- BIG NEWS:
- Barack Obama
- |
- Bill Clinton
- |
- Dick Cheney
- |
- Terrorism
- |
A New Generation of Obama Democrats
Read More:
Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Democratic Leadership Council, Dlc, John McCain, New Democrat, Obama Coalition, Obama Democrats, Obama Majority,
Politics News
Bill Clinton's ascension to the presidency was, at its time, the triumph of a new kind of politics. After a dismal Carter presidency, a crushing loss for Mondale, and a wayward Dukakis campaign, Bill Clinton offered a different style - more than just a solution for Democratic issues, he represented a solution for consecutive Democratic losses.
As the chairman of the Democratic Leadership Council, an organization whose aim was to recalibrate the party's message, Clinton personified their notion of a New Democrat. Rather than fight Republicans on a spectrum of left and right, Clinton aimed for a "third-way," a kind of politics that meant co-opting Republican policies and remaking them with a Democratic sheen.
Clinton was, no doubt, a master of New Democratic politics. Much of the vitriol with which Republicans berated him grew out of frustration, watching their own pet policies, from free trade to welfare reform, being advocated by a Democratic president.
With success came those who wanted to duplicate his political model. In time, so-called New Democrats held governorships and leadership positions in Congress. They pressed for a centrist agenda, avoiding, at all cost, being described as liberals. The precepts of DLC-centrism invaded the core of the party, pushing progressives to the margins. But it ultimately ended in failure. Bill Clinton had fathered a kind of politics that could be mimicked, but not replicated, the kind that requires the perfect touch and tempo and tone.
For most who tried, third-way politics meant the dumping of bread-and-butter Democratic policies, opting instead for a small profile of issues, directly in the center. Democrats began to define themselves as Republicans, but competent and with pro-choice credentials. As contrasts became muddled, a common complaint was a lack of clear differences between parties.
The exodus to the political center meant a wholesale abandonment of message, leading to crushing victories in 2000, 2002, and 2004. But for a series of blunders, an explosive corruption scandal, and a horribly unpopular war, the New Democrats might have continued their losing trend into 2006. In the aftermath of that victory, however, there are, at least, the signs of change.
In 2007, none of the Democratic presidential candidates spoke at the DLC Convention, an unheard of notion only a few years before. And with Barack Obama inching ever closer to the White House, it may be that a new revolution is afoot.
Obama has built his candidacy on reaching voters in the center without moving his policy positions there. In general election match-ups, Obama consistently beats John McCain among Independents, a group long considered to be the fuel driving McCain's success. Instead, Obama has produced a political formula that advocates a strong progressive agenda, while laying the groundwork necessary to ensure its passage. The new majority Obama speaks of is not an empty platitude; it is the most compelling reason to vote for him. The product of Obama's innovative campaign and transcendent message will be a powerful governing coalition, come January. Obama will consolidate and increase the size of the Democratic base while attracting droves of Independents, providing him with larger margins in Congress and a mandate, part hope and part juggernaut. With substantial political capital, Obama will help further the core of the progressive agenda, allowing it to make strides forward that have seemed all but impossible for more than 25 years. Without a doubt, his model will be copied.
Perhaps, much like the New Democrats, the Obama Democratic philosophy will require a master politician as its shepherd, its mimicry falling short of replication. But for a new generation of politicians, even those who fall short of the lofty peaks of Obama's speeches, a new kind of politics may still be a guiding philosophy: the kind of politics that embraces a progressive agenda, honestly and persuasively; the kind that respects the ideologies it rejects; and the kind that stands with pride, knowing that the language of politics still carries the power to spark movements.
The Democratic Party was left worse off when those who attempted New Democratic politics failed. Obama Democrats may too fail at meeting his standard, but having embraced the core ideas of Democratic thought, they will leave the party stronger for having tried.
Loading comments…
Most Popular on HuffingtonPost
b%2F07pnqL9vIQgy98UjW8EjTlPcR8D1QEXOnpwUE9F4kL861yiqcYbGBYO2b%2B0VzeC6537U9PF%2BKCmS432q1ezg%3D%3D
bghGDbXIX5E7m7u%2FuBY1Z2OYAfeHW9R6rYsPJXn7hg1JeGiaTw6vQvYfLDSlaBRw47gSxcb8FoaOWhEWpHDz7w%3D%3D
1 of 2
HuffingtonPost Reporters
lGalTQX%2FW%2BYo%2BVzkhe4JnT9RxkUDPOI8
rp9ykyUYbbG8tsjFRRh4M63V7elYoKoW
1 of 2
Don't Miss HuffPost Bloggers
1 of 2
Huffington Post Apps and Feeds
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
If the voters are following this messiahObama what makes you think they are so smart. These are the same voters who elected G.W. Bush TWICE. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.
