redblueamerica.com

Joel, I hear people say that, and I remember that Obama came of political age in Chicago politics. Sure: one can say even to that, and some have, that he's not yet been really challenged in an election, but I keep coming back to something he said to someone who asked him how he responds to the question of his (lack of) experience, and his rebuttal is perfect: all the experience in the world doesn't matter much if one lacks the judgment to use it wisely when making decisions. I think we've seen that judgment at work in the campaign: in private, I have no doubt that he and his wife and advisors seethe at the Clintons; in public, we see one cool customer who parries slyly, who doesn't bludgeon but who sure knows how to slip in the shiv.

I don't know if Obama has ever played the dozens, but he sure understands the object of that game: the first person who gets angry loses. I'm trying to think of a moment in this campaign when Obama has publicly shown anger or, even, frustration, and I can't think of one. In that regard, he reminds me of no one so much as he does Jackie Robinson. How much MORE strength is required to NOT show those emotions but instead fight back calmly and fairly and firmly--just as he's done in the case of the persistent rumors that he's really a Muslim?

Should he win the nomination, it won't be Kerry Redux--that, I feel certain of. Kerry, it seemed to me during the Swiftboat stuff, assumed that the truth would take care of things and that would be that. Obama has shown since his constitutional-law and neighborhood-organizing days that something may be true and right, but he understands that even if it's self-evident it still has to be fought for.

[Sorry for prattling on so; chalk it up to the enthusiasm of the relatively-newly-converted]

Sure, I've had more than a few sips of the Obama-Aid. But it's hard for me to see why there are still smart people out there within the Democratic Party arguing that Obama doesn't have the strength or appeal as a candidate to be successful in the general election.

I say this by the way as someone who watched Obama's web announcement of his candidacy and thought, "Way cool! But Hillary already has this thing sewn up. At the very least, he'll change the politics of the race for the better--the REAL race for him is down the road." But you know, the more I read and listened, the more I believed and even began to hope. Before Iowa, while he was staying on message and lagging behind a smug Clinton campaign in the polls--remember all that talk from them about Obama's "flagging campaign"?--and getting some anxious criticism about his campaign even from people who liked him, I admit to doing a lot of head-scratching, too: "I hear this man; I get his politics--why isn't this clicking?" Also at that time, I was looking for reasons not just to vote for Hillary but to be excited about her candidacy and, sorry to say, failing to become excited. Even as the polls slowly began to turn Obama's way in Iowa, I feared a loss.

All that time, though, Obama's strategy was working, like a patient investment strategy--funny thing about grass-roots, bottom-up campaigns is that it's not much on spectacle. It takes work (much of it away from TV cameras) and patience. It's a kind of viral marketing, except in real life. And now, the puzzle of New Hampshire aside, that patience seems to be paying off.

Tsunamis are destructive, and I'd as soon not think about an Obama candidacy as destructive. I obviously do not believe that. But otherwise the analogy is apt: tsunamis have their origins at the floor of the ocean as the crust shifts and moves the water. If the crust shifts enough, the resulting energy works its way to the surface. And the Clinton campaign, counting on a campaign strategy that Super Tuesday would decide in her favor, is now reduced to arguing that Obama is winning because of his spending in those states. All sorts of questions get begged by that sort of spin, but I'll be writing up a post about that in a bit.

No: He's winning because he talks in terms of "we" and not "I," the first politician in my memory to do so, and to do it effectively, since Reagan. I'm speaking of Obama's appeal here--how he motivates. He doesn't pander, except to our better angels as Americans; his rhetoric isn't about beating up on Republicans but on fixing the mess Republicans (and, for that matter, plenty of compliant Democrats voting in accordance with winning reelection rather than with their conscience and convictions) have made of this nation and its image. That's an appeal to the collective, belief in one's fellow citizens; those suspicious of such an idea or who reject it out of hand in favor of Just Win, Baby--I'd argue that if one holds that attitude, that means that cynicism--also known as Rovian electoral politics--has defeated them, even if Democrats do win the Presidency and Congress in November.

I'm thirsty, Joel and Ben, and I think --no, I KNOW--millions and millions of my fellow citizens are as well. How else to read this primary season?

More Obama-Aid, please.