"Something is Happening" -- Obama's Movement for Change

Just a few months ago, Hillary Clinton was seen as the inevitable Democratic nominee. She has run a strong campaign, and been an impressive candidate; but much has changed in a short time.

Instead of finding a clear path to the White House, Clinton has run into the rather extraordinary movement set in motion by Barack Obama. This has confounded not only the Clintons, but many pundits and politicos as well.

In reflecting on all of this, I am reminded of a haunting line in one of Bob Dylan's more memorable songs from the 1960s ("Ballad of a Thin Man.") It was written in the midst of the upheavals of that period, as the civil rights and anti-war movements, and the just-dawning cultural revolution were converging into a social movement.

The transformations that were occurring went beyond legislation and politics. Reacting to the "grayness" of the period and the stultifying fears of the Cold War, the movement boldly rejected accepted social norms and awakened, especially among the young, a new idealism full of hope.

This was unsettling to those who remained outside of the dynamic process, unable to grasp its transformative power. It was to this bewilderment that Dylan addressed his memorable taunt: "Something is happening, but you don't know what it is. Do you, Mr. Jones?"

Which brings me back to Barack Obama.

When I first wrote about the Obama phenomenon a few months back, I noted that his appeal was characterized by a rejection of cynicism and a call to idealism ("speaking to the angels of our better natures"). What is clear now, months later, is that the threads of Obama's appeal and inspiration, woven together, spring from a powerful philosophy of change that has resonated across generational lines. It is a philosophy of redemptive self-empowerment that calls for collective action to recognize address and resolve long-standing social problems - in Obama's words, "to heal the nation."

For Obama, change will not come from the top-down. Winning an election, by itself, is not enough, since it only provides leadership with a fraction of the leverage needed to make fundamental change. Institutional roadblocks, such as partisan gridlock and the stubborn self-interest of entrenched lobbies and interest groups, are not affected by a mere change at the top.

Profound transformative change, like that ushered in by the New Deal or created by the vision of the New Frontier/Great Society, can only come about because of the powerful demands of mass social movements that both pressure for change and create the conditions for its realization. When Barack Obama says, "We have been waiting for so long for the time when we could finally expect more from our politics, when we could give more of ourselves and feel truly invested in something bigger than a candidate or cause. This is it: We are the ones we've been waiting for, we are the ones that we seek" - he is both empowering his supporters, and challenging them to become the instruments of radical transformation. And it has worked, at least so far.

Alienated by the failures and crass cynicism of the Bush administration, and the partisan triangulation of the 1990s, many have felt compelled to act after hearing Obama's call for change. Hundreds of thousands of volunteers have been organized, either working directly in the campaign or making calls on its behalf. Well over $100 million has been raised from over 700,000 donors. (In just seventy-two hours last week, $7.5 million dollars were raised from 40,000 donors.)

I've traveled to other cities to see the impact this movement has had on real people. I have been struck by vignettes which, for me, tell the story so well. There was, for example, a fourteen year-old Pakistani girl in New York who handed me a letter, asking me to pass it on to Senator Obama. In the letter she referred to him as "the hero of my generation" and offered to volunteer in his campaign, describing it as "my campaign." Or the taxi driver here in Washington who told me that Obama makes him believe, "for the second time, that the promise of America is real" (the first time being when arrived here fifteen years ago). He told me that he is organizing other cab drivers to work in the campaign on election day.

The momentum that Obama has recorded is measurable, and appears to be growing. Just two and half months ago his campaign was viewed with skepticism, and dismissed. Even two weeks ago, after setbacks in New Hampshire and Nevada, the conventional wisdom was that his momentum had been stopped. He was still 20 percentage points down in national polling. Now he is dead even with Senator Clinton, both in polling numbers and in delegates amassed. "Something is happening."

There are two additional observations to be made.

First, ignoring the reality of this still-emerging movement comes with a risk to Democrats. Obama was right when he observed at a press conference last week that, should he win, Clinton's voters would support him; but should she win, his voters would not necessarily support her. The movement he has unleashed is not focused on just winning. That is too limited and too cynical a goal for his supporters. They do not seek to power for its own sake, they seek to bring about fundamental change.

