The Debate and the Obama Difference

UPDATE: a version of this made the recommended list at Daily Kos. I've since revised this to reflect the kos version.

They just don't get it--the Washington media, the Washington politicians. They're all shaking their heads because Barack Obamba didn't "distingush himself" from the other candidates in last night's debate by going on the attack. One of Hillary's hit men said today, " I think people are still wondering what really Obama's strategy is." The talking bobbleheads agreed that he had a lousy debate.

Only he didn't. And I'll bet that any analysis of voter positive response, moment by moment, went up sky high on several of his responses.

Obama was asked about his experience. He gave examples to support his contention that the next President has to do three things: bring people together and get things done, stand up to special interests and win, tell the truth to the American people even when it's tough.

When asked about health care he told the plain truth, that the announced plans by the candidates are pretty similiar (except for Dennis Kucinich, who favors the only truly universal coverage, the single-payer plan), so the question is "who can inspire and mobilize the American people to get it done, and to open up the process"--and here he drew a clear distinction with Hillary's previous efforts to create a national healthcare system, one that voters could not fail to hear, even if it fell on the tone deaf ears of the media bobbleheads--"if it was lonely for Hillary [getting her healthcare plan passed in 1993], part of the reason is that you closed the door--80% of the American people at that time wanted universal health care, but didn't feel they were let into the process."

Now as an analysis of what happened in the early 90s, this is incomplete, but as a statement of what's at the core of his campaign, it's clearer. But there was more clarity to come. (These quotes are my own transcription and hence "unofficial"--I was unable to find a transcript or any reference to them.) Obama said: "One of the most important things the next President can do is to bring us together--instead of trying to fan the flames of division that has become so standard in Washington."

Lots of politicians, most notoriously Richard Nixon (whose minions coined the "bring us together" slogan) and G.W. Bush ("I'm a uniter, not a divider") have talked in similar terms, and most of them were lying. What few commentators notice but I'll bet voters see is that in the debates Obama is walking the walk. He is reasonable and tolerant and hopeful, as well as appropriately precise and forceful. The media in particular is never going to get it because conflict is their bread and butter. Novelty and conflict are the only two story lines they know.

Speaking of conflict, debate host Tim Russert (who I find so hard to watch because he is such an obvious bundle of psychological conflict himself) tried a gotcha question towards the end by saying that Democrats have a problem on issues of "faith and values" so he asked them all for their favorite Bible verse, as if challenging the atheistic secular humanists to come up with one. The question itself says volumes, because its premise is that the only people who can have faith and values are Christians, and maybe Jews. We needed Jerry Brown on somebody on that stage to quote a sutra.

Anyway, the first to get this question was Barack Obama, and he said the Sermon on the Mount.

"Because it expresses a basic principle I think we've lost in the last 6 years...part of what we've lost is a sense of empathy towards each other. We have been governed in fear and division-- and we talk about the federal deficit but we don't talk about the empathy deficit--a sense that I stand in somebody else's shoes, I look through their eyes..." He referred to those who are "struggling to figure out how to pay the gas bill or send their kids to college--thinking about them at the federal level--that's the reason I'm running for President, I want to restore that."

Earlier, Russert reminded Obama that when he was elected to the Senate in 2002, he said the idea of seeking the presidency immediately was absurd. Why had he changed his mind only 6 years later? Because, Obama said, his approach was what Americans want and need right now. He senses the character of this moment.

What if he's right? I think that he is. I would vote for any of the Democrats on that platform over any Republican running, no question. I am bothered by Hillary on specific issues, like her vote on Iran yesterday, and I don't like her political team. I am not crazy about Obama's positions on several issues, either, although in keeping nuclear power as an energy option on the table, he potentially raised the bar so high that it can't meet it in the forseeable future.

But this particular appeal transcends individual issues, and pertains in fact most directly to the meta-issue that once again was ignored by the questioners in this debate: the Climate Crisis. Responding to that is going to require much more cooperation and consensus and greater change. Just to overcome the entrenched interests, and the powers of disaster capitalism that the Bushites have put in place, is likely to be insurmountable without strong leadership that can change the terms of the political conversation. Here's something else he said:

"What the next President must do is stop fanning people's fears," Obama said. "If we spend all our time feeding the American people fear and conflict and division, then they become fearful, conflicted and divided. If we feed them hope and we feed them reason and tolerance, then they will become tolerant and reasonable and hopeful."

This is a profound point. To get to any civilized future without a century of catastrophe unparalleled in the past ten thousand years, we are going to need a change of soul: we are going to need reason, tolerance and hope, and we are going to need empathy. We are going to need it internationally as well as in America, and we are going to need to extend it to peoples we aren't used to considering as anything but alien.

Obama is right about the role of leadership in fostering this. As human animals we are capable of violence, greed and insane selfishness; we are also capable of cooperation, altruism, empathy, constructive sharing and peaceful means. No one can legislate or force which way we go. Mostly it is a matter of emphasis, of what is encouraged and expected. So especially in this country at this time, our chief leader, the President, can set a crucial tone. He or she can make the difference. We aren't going to eradicate parts of ourselves, but we can decide what principles will guide our actions. That's the reality of "values."

Some of us only need to imagine the difference, not only in policy but in our feelings and behavior towards each other and the world, if Al Gore had been President for the past six years, to understand the importance of what Obama is saying.

Can this message resonate? I think it can, but the experts will be the last to realize it. It is probably true, as Michelle Obama said in an unguarded moment, that Barack needs to win Iowa to have a shot at the nomination. But beyond that, there are hints as to what can happen. Douglas Wilder, the nation's first black governor (of Virginia),says that Obama could shatter the Republican hold on the South. There's also data suggesting that Obama is the most popular Democrat among Independents and Republicans. In fact, while Obama is currently in a close race for the Democratic nomination in Iowa, he was also polling third in the Iowa Republican caucus.

While Hillary--or John Edwards, or just about any Democratic candidate--has the better shot than the Republican nominee at winning the 2008 election, it could be quite close, providing no mandate or sense of divisions ending or old politics being over. Barack Obama's candidacy has the potential of leading to an electoral landslide, adding more young people, Independents and desperate Republicans to an even larger majority of people of color, women and Democrats in general. Other Democrats may be able to turn things around as President. But I sense that with Obama we may have the best chance at a future.