Obama ducks the serious votes or as in 2007 doesn't show up to vote at all.He will be a chicken shit president if elected God forbid!
"Obama ducks the serious votes or as in 2007 doesn't show up to vote at all."
Overall, it appears that he has missed over 38% of the votes. One way of interpreting this is that he is not just ducking the serious issues.
Obama 1997 voting record by issue can be seen in it's entirity here"
http://oba
as you will see he just doesn't show up!
Last I checked, the voters have elected pretty much every U.S. president so I'm not sure what your point is.
Futher excellent rebuttal of the author's point that Obama has a good chance of furthering the progressive agenda (yes, that was sarcasm). Obama, as right-wing radio love to point out, according to some calculations has the most liberal voting record in the senate.
Obama has been an outspoken critic of the Iraq war from beginning, when everybody was blindly following Bush and Cheney. He's worked on reforming the death penalty, and on racial profiling, two explosive issues. Against criticism he's maintained that as president he'll sit down and meet with the leaders of Iran, Cuba and other "unfriendly" countries. It seems to me like he has some serious stones.
Yeah, he is a real adversary of the war. He has voted yes on funding every time. Hell, we aren't even in a war and he still wants to send them money. He has, time and again, said he is against the war, but has yet to really show that he means it. The death penalty and racial profiling.
YO, DIEBOLD '08!
The point is the voters are dumb, easily led if not Bush wouldn't have been elcected the 2nd time. I can excuse the first but not the second. Now these same dumb sheep are following the pied Piper of disaster to doomsday Obama the Messiah! If you can't see the point you must have voted for Bush.
I disagree that the party will be stronger after this primary or after a hypothetical Obama win. First of all, majorities in major states-NY,CA,MA,FL voted for HRC and are now disgusted at the way the MSM and arrogant Obama campaign has covered the primaries. They may just not vote, especially in FL. The Dems are just as polarized as the country. Furthermore, if Obama is elected (which I see as slim b/c his swing state support has not been good and the Reps will go after him in unimaginable ways) he will ultimately be faced with crumbling health care, lopsided tax system and two wars. If he doesn't come through on his massive campaign promises or if, like Carter, he falls victim to a recession put in place well before he was elected, he will be deemed a failure and the Dems will lose Congress and the next four prez elections. If Obama, the master inspiration messiah, does not come through on his promises, it will be disastrous for the Dems for decades. This primary is already an embarrassment! Given Obama's lack of federal experience and lack of bipartisan initiative in Illinois and the Senate, combined with his meglomania and admitted disorganization, he could be the worst thing that happened to Dems in a long time.
You're assuming that the HRC supporters will say "if we can't have Hillary, we'll take Mc Cain, he's more like her anyway".
Everything you're predicting here can just as easily be said about HRC. Either will have an uphill battle if elected. So will Mc Cain, for that matter.
Bill Clinton didn't have ANY federal experience and HRC has less ELECTED experience than Obama.
Face it, he is the only chance we have at recapturing the WH. If he fails to get the support he needs from a Democratic Congress and/or the American people, we ALL fail.
It's time to get behind him and stay behind. The alternative is a very predictable four more years of W.
I don't think that HRC supporters think Hillary is more like John McCain. Many of us are saying that we would rather have four more years of the status quo than take a risk on Barack Obama. His rhetoric doesn't reach us, and we would rather not take the chance that a failed Democratic Presidency would put the White House back in the hands of the Republicans for the foreseeable future. We would rather have 4 more years than 16. If Senator Obama's supporters hoped to win over Senator Clinton's supporters should she lose the nomination, they have gone about it the wrong way. Although some of us will "hold our noses" and vote for Obama, many of us feel that if we are "holding our noses" anyway, it is in our best interests and the long term best interests of the country and the Democratic Party to vote for McCain. It is a well-thought decision, and certainly not undertaken lightly.