Secondly, it is important to note that while Obama has been the inspiration that launched this movement, it will have the power to drive him. Expectations for change, once created, cannot easily be let down.

Comments

[PaulLoeb]

The inspiration is real: At my Washington State Caucus person after person talked about Republican friends and relatives who were excited by Obama's message. But it didn't mean he was short-changing his beliefs.

It's more like a woman I recently intervewed who was the founding volunteer Obama coordinator in Washington state's second-largest county, a white female Iraq war vet, voted for Bush in 2000 and written in Colin Powell in 2004 before becoming outraged about Iraq "I've always leaned conservative," she said, "but Obama's announcement speech moved me to tears. The Audacity of Hope made me rethink my beliefs. I felt like he engaged me with respect, and then convinced me. He inspires me with his honesty and integrity.­"

Obama is engaging people who haven't come near Democratic or progressive electoral politics in years.

[StillAmused]

Wouldn't want to rain on your (or Obama's) 'movement', but can you point out to me exactly where MY name appears on both the White House and Congressional seating charts?

I'm all for optimism, hope and change, but the 'great unwashed' get ONE chance to be heard -- in November. From that point forward, it's an insiders' gunfight..­. and we've all seen how thoroughly impotent public opinion is, as a renegade president continues to defiantly run amok in the face of an historically low 30% approval rating.

I'll cast my lot with a president who's smarter, quicker on the draw -- and a better shot -- than the obstructionist dead-enders the GOP will certainly leave behind in the Congress after the votes are counted.

Kumbaya.

[altohone]

Perhaps your role is not to be wined and dined in the White House...

... not sure why a Clinton supporter would expect the invitation at all, but that's another story.

You ask what the country (or Obama) will do for you?
Some would say that's got things backwards.

[StillAmused]

Look up the definitions of "analogy", "metaphor" and "aphorism".

March onward, true believer..­.

[SShaw490]

James Zogby has articulated the fundamental reason that Obama's supporters may or may not support Hillary. Political people look at Obama and Hillary as options; but I see Obama as a movement, and Hillary as just another politician. I don't look at them as lists of issue positions and a total that equals the sum of their parts; I see Obama as a transformational candidate like Kennedy or Reagan, and I see Hillary as just another candidate. People get tired of hearing about "change", and Hillary contends she'll offer change - but she's wrong. She's not a transformational candidate. I'm sorry, but she's not.

If Obama isn't nominated by the Democratic party and doesn't run as an independent (which I think he should), then I'll consider Hillary and McCain and decide to vote for one of them, or neither. But the idea that I, or very many of Obama's other supporters, would just swing our support to Hillary because she's in the same party, is an assumption that reveals a serious misunderstanding of the word "transformation".

[liveandlearn]

obama should not need the platform of the presidency to lead his transformation of our society. we need hillary clinton to do the day to day hands on work of governing well.

[Geoffreys]

Preach on, my brother.

I'm sick and tired of being told by the Party to just shut up and vote as instructed - that it is my duty to vote for any Democrat put on the ballot.

I don't hate Hillary, nor have I decided that I cannot vote for her in a general election. But I'll be damned if I'll vote for her just because she's the Democrat and that's what I need to do.

[hinnis]

Obama is a "movement" because the press and his oratory has made it so. As Americans find out more about him and his background, he too will descend to the ranks of mortal men.

[kempis]

Ah! This explains why Zogby called California for Obama on Super Tuesday. He's in love!

:)

[Boadicea]

Please read the author's bio.

[teahead]

In the WA state caucus today, an older (50ish) white man has said that this was his FIRST caucus, but Obama inspired him more than anyone else ever has in his life.

I was really moved and I sure hope all this inspiration doesn't go to waste w/Hillary getting the nomination.

