Obama is down, but he’s not out. At the moment, the similarities with Jesse Jackson, the black civil rights activist who ran for the Democratic presidential nomination twice in the 1980s, are greater than with former President John F. Kennedy. Jackson even managed to win 11 primaries in 1988.
Obama’s campaign appearances are still energy-packed events, and he still manages to draw large crowds of supporters who routinely greet his words with applause, cheers and even tears. But it’s even more interesting to note the kinds of people who are absent from the Obama crowds.
He hasn’t managed to attract a strong following among older people and blue-collar workers. The majority of women find him interesting, but they support Hillary Clinton. The overwhelming majority of Hispanics are opposed to Obama, partly because he is black. Even African-Americans are not united in their support for Obama.
The Illinois senator’s strongest advocates are young people and graduates, both groups where enthusiasm for Obama runs high. He is the candidate of the affluent and of society’s winners. His message of hope and change seems to thrive in environments where people drink latte macchiatos and read the New York Times.
His idealism is contagious among those who expect more from politics than yet another tax cut and the next half-hearted Middle East peace initiative. His supporters love what they call “the vision thing,” and they dream of a presidential election that will truly lead to groundbreaking change, of a revolution at the ballot box — or at least something like it.
Obama is the candidate of the idealists. Only once in every couple of decades does someone come along who has the ability to deeply inspire this group, who are perhaps the most discerning voters of all. That fact alone makes him remarkable.
Obama also happens to be the candidate of choice for the foreign press, which explains why European correspondents tend to greatly amplify American voters’ enthusiasm for him in their dispatches. Many in Europe would like nothing more than a “European” America. A former community organizer from Chicago seems to be the ideal candidate for all countries, especially Germany, in which public servants shape politics. Obama personifies Europe’s hopes for a modern America: black, socially minded and gentle.
But this isn’t what America looks like. And the evidence from the primaries so far suggests that it won’t be what it looks like after the elections in November. At the center of society, the place where elections are won or lost in every democracy, Obama the candidate has not triggered the kinds of earthquakes that would be necessary to topple the status quo. The ground may be trembling, but it isn’t shaking.
The deeper one penetrates into that all-important center of American society, the cooler are people’s reactions to Obama. In places where work is hard and pay keeps shrinking, where the costs of education are rising and the fear of job losses has taken hold, Americans pay attention to him but don’t support him. He may be touching the souls of blue-collar workers, but he hasn’t been able to inspire them.
Low-income Americans have been especially reluctant to warm up to Obama. Hillaryland starts at annual household incomes of $50,000 or less. Even the endorsement of the biggest union in Las Vegas wasn’t enough to convince the majority of union members to support Obama. America’s lower-income citizens apparently prefer cash to change. They find his attacks on “Washington lobbyists” appealing, but not sufficiently concrete. Hillary Clinton’s promise of universal health insurance for everybody strikes a different note among the country’s lower-income working classes.
Obama also has trouble appealing to older Americans. In Iowa, 45 percent of voters over 65 voted for Clinton, while less than half as many preferred Obama. He was even less successful among older voters in Nevada, where close to two-thirds of Democrats over 60 voted for Clinton. Pollsters have noted the same pattern of aloofness to Obama throughout the country. Clinton’s support within America’s older population is twice as strong as Obama’s. In a country where the old clearly outnumber the young, this doesn’t bode well for Obama.
Among Hispanics, who in some states make up a larger contingent of voters than African-Americans, Obama has encountered strident resistance. Sergio Bendixen, a pollster working with the Clinton campaign, recently told the New Yorker: “The Hispanic voter — and I want to say this very carefully — has not shown a lot of willingness or affinity to support black candidates.” Based on this logic, an Obama victory in South Carolina, where every second Democratic voter is black, would be more than offset by an Obama defeat in California, a much larger state that is dominated by whites and Hispanics. Staffers within the Clinton campaign are referring to the Hispanics as their firewall.
Obama has come too early for America — or perhaps too late. In the 1990s, when the economy was doing well and Islamist terrorists had not yet appeared on the world stage, a man like Obama probably would have had stronger prospects. But tough times are bad times for visionaries.