I have stumbled across some Obama supporters who embody the third way of which you speak; however, most of them seem very little like adherents of some transcendent Progressive movement. Indeed, quite a few - including Mrs. Obama - seem to be as divisive and self interested as any Bush Republican I have ever met.
http://str
AMEN!!!! The thought of Michelle in the WH is reprehensible.
Just what spouse would you like to see in the WH? Bill? Cindy Stepford?
I think there are two significant indications that Obama can make this work.
First, he has already been part of 2 pieces of legislation, which have already become law, that will have an enormous impact on the way politics and our government operate: the Government Transparency Act of 2006 and the Lobbying and Ethics Reform Act of 2007. Obama did not just vote for these, he worked on them and contributed to them. And they were passed with the help of Republican votes.
Second, no major changes have been brought forth from our government without the American public pushing them to do so. It was the same all throughout our history. It doesn't happen often, but it is very obvious when it does. Americans have to want a new direction so badly that not only do they rise up and make their voices heard, they are willing to work and sacrifice in order to achieve it. When you have people who have never participated in politics before donating and volunteering for the first time in their lives, you know you have reached that point. And that is what we have now.
"the Lobbying and Ethics Reform Act of 2007. Obama did not just vote for these, he worked on them and contributed to them. And they were passed with the help of Republican votes."
According to GovTrack.u
http://www
Also according to GovTrack.u
Could GovTrack.u
Re: "Obama never says it will be easy or that wishing will make it so. What he says is, when pressure from the bottom up is put upon legislators, change can happen."
The other night on Bill Moyers' Journal on PBS, there was a piece about two reporters from the Seattle Times who did a study of the earmarking system, forcussing on the earmarks of Washington state representatives such as (IMHO the very wonderful) Senator Patty Murray. Think how effective it could be if we organized ourselves to become constant, realtime earmark watchdogs by our own congressional districts and states. While it was an almost impossibly time-consuming job for the reporters doing the story, it would not be so impossible if we broke it down--the information is more or less publicly available (especially since Obama's bi-partisan google.gov tansparency in government legislation was enacted.) I was inspired by Obama's comments during and after his formal interview with the editors of the San Francisco newspaper, about shame being a useful emotion. He added that legislators should both be exposed to shame for shady dealings and rewarded with approbation for good legislation. He pointed out that many earmarks are for worthy causes, but there should always be transparency. Obama has published all of his own earmark information for the past year.
"With substantial political capital, Obama will help further the core of the progressive agenda, allowing it to make strides forward that have seemed all but impossible for more than 25 years"
Nope. I just don't see Obama bringing the hard-nosed Republicans to his side. Clinton's more combative, it-ain't-g
Furthermore, Obama's hysterical whining about the Muslim picture from the Drudge report only makes me more aware that the Republicans are going to have a field day in the general election. Obama's team says Clinton is the lowest, sleaziest campaigner they've ever seen from either party?? HAHAHAHAHA
"Obama's hysterical whining...
Has HRC's "it-ain't-
Check the boards for other stories - there are a lot of people here who don't believe she has ever reached a fair agreement with the GOP.
As long as Obama refuses to let Mc Cain define him AND asks the old Reagan question "are you better off today than you were four years ago?", he'll win.
Hillary Clinton puts very strict limits on the possibilities of enlarging a new democratic majority and this is a very compelling reason to choose Obama. The possibility of growth is a better bet than the secure stagnation that Clinton offers.
Dylan,
Your post is well thought out and well written. Obama's greatest opportunity will lie in his ability to REFORM the way that politics are done in the United States. This means:
1) Cutting the ties between lobbyist/ wealthy special interest money and politicians.
2) A full throttled support of public financing for federal officeholders-- He has to make the case that the public saves billions by ensuring that elected officials are insulated from the lure of quid pro quo for campaign contributions.
3) Total transparency and instant reporting of federal earmarks
4) A push for proportional voting in federal elections
5) Promote an effort to ensure that voting and voter registration gets easier in the US. This includes going having the Justice Department after states who have attempted to enact voting restrictions on their citizens.
6) Pushing for Presidential election day to be declared a federal holiday or move Presidential election day to Saturday.