[hinnis]

How much do you Obama supporters know about Obama' self-proclaimed paster, inspiration, and mentor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, of the Trinity United Church? Now, I don't care whether Obama is a Muslim (HE IS NOT!), a mormon (HE IS NOT!), an athiest (HE IS NOT), or pretty much anything else. But I do think that the people he associates with and admires are our business, if their teachings are arguable racist and divisive. Why is no one talking about how vulnerable Obama will be to such attacks? Does anyone really believe that the Republicans aren't already salivating at the prospect of exposing the arguably racist ideology of that church? What about Rev. Wright presenting Louis Farrakhan with a lifetime achievement award last year (yes, the same Louis Farrakhan who calls Jews "bloodsuckers"; who refers to the "white man" as "blue-eyed devils," and "his mortal enemy"; and who said "White people are potential humans ? they haven't evolved yet.") Just because the mainstream media has failed to discuss any of these issues, does not mean that the Republicans will let these opportunities slip by. Finally, could you imagine if Hillary belonged to a church as described above in the reverse. If so, that church's website would describe the church as follows: "We are a congregation which is Unashamedly White and Unapologetically Christian.­.. Our roots in the White religious experience and tradition are deep, lasting and permanent. We are a European people, and remain "true to our native land," the mother continent of Europe the cradle of civilization. Then, what if the pastor of that church gave David Duke a lifetime achievement award? If this were the case, Hillary couldn't be elected dog catcher. Let's look at all the information about both candidates, and not just get caught up in the empty (but extremely eloquent) rhetoric. See: http://www.tucc.org/about.htm

[SShaw490]

Obama is on record, several times, as opposing some of Rev. Wright's more radical ideas, as well as his recognition of Farrakhan. Actually, Obama's ability to meet with Wright on those issues they have in common and yet oppose those issues that he can't abide, is a good example of his transformational politics. So many politicians spend their entire lives trying to avoid anyone controversial, anyone who might endanger their careers, where Obama calls Wright a friend and at the same time strongly opposes some of his ideas.

Obama's association with Wright is a good thing. It's the way American politics SHOULD be done. It's the way politics should work in a truly free society. You're free to think and say what you want (within the limits of other people's freedom), and I'm free to resist those things that I disagree with. And we're both free to associate with each other in spite of having different perspectives on things.

What's wrong with that?

[hinnis]

Obama has said the Rev. Wright is his mentor and inspiration. No matter how benignly you try to spin Rev. Wright's "radical ideas," he is not someone I could respect or admire. The fact that Obama seems to admire him so much, says a lot about him. Racism is a terrible thing, no matter who practices it.

[TXfemmom]

Everyone seems to be blinded by this mythological screen that Obama has woven around himself. He is attempting to paint himself with the brush of similarity of when Bush presented himself as a "compassionate conservative" and look what that turned out to be.

I know a little about this pastor who is one of his mentor's and it is an ugly little truth.

It seems that the individuals supporting Obama are doing so to justify and support their labels as liberals or enlightened individuals, but Obama is playing the race card, pure and simple and I don't like it. As MLK says, a person should be judged by their character and abilities, and not the color of their skin..but Obama is being supported by a lot because he can preach like a good black minister and he is black. I don't think he has the experience, and I don't think that he has the policies, and playing the race thing sickens me.

Don't tell me he isn't playing the race thing. I was in a restaurant having lunch about two weeks ago and there was a large party of African-Americans sitting behind me just frothing at the mouth over Obama, but not a single one had brought up a policy or issue he promoted or supported. When I asked them if they knew his policy about health care..not one could tell me..the same with Iraq...and the same on several issues. What it boiled down to was..what one finally admitted, and that was that he was a "brother".

Well I don't care if someone is a brother or a woman, white, brown, yellow, or what, I vote for their ability and their policies and I make it the number one priority to KNOW WHAT THAT IS.

[SShaw490]

Then how do you explain the fact that the majority of Obama's supporters are white? Myself, for example?

Obama's race is the least relevant issue in this debate, I can assure you.

[goodsnservices]

Yawn. Don't you get it? Everyone (except people like Coulter) are sick to death of attack campaigns against the candidates. If the Republicans try it, it will backfire just as surely as the Clinton's forays into Rovian politics failed. We won't tolerate it any more.

Besides, condemnation by association is old school, dude. No one falls for that one anymore except people who need a cover and will grasp one if it is handed to them.

