- BIG NEWS:
- GOP
- |
- Sarah Palin
- |
- Barack Obama
- |
- Bobby Jindal
- |
"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.
Loading comments…
Most Popular on HuffingtonPost
pEB7oMhbUMqh8XHd5Ap2Gb6%2FG49nJsCwC2AiSGoDeOM2LAKtSSoA7A1U9uNBLFFBmrm8G3t%2FRNpCR34K4yFK7Nj8Kl5%2BiPnp
Gjj42eJn%2FBoCAKa%2BXB%2B2UkAZETmsGuRFUn7xk%2B%2BwINcIwn1LcucqNA%3D%3D
1 of 2
HuffingtonPost Reporters
RE3Twj09%2FnT2tdUjgnMOJpX%2BSujtzY54
1S8zZ2rNeMfeOHw88Pn71kNM6Q5pDMoX
1 of 2
Don't Miss HuffPost Bloggers
1 of 4
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
"I have a dream that one day..." that day is now. Our day has come! PROUD GAY GRANDPA has never lost the faith...YES WE CAN...live the "dream!" We see it we believe it we live it we are it - YES WE CAN! Tag - YOU'RE IT, can you see it? Can you be it? Can you believe in it? Can you dream? "YES WE CAN!"
I drank the party koolaid for years and dutifully voted for Michael, Bill, Bill, Al and John. It's been a sad, sorry lot I must say. But I was afraid that if I didn't then Satan would conquer all and the universe will end.
After the 2004 election was handed to the Republicans, I vowed never to vote for someone just to be a good party cog or just to save us all from the Republicans. Instead, I'll vote for someone that I honestly believe in and support.
Barak Obama is not a liberal by any stretch of the imagination, but he inspires me. He fills me with hope that something good is coming.
Hillary Clinton does not fill me with hope for the future. She fills me with fear that there will be more politics as usual - more kowtowing to the status quo. If Mrs. Clinton wants my vote, she needs to earn it. I was still sitting the fence until she let Bill run amok and play attack dog.
I intend to vote for Obama in the upcoming Texas Primary. If he wins the nomination, I'll vote for him for president. If he does not win, then I will have to look for someone else that inspires me or perhaps sit out this election.
Obama's more Liberal than Edwards or Clinton ever were. There's a reason Kucinich backed him.
Well said.
True, he isn't as Liberal as Kucinich, but ultra liberals won't get elected.
However, you look at his voting record and it is one of the most liberal records ever.
Bravo.
Similar here, only I voted for Perot twice. I did vote for Gore, who I liked, and for Kerry - because he wasn't Bush, but here, Hillary or a republican - what's the difference?
I know I'm tired of Bush/Clinton/Bush - and the solution is hardly to add another Clinton term.
I believe I will have some of that kool-aid also, thank you.
"The movement he has unleashed is not focused on just winning" - Where is the evidence for this? Isn't it a bit soon to be offering such wild suggestions?
It's a comforting vision, but I wonder how hard his fans are prepared to work to see any results other than Obama walking into the White House? Are they looking on this as another version of Super Bowl?
It is painful to see the demonization of fellow Democrats. It makes us look like republicans. As NAFTA and international trade agreements have come to reveal some unforeseen consequences, and after hearing about Rupert Murdoch throwing fundraisers for Hillary, and noticing that the health care industry is a huge HRC donor, much of my appreciation for the Clintons has waned. Still, Hillary is progressive in her senate votes 90% of the time. She would be a much better president than any of the bat s**t crazy republicans. I will vote for her if she is the dem candidate. However, she makes a big deal of Obama's lack of experience. Do we need experience or do we need integrity, vision, the talent to communicate ideas to all Americans and the ability to bring us together as a people? New Obama supporters have no reason to support anyone just because they he/she is a Democrat. A Democratic party majority was elected to Congress in 2006 and what good has it done? Impeachment is "off the table." The Bush administration has continued to break laws, wiretap, and make signing statements. The Democratic party has not given those new, enthusiastic Obama supporters any reason to work their hearts out. Sure, I'll vote for Hillary because I'm old, pragmatic, and accustomed to holding my nose and voting the evil of two lessors. Will I make phone calls, campaign door-to-door, wave signs, and volunteer to be a poll observer as I have done for Obama? Not very likely.