All it takes to understand Clinton’s appeal is to observe the way people react when she speaks with voters in small groups, as she recently did in a lecture hall on the campus of the University of Nevada. Hardly any college students were in the audience, but about 100 middle-aged women, some of whom had even dragged along their husbands, sat around the candidate on folding chairs.
Clinton told her audience about the hard work waiting for her in the White House, about responsibility and about her view of herself as a problem-solver. No one cheered, no one jumped up from her seat and there were no choruses of approval. But the women nodded quietly in response to Clinton’s words. They didn’t seem fired up, but they did feel understood.
Watching the group, I realized that perhaps this election isn’t about visions at all, but about something even bigger: trust.
Translated from the German by Christopher Sultan
http://www.spiegel.de/internat…
I think the Clintons forced Obama into the role of the “black candidate”. Hillary isn’t even campaigning in SC now, it was all a big ruse.
<
p>By responding to Clinton ‘attacks’, Obama got way off message last night and jumped right into the pig pen.
Hillary is not campaigning in SC because that would make no strategic sense…she can’t win SC with half of Dem. voters being African-American…can’t happen for a white woman up against an African-American and a white southern male…would be a waste of time and money to try there…
<
p>Roll back the tape please….Obama actually threw the first bag of manure last night…and probably regretted the fact that he did…given that no one is going to get hit with it and not respond forcefully…
Believe me, the Clintons never would have imagined that they would be skipping out on South Carolina. That was not in their script. It does make sense now. But they didn’t expect they would ever be in that situation. Obama or no Obama.
<
p>I’m done with them and all the so-called “establishment” who just love how great the Clintons are at making politics ugly.
its over. Could be over on Feb 5th. And that will be a sad thing.
<
p>The Clintons basically had to drag Obama off his pedestal. Make him a pol like the rest of em. Then he doesn’t quite look so good – anyone can be dragged down and once in the mud you’re just another hack. That is politics and they are tactically very good at it. In some ways, you can’t fault them for it, they want to win.
<
p>What is sad is that the Clintons are much better attacking Obama and dragging him down then they ever were at hitting the Republicans. They were always better at beating the left than they were the right. When it came to the right, they triangulated and made deals – and yet the right never stopped hating them. And the left always came to their rescue.
<
p>I just hate seeing a good man beaten. I once would have said that about Hillary as well. Not anymore.
<
p>
let’s assume you’re right that the Clintons “dragged Obama off his pedestal,” and have successfully gotten him into the “mud.” Don’t you think that’s exactly what the Republicans will do in the general? If it was that easy, shouldn’t that tell us something?
<
p>Note — I’m not necessarily agreeing with you that the bloom is off the Obama rose. I’m saying that IF that’s true, it wasn’t too hard, it didn’t take too long, and it was inevitably going to happen.
It basically took everything the Clintons had. They had to lose Iowa after spending millions there, barely hang on in New Hampshire and Nevada, play the race card, play the gender card, use the ex-President shamelessly on the trail to tarnish the next generation.
<
p>Believe me, I am sure as heck the Clintons don’t think its been easy to drag Obama down. But, they finally have. Yeah, the Republicans would have too so you can say its a good thing that he got his taste of this now, yadayayada.
<
p>But you know what it has also done, pissed a lot of folks who Obama inspired to really hate the Clintons and politics for that matter. I used to like the Clintons and am now so mad that I don’t know that I can pull the lever for her if she is the nominee. And I’m as blue as a bullfrog – never voted GOP in my life and never missed a big vote. I have supported plently of losers and come back to support their opponents in the general many times before. But this time its different. I respect McCain a lot more than Billary even if I technically disagree with his views more.
<
p>And if your prowl the web it is amazing how many times I hear people say that – that is Hillary is the nominee they won’t for her. Some of the Clintonites are pissed at Barack now but not like that. I’m sure the Clintons feel they can bring everyone back at the end.
That is what you get with them. They do bring out the worst in people. They engender Nixonian like levels of hate. Great for America, huh?