[hinnis]

My post regarding Obama and Rezko was merely a recitation of events. Rezko's trial starts February 25th. Reports are that Obama is an unnamed player in the indictment (but NOT accused of any crimes). These events will not be lost on the Republican slime machine should Obama win the nomination.

[altohone]

I think somebody somewhere wrote something about freedom of assembly.

Of course, I'm still pissed from 2004 that Kerry belongs to a church that denies women the right to lead services, is working to overturn a womans right to choose, protected pedophiles, and is led by a former Hitler youth...

... I'm also pissed that 100 million Christians somehow supported a man that thinks killing 600,000 Iraqi's is something Jesus would do... now, their churches must be preaching some real hate.

The corproate media hasn't covered this stuff... you are right there.

Your straw men excuse to repeat the dreck that others may use in a campaign is an old tactic in gutter politics.

FYI, the country we are occupying in the Middle East is the "cradle of civilizati­on"... not Europe... so if you see the GOP using that one, you're ready with a comeback.

[hinnis]

During one of the debates, Obama attacked Hillary by bringing up that when he was a community activist, she was a corporate attorney representing Wal-Mart. In response, she stated that while she was fighing against (Republican ideas), "you were practicing law and representing your contributor, [Tony] Rezko, in his slum landlord business in inner-city Chicago." Obama answered that his connection with Rezko was limited to 5 or six hours of representation at his law firm. Not true. The relationship between Obama and Rezko has existed since 1990. The fact that Obama won't mention the name of the guy who made his rise to political prominence possible out loud illustrates the efforts to which Obama, with the aid of a mostly negligent press, has been able to make Rezko a forbidden word to utter. Now, Rezko is facing a federal trial on February 25th. According to the L.A. Times, Rezko, his employees and business associates -- such as his consultants, lawyers and their families -- have provided Obama more than $200,000 in donations since 1995, helping fuel his rapid ascent in politics It's clear from Rezko's unwinding problems that Obama either didn't care how his patron got the money, or ignored it as long as the political contributions and access to others contributions kept coming. Considering Mr. Obama models himself as Mr. Hope and promises that he'll change politics in Washington, this shouldn't be a minor part of the Obama story. It's his record, which directly conflicts with the image he's selling that many people have not only bought into, but invested their hopes in as well. The fact that Obama and Rezko were friends for years is also not a minor point, as well as his assertions that he remained witless about what was going on right under his nose. See: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/taylor-marsh/obamas-faustian-bargain-_b_82863.html.html

[VespaGirl]

The Clintons associated with Tony Rezko long before Barack Obama. If you're going to be fair, why not bring up Norman Hsu? There's plenty more of that kind of thing where the Clinton's are concerned and the Republicans are drooling over the chance to drag it out. Face it, the Clintons' "experience" just means more dirt to be dug up.

[hinnis]

I agree that the Clintons have their own problems. The problems you mention, however, have already been discussed in the media at great length. Obama's problems are largely being ignored by the mainstream media, very much like Bush's were during his honeymoon years. As a result, many people feel that Obama represents a real change in politics. However, when you scrutinize his record, he is really more of the same.

[hinnis]

POST ONE: I think it would be very hard for Hillary to be on the same ticket as Obama. As she alluded to in one of the debates, often when she tries to bring up his record, he lies about it, and then his surrogates play the race card. Because of the extended honeymoon Obama has had with the press, most Americans don't know very much about his background. In fact, he has acted like a typical politician ever since he first entered politics.

It all started when he first ran for office in Illinois. Alice Palmer, the long-serving incumbent and friend of Obama's, endorsed him for her state senate seat while she ran for national office. When her attempt failed, she asked Obama to step aside so she could continue in her seat. He refused, and with little time to gather the required signatures to run, she did her best. Obama than repaid his friend by pulling a "Bush" on her; he challenged all of her signatures and had her taken off the ballot. He also did the same to other candidates, in order to clear the way for himself. Obama's comment on the incident, "I liked Alice Palmer a lot. I thought she was a good public servant. It was very awkward. That part of it I wish had played out entirely differentl­y." He acts like he had nothing to do with the incident. "Yes we can" play dirty politics against our prior friends and mentors! See: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-070403obama-ballot,0,1843097.story?,page=1

[ESerafina42]

I certainly hope that his supporters on this site aren't representative. By and large, they appear to be some of the most childish, vicious people on the planet outside of the Republican party. Fanaticism is an ugly thing, no matter who the fanatics support.