If you look behind the curtain of Obama's sudden rise you see see the very same folks that foisted Jimmy Carter on an unsuspecting American public. Obama advisor Ziggy Brzezinski, former National Security Advisor for Jimmy Carter and the ultra-rich elite eastern liberals and Internationalists like Grorge Soros and David Rockerfeller. Obama is weak and inexperienced and has never run anything. These people will be the guiding hand if he gets in power and calling the shots. They will be advancing their international agenda with the help of so many gullible people listening to his speeches,sort of like the rise of Hitler, that guy could really get a crowd foaming at the mouth, like what I see now.
". . .she makes a big deal of Obama's lack of experience."
Which raises the question: What happens if she's the Dem nominee? 'Cause McCain has far more experience than her. Her advantage in the primary becomes her deficit in the general election.
You've hit the nail on the head. These followers of Obama, many young first time voters, are following only the man, and have no allegiance to the party. Many are even ignoring voting in the very important Senate and House races, that would actually help empower their choice of leader by solidifying his base with the right Congressional candidates supporting him. If they are only going to listen to Obama, it is time for him to speak to this, before we end up in the land of status quo.
The Obama phenomenon is not anything new in American politics: it is just a continuation of the growing influence of evangelistic religion and the power of celebrity in US culture. Obama's rhetoric uses generalities about "empowerment" and "change" without ever saying WHO is being empowered and WHAT is going to change. The "movement" is about Obama himself, who, like a charismatic religious figure, asks us to trust him and ask no questions. Bush rode religion to the White House and look where that got us. He asked us to trust him (wgy shouldn't we? God told him to run, right?) and his empty pseudo-rhetoric of "compassionate conservatism." The fact that Obama is on the left doesn't make the phenomenon any different or any less troubling. Americans want the new Messiah and that's what the Obama "movement" is about. You gotta gove it to the Obama strategists for reading the American public's susceptibility to religious rhetoric and milking it to the max. Please, tell Obama he's my hero! Oh! To touch the hem of his garment! Heaven help us.
This is so silly.
I totally agree.
The party includes such shining individuals as Dianne Feinstein, Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid, and Chuck Hagel.
To quote Laura Ingraham: "What have you done for me lately?"
Fuck it, I'm voting Green outside of the presidential elections because the taste of California Democrats like Dianne has soured me after only one damn election.
Hagel is a republican.
I agree that both parties suck, but it's what we have to work with - don't give up unless the foist Hillary upon us.
I am also totally disappointed with Pelosi and Reid - I voted straight democratic for the first time in my life, and see no difference.
If Obama wins nothing will change....will have another inexperienced, unqualified president who is all style over substance.
Obama IS change. Change starts on day one. At the very least he is symbolic change, and with his help, WE can change the world. Yes we can!
By that logic, anyone who is elected will be change!
This is based on what exactly?
What is Hillarys experience? Honestly i hear this 35 year crap. Did you know the first lady does not have a security clearance? Does not see the presidential daily briefing...Did not sit in on security council meetings....What one big task was she given.....healthcare....the result....no healhcare and a landslide republican win in the house in 1994. What was her most important vote in the sentate? To give Bush the OK to go to war. Ive seen enough of her experience to say no thanks. I know she cant win and Obama can.
35 years of experience as a corporate lapdog. She's going to change the system from WITHIN in ways her 6 years in the Senate hasn't let her. Just you wait!
It was not just no change in health care, she literally made the entire issue politically radio active because she handled it so badly. Almost two decades of no change. Imagine the hardships in health and finance that her total debacle caused for leterally hundreds of millions of Americans.
Absentee ballots in California are before the mo really took off- so could it be she outperformed him early on with all the early absentees and his mo will carry him at the polls-- the Clinton's must realize this- and be a bit scared-- or was South Carolina the defining moment?
There were a ridiculous number of absentee ballots, hundreds of thousands in California alone. If you compare the final voting count with the initial returns at 20% in, Obama covered a 12 point gap in California. This is oddly similar to the 13 point lead Zogby predicted.
Oh, you're just trying to make her cry...:-)
Funny how they say the polls were wrong in NH, but the paper votes and exit polls were pretty much what the polls said - it was the paperless electonic votes that gave Hilly the win in NH.