7) Establishing civic involvement as the highest public ethic - supporting this ethic with federal monies to create a cadre of volunteers and service workers who focus on getting citizens involved in public life (in addition to voting in elections). A special program should be instituted to educate our young people on the virtues of public life and public service.
The overall theme of his presidency should be centered around “expanding democracy in our nation and ensuring public accountability”
Good god - Obama won't do any of this.
His policies are relatively moderate if you can get past the pie-in-the-sky speeches. Being President is a damn dirty job where you have a zillion conflicting priorities, constantly changing urgent issues, pressure from lobbyists etc etc, the dark cloud of an election every two years, a bickering party and the blood-thirsty opposition trashing you.
Be realiztic people! If you think Obama has better policies than Hillary and has more experience to be able to DELIVER them, then vote Obama. But, if you think he's going to somehow transform America you're on planet Zooloo.
Sure, Obama is attracting the youngin's, but when they realize he ain't in fact Jesus H. Christ, they're going to be even more annoyed with politics than they are now.
As far as attracting the youngins goes, if they are less cynical than some of the geezers in this room, his plan just might work.
Greetings from planet Zooloo.
First, I'm not exactly a "youngin" and I feel I'm fairly "realiztic
Kennedy changed the nation for decades after only having three years in office. Do you think it was his policies in those three years that gave us at least one solid decade of some of the most amazing transformation in history?
I feel sorry for all of you who cannot be inspired by a good speech, who cannot be motivated to stop commenting on the Huffington Post and get out and work for a candidate or work for a cause. It must be a very empty feeling to see words as nothing more than things to listen to yourself spout out.
"His policies are relatively moderate if you can get past the pie-in-the-sky speeches."
True, but only when he actually takes the time to vote. Generally, he doesn't want to do his job as a Senator.
The best that can be said is that he is not McCain or Clinton.
Amen! Hallelujah! You speak the truth and light, my brother. And no doubt, you will/have been pilloried for it. For thus it is for those who dare speak against The Messiah. Blessed be His Name.
Obama fever will only let the Repubs keep the White House in Nov, or we'll just give it back to them after 4. And it won't be pretty.
I could handle an Obama candidacy if it were the result of a rational decision-making process. But it's not. Not from the very beginning of this campaign. Watching Obama trying to get the hostile Repubs on Capitol Hill to buy into CHANGE that doesn't benefit them is going to be sad entertainment, indeed.
CHANGE is nothing new. We've had CHANGE before. The last 8 years were all about change - none of it good.
And if "we are the change we've been waiting for"....
What the hell have we been waiting for? If it was THAT easy, "we" would have made the CHANGE by now.
What it comes down to is simple: There is a risk.
There's a risk that Obama might not get elected. There's a risk that if he gets elected, he might face almost overwhleming and entrenched opposition in Congress. There's a risk that, even given a reasonably responsive legislature, his programs will be unworkable. And, of course, there is the risk that his platform will stay in place only until he gets elected. Those risks exist.
But possibilities exist too; possibilities outlined in speeches, but also in written documents. Not only Obama, but all of the US and the world are aware that, as America's first black president, Obama's efforts will be highly scrutinized. I do not envy him the task ahead, should he be elected, BUT . . . it is exactly this that will act as a force to keep him on the path he has laid out. He knows what he has pledged to work for. His supporters, and other Americans, surely, want to see that.
The only way we can be truly derailed is if _we_ give up, don't try, don't risk, don't work. The "Yes we can" message may be less popular when it requires work from all of us. I hope that we are as ready for that challenge as Mr. Obama seems to be.
"There's a risk that Obama might not get elected. There's a risk that if he gets elected, he might face almost overwhleming and entrenched opposition in Congress. There's a risk that, even given a reasonably responsive legislature, his programs will be unworkable. And, of course, there is the risk that his platform will stay in place only until he gets elected. Those risks exist. "
They more than "might" exist. They are a reality. Which is why people need to look realistically at what they expect Obama to deliver.
I'm not hearing much realism form that side. In fact, yours is one of the very few who acknowledge that the gates won't part, and the heavens won't open for Obama in Jan 2009.
I didn't say that they will. Do NOT misread me. I said that they might. Any insurance agent or poker player would admit the same.
But I don't expect the heavens to open, and I don't expect it to be easy, and I do expect a certain amount of attrition of people who were onboard for the headiness of the campaign. So? Does that make the aims of his campaign less worthy? Hell no.
