talk in rap lyrics. This is a thoughtful and intelligent man. Edwards has reshaped himself as an old fashioned Democrat, while Hillary, is just barely to the left of Lieberman. Obama has my vote.

Thanks for the read,
best regards,

Mark Flanders

[Bunkerman12]

I have not respect for a Senator that looks the other way when an unborn child is born alive during in abortion and allowed to die. Look it up folks. Senator Obama is no friend for the weak such as unborn children. That alone will cost him millions of votes.

[mbburch]

"Why is CBS now so aggressively attacking Senator OBAMA? Is it because he was the one Statesman who had the guts to call CBS on their indulgence of this racist IMUS blabber."

This is not a CBS article; it's from the New Republic, a left-leaning publication. CBS is not attacking anyone, and this has nothing to do with race. Get a clue.

[dallison7]

Obama is very good for America. He can not win the general election, but there are some very important things he can do.

He will, without a doubt solidify his base. 10% to 15% of the total voting population. This should be enough to lock in a 'running mate' slot for him.

The next president will be a democrat, that is a given after the criminal Bush administration. Obama, as the first black vice president, will take this society light years ahead of the present ethnically divided state in a single bound.

Yes, Obama could have a very critical place in history.

GOD'S SPEED OBAMA!!

[vastr-wcon]

BO is just another empty suit- like Dubya. It's the last thing this nation needs, again.

[feelfree1]

Obama has already pledged his allegiance to the anti-American/anti-human Israeli lobby. I really don't need any more reason than that not to vote for him.

Obama at an AIPAC conference:

"we must preserve our total commitment to our unique defense relationship with Israel by fully funding military assistance and continuing work on the Arrow and related missile defense programs."

[gwlafayette]

BO is just another empty suit- like Dubya. It's the last thing this nation needs, again.
Posted by VastR-WCon at 04:41 PM : Apr 15, 2007


well said. lets hope that we dont just switch from a weak leader with pronunciation problems to a weak leader whose only talent is pronunciation.

[feelfree1]

Re: "BO is just another empty suit- like Dubya."

Maybe so, but to his credit, he is obviously an intelligent and articulate person, and this is in stark contrast to the Resident.

OB will fade off into the sunset...just a matter of time.

obama is good for america, both at home and abroad. The entire world believes we are whining, racist, ignorant people. Obama is charismatic, a born leader, absolutely intelligent and black.


He will show the world that we are indeed a powerful and mature nation--he can and will lead us in '08

[chasemonster]

If he only had a brain...

[bill1fj]

Obama is photogenic, but whats he going to do?
What has he done?
Absolutley nothing!
He has no plans for the middle east mess.
He has no plans to remove the millions of illegal alins, or deal with their employers.
He has no plans for health care for all legal U.S. citizens equal to what he and the othe politicians have.
He has no plans for better access to education for all legal U.S. citizens.
So far he's just been a pretty face with a good voice talking without telling anyone what he would do.
He's in Congress, what has he done there?
NOHING!!!!

[dig54]

My prediction is that Obama is going to win

[dig54]

After taking sometime to read through most of the comments on this article what strikes me is that about 90% of the comments are against Obama. What that tells me is that most of us are either serious republicans or blatant racists who will never yield to circumstances even when logic is the rule. YOu have to understand that we very rarely meet people like Obama on this earth. I think we should rather feel blessed that in our life time we have him. He is the right person in the disguise of his black skin just as some prophets came thousand years ago in the skin of the minorities. That is not suggesting that Obama is a prophet. What I'm saying is that if we get too sensitive about the racial devide in America and loose him then we will have to wait for another 100 or so years to get a person like this. By the way my comment is for those who are thinking seriously and good in heart. I don't want any comments or replies from people who will never vote for him because he is black, regardless. Also just another thought; please avoid CBS, Chicago Tribune and LA Times if you really want to know about Obama. This is my last time of logging into CBS. Useless!

[bobgee_1999]

It's pretty clear that the way things stand now, we're going to have a Republican president in '08. The most we can hope for is that it isn't a neo-con loon like Bush, but some relatively sane person that will halt the slide toward self-destruction Bush has started. It's unlikely Obama is going to make it, or even get the nomination. The Dem that could have won, Warner, isn't running, so forget it. But all that aside, how much do experience or issues really matter? Not much. Elections are decided on the basis of Kerry/Gore aren't likeable enough, or Dukakis/Dean seemed weird or Reagan/Bush appear warm and fuzzy. Maybe I'm wrong, and I hope so, but the shallowness of past elections doesn't indicate that I am.

[uhenry-2009]

Noam , u are a possible Hillary supporter if u are , have the candor to say so. Campaign stumps are no forum for details.Policy presentations & details therein can be made in special forum at the chosing of a candidate. Human attention span is not inelastic. No candidate , can force fit the all details of what his presidency would do in 1-2 hrs stump speech. It is about how he can relay in summary his mission , goals , projections and the solutions he profer to problems we face within the attention span of his listeners . When policies are formulated , they are allowed to ferment and age over time.Making for experts on the field to swing at it at this incubation period. No polictician will have a policy details in the open , have critics turn it to shred. Then have it modified as he moves on.My read is Obama in some aspect of his politics is a fabian tactician, is looking at all the permutations available as he moves.
Most critics are unfair to him. No body now running for the office has been president before.when they acuse him of inexperince , they should have the interlectual honesty say non in the mix seeking the office has been president before.He has 10 yrs experince in politics . Obama is not running against Hillary Clinton . He is running against Bill Clinton,a man who in politics can move right to move left, then center and not be called a flip flop , that is called political skill.So far obama has given a good acount of himself.

[Razzl]

I hardly think that anyone can call Obama "inarticulate". And with 9 months to go before the primaries and a year-and-a-half to go before the elections anybody who starts talking the specific policy stuff now is more likely to bore people to death than engage them. In that amount of time Obama will polish his game and deal with any problems of approach that his staff find in the runups to the primaries.

The opposition to Bush is an underlying given, there are no pro-war candidates among the Dems and hence to need to overplay that. Obama has the Kennedy charisma and, in an election where all a candidate needs to be is a Democrat and not Bush, that can carry him all the way.

[briannorwood]

Dear Mr. Scheiber,

Thanks for reminding me that Mr. Obama is going to need all the help he can get in order to win the Democratic nomination.

I just sent him another hundred bucks.