Hey, shit happens....
Think of the crowds gathering at Obama rallies. Moving beyond the initial step of attraction to Obama's vision of change, citizens are choosing to literally embody his message - right here, right now and in record numbers.
Yes We Can!
Yes we can . . . blow it big time if we reject the only capable and qualified candidate in favor of pie in the sky.
Latest time poll-
OBAMA-48%
MCCAIN-41%
MCCAIN-46%
HILLARY-46%
Yes we can....blow it big time if we reject the future of this party for the past.
Hi John, nice post.
Question.
What happened in California? You were way off, having Obama up by 13 or something.
Just curious.
This is "James" Zogby. John is the polling guy. James is a super delegate.
At 20% in when only absentee ballots had been counted, Obama was 20 points behind. At 100% in after all ballots were counted Obama was 8 points behind.
20 - 8 = 12 percent. That's what happened to Zogby's 13 percent.
Great article.
If HRC can't manage her campaign budget then how can she manage the national budget? Where's the experience?
Now HRC claims that Obama is the 'establishment' candidate.
She does not accept responsibility for losing tremendous ground to him or for the poor planning that ran her campaign budget into the ground.
We don't even need to vote - let's elect whoever can raise the most money.
Not only can she not control her budget, she can't control her husband. She allowed him to do severe damage to her for two weeks. He was an out of control train wreck. Millions of people turned off to him and her during this time. The last thing Americans need is more fighting and nastiness. I resented the time wasted by having Obama defend his position during the debates. This is a repub. display, not dem.
My concern is these super delegates. If they dare pull a Supreme Court stunt on us, I will stay home and this will be the first time since I was 18, that I will not vote. Let McCain win. The dems. had better not make any mistakes or they will be the Party of Losers for decades to come.
I just want to hear him defend having Tony Rezko help him and his wife buy a house they couldn't afford. I read a great story on the house at a site called NO QUARTER The Story was called "How to buy a mansion you can't afford" tells all the facts on the deal.
"Now HRC claims that Obama is the 'establishment' candidate."
Is that right? I hadn't heard that. That's downright funny! Right up there with "35 years of experience".
Pages right out of the Rove book - paint the opponent with YOUR weakness.
The special interests will disappear and we'll enjoy radical change? What sort of radical change? If Obama is as smart as people say he is he'll be voting for Hillary and praying she wins.
it is that type of attitude that has us where we are
If Obama doesnt get the nomination the only chance the democrats have in November is a prayer. Democrats need to get smart and look at this tactically. Who polls higher---OBAMA. Who can win independents---OBAMA. Who energizes young people---OBAMA. Who energized conservatives into a frenzy--HILLARY. Anyone looking at this objectively would come to the conclusion that OBAMA is the only choice unless you like being disappointed again on election night.
Though many won't, I will agree.
Great post!
The post is right on the mark. The Clintons should get out of the way. They no longer have the capacity to bring about the kind of change or inspiration the Obama movement is about. They are the Joneses who do not listen to anyone except pundits and pollsters. This is real and Clinton should not count on appropriating it. The Clintons have overstayed their welcome on the national stage.
Zogby says, "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."
There you have it -- the best possible reason to vote for Hillary. Guess what, Obamaphiles -- if you're not for winning this election, and that means VOTING FOR THE DEMOCRAT, you're on the other side. If that's the price of your "fundamental change," (change to what, exactly?) it's a rip-off.
Children stomp their feet and go home when they don't get their way. Real Democrats, and real LEADERS, know when to fight and when to unite.
BTW, as a continuing Deaniac, it pains me to see some of my colleagues buy in to this petulance. Howard Dean would never have said anything like the remarks above. Not in a million years.
*****A
News flash for A4D: many of Obama's supporters can't vote in the Democratic primaries because they are Republicans and Independents. Some cross over (when they can) to vote for Obama but they don't normally "vote for the Democrat". These are the voters who won't support Clinton even though they will cross over to support Obama.
Most of the support for Clinton on Super Tuesday was from the Democratic strongholds while Obama cleaned up in the red states where Democratic candidates are fearful that they will get creamed by Clinton's reverse coattails should she become the nominee. They welcome Obama who, as I stated above, appeals to Independents and even some Republicans.