It's the very rare good thing that comes to us without work, at least in our society. I expect work and struggle. I imagine I will get it. But I would rather have that than give in.
"The product of Obama's innovative campaign and transcendent message will be a powerful governing coalition, come January. Obama will consolidate and increase the size of the Democratic base while attracting droves of Independents, providing him with larger margins in Congress and a mandate, part hope and part juggernaut. With substantial political capital, Obama will help further the core of the progressive agenda, allowing it to make strides forward that have seemed all but impossible for more than 25 years."
Then when the Mothership arrives on planet earth all Americans will be ready to become part of the BORG. We will all share the same brain and all will have HOPE!!!!
And the alternative is hopelessness . . .
Um, k . . I know what I'm going with.
No, the alternative is realism. And an actual plan. With an actual chance of succeeding.
And the Borg Queen, Hillary the Experienced, will find her true voice again.....
" Resistance is Futile, You Shall be Absorbed by My Strength and Experienced "
Excellent article and analysis. Couldn't agree more.
Behold the new generation of Obama Democrats:
http://www
Gosh, I wish we baby-boomers had stopped short of inventing the PC and the internet. Talk about "unintended consequences".
Forgive my optimism..
I agree with this article. I think Obama is attempting to transcend the catagories of "progressive" and "conservative" for something more practical and less ideological. This is what he means by "uniting people" and "putting an end to partisan bickering.
Fairness, equality and a respect for practical results are commonly held American values. I think Obama can articulate an understanding of these values that a working majority of Americans will accept. His policies will be framed as "practical solutions" and "good government" that are in step with commonly held American values--and not partisan ideology.
HRC is less likely and able do this. She is too much a part of the "old paradigm," if you will pardon the use such an oppressively over-used term. Since the ascendency of the conservative paradigm almost 30 years ago, Democrats have mostly responded within the terms of that world-view to their detriment.
Obama can create a new consensus--a new common sense--by framing the debate around basic values and with both government and market-oriented responses that will diffuse opportunities for ideological demonization. He wants to lead and not just respond, and I think he can.
It's funny how Obamites talk about "uniting", "ending partisan bickering", etc. Do you really think he is capable of that? He is truly all talk, and while it sounds good, it's not realistic. Especially with Repubs in DC. Trust me, they won't be swayed by a speech.
They will be swayed when their kids vote for Obama.
'he is truly all talk' - and how do you this? Are you a voice speaking to us from our future?
As for the rest of your post, are we so afraid of the Republicans being mean to us that we must cringe in fear before they say anything? Are we going to continue to avoid topics and compromise because they're going to say something snide?
They will be swayed by their constituents who email/write/call, once a working majority of Americans realize that policies like fair and affordable health care are in their best interests. Hillary comes out swinging -- she and the Republicans are enemies to the core (except when she caves to them). Who in the world does that persuade? Does Hillary have the coattails to bring more Democrats to Congress? Of course not.
Unfortunately, Hillary has proven the stereotype: she is divisive. It's not just what was done to her (for which I defended the Clintons for years and years), but may be a part of her nature. All her "hard work" does not deliver policies.
It will be extremely difficult no matter what -- contrary to Hillary's flip mischaract
It's up to the good people of Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island and Vermont to make this clear.
They will have to be swayed. Many new (with a lowercase 'n') Democrats will arrive in Congress swept in by the twin strengths of message and action.
In a month, Hillary Clinton will be a great ally, when Obama leads us back to the White House.
I don't think HRC would do a better job and at leaset Obama is new and someone they haven't quite figured out yet. When the GOP came apart few weeks ago on the verge of civil war (due to McCain's presumptive status), there was only one consensus among all factions. Only Hillary could unite the party!
To their eyes, Obama is just another liberal and not a threat to their way of life. However if its HRC, then that would be a divine call to arms and a sanctioned crusade to destroy the unholy one called Clinton. Imagine the oration coming out of the Christian Right which is very quiet now and references to cigar jokes. It will never be ending and what they did to Kerry will be nothing compared to what they have in store for HRC (for which they prepared for 8 years!). Obama? they still haven't figured him out yet and may just set up McCain for the fall and try to get the House/Senate back in 2010 instead. This way, they can claim that they did not stand in the way of a progressive bi-racial person. This makes good politics.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