<
p>Maybe all of us Obamans will cool off – maybe he’ll be the VP pick. Or maybe not. She can’t win with just the Democratic base. And that is all I fear she’ll get. Her best chance may come from the fact that the GOP is even more disunified and a mess than the Democrats.
<
p>And now, its time to give the Clintons a taste of their own medicine. Burn the party down!!! F-it. November can wait.
You keep coming on the bash Obama. Edwards is done. Hillary is all that is left. A good tactical choice.
Every time I say something that could be construed as critical of Obama, I get something like that — “just admit you love Hillary.” Please. I am genuinely undecided about Feb 5. But the extreme defensiveness of the Obamaniacs to any criticism of their candidate is … well … unattractive.
i wouldn’t characterize iowa as full of latte sippers and wealthy young idealist. the editorial doesn’t adequately explain his win there.
Caucuses are tailor-made for operations like the Obama (or Patrick) campaign. They depend on a relatively small number of highly motivated activist types showing up.
<
p>Primaries are different, and Obama hasn’t won one yet. Though he will probably win SC. But at this point, IMHO, the proof is in the Super-Duper Tuesday pudding.
not much to judge Obama on. Let’s see after SC. He wins there and then its 2 caucuses and 2 primaries each.
<
p>Just admit you want Hillary. What are you afraid of?
it’s amusing to me that any criticism of the Obama campaign is taken by Obamaniacs to mean that the critic must be secretly hoping for a big Hillary win. Hate to burst your bubble, but guess what: Obama is human. He can make (and has made) mistakes. He will continue to do so. And it is incumbent on Democrats, who want whoever the Democratic nominee is to win, to call him (and all the other candidates) on it.
<
p>You said elsewhere that you might vote for McCain over Clinton in a general election. That, IMHO, is truly scary. What’s more important to you — that “your candidate” win, or that the country get put back on the right track, the troops come home from Iraq, more Americans get health insurance, etc.?
Some folks get so wrapped up in their candidate that the forget the ultimate goal…I wanted Biden and Richardson to last through the process, but I am not letting disappointment over their departure make me lose sight of the ultimate need to get the GOP out of the White House…I would be proud to vote and work for any of the final three. They are all preferable to the opposition candidates.
<
p>It’s not a reality TV show…I suppose laguno stopped watching American Idol when his pick to click was voted out by the callers…what was his name Justin Something?…how quickly we forget.
…but I want a great president – not just any Democrat. After years of being a rigid partisan and always voting D for all offices – county commissioner on up – I guess I just think that if my party misses a great opportunity to pick a great nominee – my party may have lost its way. Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton – I’ve had enough of that script.
But to be honest I am not sure Hillary will actually bring the troops home. I really could see her not doing so, maybe for good reasons, because conditions have changed there, but I just don’t buy her rhetoric. I think she was forced into that position by where the party has been and not because she actually believes it. That is what I think. Her first instinct is to hedge and keep her options open, she couldn’t on this so had to be for withdrawal but I am not sure she will live up to that. I don’t begrudge her tactical sense, I like it, I just wish she wouldn’t bull shit us so much.
<
p>And I am unconvinced at her ability to actually win Republicans over to compromise on the other matters you cite. The Clintons never could the first time around. What makes you think they can now. You need 60 votes in the Senate and I think she will a struggle getting the votes on important subjects. There is a reason Red State dems are avoiding her – McCaskill, Nelson, Napolitano, Kaine – they are scared she will drag them down – just when we started making progress in those states.
<
p>I took along time to come around to Obama – not until September – dabbling with Edwards and Richardson before coming over. Then I fell hard for his candidacy and just believe that he is the person for the times. He is someone I could be proud of as president and make me proud to be American. I want that. I think its what we deserve. Hillary, I can’t say that about her. So if I get a little fired up for Obama – that is how I feel. And if the Clintons turn my stomach, hard to vote for that.
I think the Reagan thing was a mistake, but its has been talked about 10X more than it should have. But more so, have people seen MyDD. It is ugly over there. I am Edwards guy, now leaning Obama. The Clinton attack squad is vicious and nasty.