[hinnis]

Dear ESerafina42:

I agree. I'm sure many well-meaning people support Obama, but just like when Bush was more popular, if you in any way shed unflattering light on Obama's record, the responses can be every bit as bad as those coming from the far right. I had really hoped that the Democrats would be above such vitriol.

[DoninJoisey]

I want change from the same-old partisan crap we've had.

With Obama, there is at least the HOPE for change, there would be NO HOPE with Hillary.

"35 years of experience" - at spinning, at prevaricating. No thanks. I saw that movie already. I voted for Perot twice, and still think he would have been better.

[waxlips]

Obama fills me with hope, and I'm also sending him a Valentine because he's HOT. Probably his wife will give him one of those big $10.00 Valentines that opens up with a heart that pops out like, "Surprise!!"

I know Obama will understand if I get him the Hallmark budget card for $1.99.

[FirstAve]

Hillary Clinton can not win the general election. We will not vote for a liar again. When asked about her vote for the war she double talks and, in essence, lies.
She stopped lying about Obama'a record - not because it is wrong to lie - but because it became a political negative in one of her 'in house' polls.

She says we should vote for her because she has withstood more attacks from republicans than anyone in history. Congrats on the that to the Clintons, however, why should America be put back into this war of theirs with the republicans?

Obama is the one and only. He will be 'attacked' only to see the attack hurt the attacker. He can not lose to the republicans.

The Clintons will go into the convention losing in delegates 'voted for' and they will try and steal it with superdelegates. This is who they are.

If she gets the nomination I will vote against her - like all real liberals should. We would rather be lied to by republicans than be lied to by someone from our own party.

The only chance the Democrats have is to nominate Obama.

[liveandlearn]

366 delegates from florida and michigan want to support clinton, but the party's central committee (intentional use of the name "central committee" for anyone old enough to remember communist russia) will not let them be seated at the denver convention despite their being real election results by real voters.

[VespaGirl]

Just remember that those states were told before they decided to hold their primaries early what the consequences would be. If the people in MI and FL are upset they should be angry at their states' Democratic party and not penalize any one candidate. I want their votes to count, too, but not if it's unfair to some.

[Justtellthetruth]

Obama is the best hope available for the US at this time. He has Better Judgement, as proven out over time by Hillary's positions on Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, and her flip flopping on Pakistan.

Better people skills, better ability to reach across the aisle, and create real change in domestic and foreign policy issues. For Christs sake, Hillary's views on war and diplomacy are indistinguishable from the GOP's.

[hank48188]

How about that judgement of Obama in 2005 when he had Tony Rezko help him buy a house he couldn't afford? Or getting $269,100 from a nuclear company, EXELON, to vote for the 2005 Dick Cheney Energy Bill which was a great benifit to the nuclear industry. Wake up, this guy has sold out to the Internationalists that are the people behind the curtain of the Obama show. Led by Ziggy Brzezinski, former National Security Advisor for Jimmy Carter and the ultra-rich elite eastern liberals like George Soros and David Rockerfeller. Obama is weak and will be led by this group advising him, he doesn't know anything and will be very easily led. Look into it.

[Justtellthetruth]

Thats a pretty smart group. However, I seriously DOUBT that a Magna Cum Laude of Harvard law, and a guy that came up very successfully through Chicago politics is either weak, or being "led around" by any one.