In 2006, we made great inroads into traditionally Republican areas. The Democrats who are on the front lines there don't want to reverse those gains by having Hillary at the top of the ticket.
Has it occurred to no one that Hillary-hatin'-and-fearin' Republicans who don't want McCain to run against her are now going to vote for Obama in open-caucus states like Washington?
Why don't you do some research and find out when the last time Utah, Idaho, South Carolina, Alaska and Alabama EVER DELIVERED ANY electoral votes in November
Right on, BitJam.
I'm an independent ("unaffiliated"), changed it to democrat to vote for Obama in the NJ primary, and plan to change it back.
I Voted for democrats in '06 and am extremely disappointed - they've done SQUAT! Caved in every time!
As to party affiliation - I am for country above party. The Clintons are "dirty". We all know it. That they aren't as filthy as the Bushes is poor recommendation. Party loyalty on the other side got us Bush/Cheney twice.
How stupid is this Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton crap? I'm sick of republicans saying something is red, democrats saying it's blue, when the reality is the something is purple.
PS: In exit polls of Democrats on Super Tuesday, the percentage of Clinton voters who said they would support Obama was equal to the percentage of Obama supporters who said they would support Clinton. Both were 50%.
Your entire argument is bogus.
I didn' make that argument, Zogby did. And I guess that means Obama was wrong, because he's the one who said it in the first place.
Keep blowing smoke about Only-Obama-Republicans. FYI, we've made inroads with Republicans all through Bush's disasterous second term. Over 100K of them left the party in CA before Obama was even a blip. Republicans are sick of their party and looking for an alternative. And there are plenty of Republican and Indy women who are ecstatic about electing the first woman president.
*****A
Democrats.
It is an historic moment.
Bush, having inherited the ’peace dividend‘, has done what no one conceived possible, to create a global conflagration and crush the strength of America’s economy and its military. For the sake of enriching a few familiars.
Not since the Great Depression has the political center of gravity shifted so far so fast to the left. Still, the gravity is far from what it should be, but populism is a campaign centerpiece for a Republican candidate for the first time since Teddy Roosevelt.
‘times they are a changing’
On to this backdrop steps the first female and first black candidates for the American presidency. Not to complicate things, they have similar experience, similar platforms and similar check lists of campaign promises.
What the sticking point appears to be is style. Clinton positions herself as tough and uncompromising. She has captured the entirety of the Democratic political machinery, such as it is. Obama, until two weeks ago an upstart, garners an excitement not seen in politics for decades. He rallies those disaffected from both the Democratic party, as it exists, and the independents looking for ‘whatever’.
The Democratic base can be relied upon. It is the ‘whatever’ and disaffected that drive this political epoch. Independents are looking for corruption busting that they think will bring lower taxes. Disaffected Democrats are looking for Republican busting breaks from Iraq, poisoning of the climate and corporate malfeasance, for which they also find blame in the complicity of the Democratic establishment.
To nominate Clinton will dissuade Independents. To nominate Clinton will further alienate disaffected Democrats. To NOT seize the opportunity to count these elements, independents and wavering Democrats in the Democratic camp would be historic.
And what’s more, to NOT think past the current opportunities of right and left wing defections and carve out a more comprehensive philosophy that supersedes the need for divisiveness is beyond redemption.
As an independent,(I voted for Perot twice), you are spot on.
"Clinton positions herself as tough and uncompromising." And with the same denial of any error (IRAQ VOTE, IRAN VOTE) that Bush exhibits.
She also has the same "parsing" spin that I was sick of with Bill.
But it all depends on what the meaning of "is" is.
Thank you, John.
I agree. I am so excited that people feel that they can be part of the process now. Obama has idealism, but he is no fool. He understands about power and the power structure. People seem to forget that he has not been sitting in a field making daisy chains for 20 years. He has worked as a community organizer and in government. He knows that government needs to be part of the solution, but people have to be active as well to improve our country, to make our communities better. You can't do that by demonizing our neighbors or by ruling with cynicism.
He was involved in FAITH BASED community work, I don't like anything that is FAITH BASED, sounds like something Mike Huckabee would be involved in.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