<
p>I have enjoyed Clinton’s move to the left in arguing that she will take inequality issues more seriously than her husband. And I will support the party’s nominee. But I get the temptation. Best case scenerio you get 8 years of DLC politics with a lay-up to… Evan Bayh(?). It makes me sick to my stomach (plus McCain scares me the most in regard to Iran, but I can’t say Clinton doesn’t worry me as well). I think I have said I can’t vote for her, even tough I knew I never meant it.
Obama’s point was correct. Reagan was a transformative President, as Bill was not, even if he took us in the wrong direction on many issues. But he set the tone for the times, pulled politics in a new direction. Clinton knows that as much as anyone because the DLC was a reaction to Reagan kicking our ass so much.
<
p>That is the funny thing about the Clintons attacking Obama on that point because they more than anyone led the Democrats to the right to make us “electable” again – supporting essentially Republican ideas like welfare reform, capital gains tax cuts, free trade, the death penalty, harsh criminal sentencing policy, charter schools and the beat goes on…
<
p>The Clintons took offense at Obama saying the Republicans had the ideas in recent years – because they actually have deluded themselves into thinking they came up with all those “centrist” policies themselves.
<
p>Hell, even Hillary’s health care plan is essentially a Republican idea – the individual mandate has been the center of Republican health care plans for years. When Hillarycare flopped that was Bob Dole’s counter proposal. And then Romney brought it here and it passed. Now Hillary (and Edwards too) has made it the center of her plan based on what – the fact that it has passed in exactly one state – ours, and is certainly facing growing pains – 900 buck penalties and many people still without care. And then Hillary has the nerve to say Obama leaves 15 million uncovered – even though her plan is untested and as we are seeing here, not covering everyone.
<
p>The Clintons suck….They steal Republican ideas and then attack people for saying the Republicans have ideas.
You write:
“The Clintons suck….They steal Republican ideas and then attack people for saying the Republicans have ideas.”
<
p>Mark your calendar: You have officially reached the bottom of the enlightened arguments barrell.
So tell me what is untrue about that point – that the Clintons take Republican ideas and then criticize those who say the Republicans had ideas. Tell me what is wrong about that. That is why Republicans can’t stand em’ because they stole their clothing and acted like it was theirs.
<
p>Tell me I’m wrong and prove it instead of critizing my post. The truth hurts.
lanuga…20 Comments and 3 posts on one day…it’s a record…you are suffering blog exhaustion and it is starting to show in the quality of your postings. Is your day job to defend Obama, attack Hillary and diss Edwards on the web?
<
p>If so, quanity is not a substitute for quality.
its about the candidates. You keep taking shots at me which is lame and shows you have nothing to back up your arguments.
<
p>As far as quantity goes, I hadn’t blogged in awhile so making up for lost time.
could not help but notice your “determination” on a given day…that usually means someone is on a tear or on a payroll…I will take you at your word, that it was just a zealous supporter.
Iowa brought out a record number of young voters who went for Obama along with the college-town and urban, higher-educated voters (the latte-drinking, wealthy young idealists). The rural and working voters who have deeper concerns about healthcare and the economy, trusted Edwards after he had spent much time with them making sure they heard his message. Hillary finished 3rd with the remaining group of older, more comfortable moderates around the state.
<
p>I think the article is dead on in its description of American voters. What a great find!
How in the world did we get this narrative that an Obama win in South Carolina is “no big deal?” Just 2 weeks ago it would have been a huge upset. Did the Clinton machine simply fade away after Iowa? Neither Obama nor Clinton have collapsed, and to spin a potential SC victory as simply the “black vote,” is disrespectful to the voters, disrespectful to South Carolinians, and ought to be seen as disrespectful to anybody who has been paying attention.
<
p>Obama has:
<
p>-won Iowa and its delegates
-came within 2% of Clinton in NH, got the same number of delegates there
-lost Nevada, but got more delegates than Clinton
-is poised to win South Carolina
—
In every state so far he has tied or beaten Clinton in the delegate race. He got out organized in Nevada, plain and simple, but that doesn’t mean his campaign is off its tracks.