Rather, Ziggy B. is going to be a GREAT adviser on middle eastern and world politics. If ANYONE had listened to him from the BUSH administration, we would not be in this war, and the Palestinian Israeli conflict would have been ended early enough to possibly preclude the attacks on 9/11. You see, even Bill Clinton said, during a Charlie Rose interview after 9/11, that the Israeli Palestinian conflict is the "philosophical underpinning of middle eastern terrorist recruitment". regardless of that, Hillary backed Bolton's nomination, (he is a rabid Neocon) and supports having Jerusalem be the undivided capitol of Israel, which would effectively mean forcibly removing the Palestinians from east Jerusalem, and ensuring that the conflict which has driven world terrorism for decades continues for 4 MORE decades.

AIPAC, a group of ultra right hawks whose views do not conform to the views of most Jewish Americans or Israelis, Pays Hillary a lot of money and gives her broad support. She, in return, has kowtowed to their desires on Iraq, Iran, and Lebanon, and the Really hawkish idea of keeping all of Jerusalem as capitol of israel, each with disastrous consequences for the US, Israel, and the middle east in general.

Keep in mind, if you care about Israel, the PRIME MINISTER of Israel( and most Jewish Americans and Israelis) is far to the left of Hillary's AIPAC driven views. For instance, he recently said that if Israel does not give up its settlements, Israel will end up like south africa, agreeing with the premise of Jimmy Carters book, Palestine, Peace, not apartheid.

Hillary condemned Carter for this view. So, Her AIPAC affiliation has led her to be wrong about Iraq, Iran, Lebanon (also now considered a TOTALLY avoidable disaster), and wrong about the settlements, puting her FAR to the right of the israeli prime minister and people.

GO OBAMA!!!!

[DoninJoisey]

And who in their right (non-sexist) mind would believe Hillary would bring about any change? The only change would be who lobbyists make checks out to.

[liveandlearn]

she would go to work on improving the economy. that would be a change. she would bring home the soldiers from iraq. that would be a change. she would send a health care initiative to congress, making schip unnecessary because it would replace it. she would set about balancing the federal budget, and not on the backs of the poor. she would help children's and women's causes and stop some of the antigay efforts the republicans so love. she would create jobs working on the infrastructure "from the bridges in minnesota to the levees in new orleans." she would tell the religious proselytizers in the air force to do that on their own time but adhere to the military code (including not raping fellow cadets) on the job.

do you have a non-sexixt mind?

[illinoisan]

Transformation comes from within. When it does, the personal becomes the political.

Hillary finds support among those who expect a president to do all the work and effect all the policy prescriptions so that they can go about their own narrow pursuits. Obama finds support among those who realize that in a participatory democracy, the only way to achieve desirable, sustainable change is to get busy oneself.

Obama's critics here on Huffpo don't understand movement politics. They are satisfied with the Clintonian "it takes a president" politics. The problem with that is not just that they'll get what they deserve but that we will get it too.

With Obama, we'll get whatever we work hard and sacrifice for.

[ginnypoo]

Are you all going to the oval office everyday to hand him his papers just before he needs them, are you all gonna camp on the WH lawn so he has you there to do the hard work of changing things? No? huh.......

[WillBFair]

Excuse me. But you don't understand the basics of US society. The Clintons are hated because they are the most capable liberals on the scene, and they have a decades long record to prove it. Obama has a bunch of fanatsy rhetoric, about no blue and red States, financial interests rolling over, and bringing the country together while he has brought republican smear tactics into the democratic party. If he ever did accomplish anything in government, the media smear campaign would start, and you would find out real quick how much rhetoric is worth.

[trevor01]

Just what I think. Everyone walks on eggshells around Obama afraid of discovering his fatal weakness and seeing their dreams die. Dreams are for the asleep. We need fearless leadership informed by a confident and competent staff.

[umen]

According to the conventional wisdom, taking into account my age (50s), gender (f), race (w), and income (working poor) I am supposed to be for Clinton. As a matter of fact, there was a time in the 80s when I became disgusted with men running the world and I voted for every woman I could find on the ballot, without regard for their party or politics. I figured women in charge couldn't make things any worse. I've been looking forward to a female president for decades.
BUT -
I'm for Obama! There IS something happening here, I've been swept up in the movement and have loved seeing how it is touching the hearts of young people the way JFK touched my heart when I was 10. Obama's approach is what we need at this time. Yes we can!