Obama and the 'Balance' Frame

Iowa picked Barack Obama out of all the Democrats running for President and by doing so, they endorsed the 'balance' frame that Obama used to define the election and, potentially, the future of the country.

While all three top tier candidates campaigned for change, only Obama framed the election through a logic of overcoming imbalances: in our economy, foreign policy, and in our politics.   Clinton's 'experience' frame held the terrain briefly.  Edward's 'economic justice' frame gained real momentum in the last week. But it was Obama's narrative about striking a balance that resonated the most. 

Obama's use of the 'balance' frame is a significant development, but one that the media has largely overlooked.  Pundits talking about Obama's victory in Iowa mostly tossed around the vague concept of "change," claiming that Obama represented "change" more than Edwards and Clinton (despite the fact that every candidate in the election was talking about "change").  "Balance" is the frame that Obama has used effectively, however, whether journalists are able to see it or not.

The story does not stop there.  Obama's 'balance' frame had the most appeal with young voters who turned out overwhelmingly for him on a cold night in Iowa.  This development defies the common stereotype of college students.  When we think of political activists on college campuses, we think of passionate idealists, holding signs, protesting.  The Obama followers are passionate and they hold signs, but they are clearly driven by a desire to move beyond the politics of discord.  Young people following Obama find in his message of 'balance' a 'hope' for the future that holds the greatest possibility for them.

On the right, Mike Huckabee won Iowa with a combination of Christian morality and economic populism.  But Huckabee is a very good campaigner.  His message is not what the GOP power structure claims.  Huckabee has a gift for connecting to people.  He is the most 'authentic' candidate of them all.

If the general election becomes a contest between Obama and Huckabee, Americans will see something they have not seen for decades.  It will be a campaign between a man calling for economic reforms and evangelical norms competing against a man calling for national reconciliation and social justice.  It will be 'authenticity' vs. 'balance'; 'awe shucks' vs. 'let's sit down together'; 'I am one of you' vs. 'if I can do it, we all can do it.'

A brave world that would be.  A brave new world, indeed.

But for now, it's just Iowa.  New Hampshire is five days away and after that Nevada, then South Carolina.  The GOP candidates may be too far behind Huckabee to catch him, but Clinton and Edwards have plenty of steam left in them.

Congratulations to the Obama and Huckabee camps.

Next up: The Granite State.

Cross posted from Frameshop.

Comments

[cloudy]

When are the pundits going to start confronting the issue of how the primaries being front-loaded favors the previously well-known contender -- the one who was considered the presumptive nominee when the process started -- over ANY possible challenger or upstart, even one that might be at least somewhat well-known before the campaign began?

The way I see it, Obama could very well demonstrate his superior strength AS A CANDIDATE, with voters who are familiar with the candidates and have heard a lot (both + and -) about them -- winning not only Iowa but New Hampshire and South Carolina as well. This is not a far-fetched prediction, and indeed, Obama may be at least an even bet to do just that. (Of course, the results in MI, FL, and NV are another matter).

But then comes Tsunami Tuesday ("TT" I call it for short). Here, the inertia of the campaign is given full swing, & even the momentum built up by Obama with three major victories in the heavily campaigned-in states would leave him at a disadvantage in what amounts to essentially a national primary.

Curiously, the circumstances in MI and FL, the two LARGEST states to vote before TT, is such as specifically to PRECLUDE major campaigning on the part of any candidate that doesn't want to outrage the Democratic Party establishment; hence they are more like the TT states than the 'big three' of January. ALL OF THESE FACTORS SEEM TO FAVOR THE CANDIDACY OF HRC, ALMOST INSURMOUNTABLY, AND ALL ARE PREDICTABLE RESULTS OF THE WAY THAT THE NATIONAL DEMOCRATIC PARTY SET UP THE ELECTIONS.

It's time for the grass-roots & net-roots Democrats to start SERIOUSLY grappling with this issue. If this setup insures an HRC nomination, as it seems clearly to have been intended to do, AND THEN SHE LOSES, I think that progressives will REALLY have to think seriously about completely overhauling the Democratic Party. And no more dancing to the tune of the DLC and their 'why doesn't the Democratic Party dump its pro-choice platform?'(Al From) after the 2004 elections.

[Troubledgoodangel]

I still do not know Obama. It's not about "fear," as some pundits say. It's about common sense and responsibility! The Nation must be courageous, but not stupid! The burden is on Obama to prove that his "handlers" mean well! We do not know who those handlers are! Are they rich, or poor? Are they liberal, or conservative? Are they corporate globalists, or defenders of global fairness? If they are for "fairness," how will they deal with the corporate globalists who have taken our jobs to China? How will they restore the value of our currency back to a level where all the poor of the world can benefit? I still do not know what Obama has to say on these questions!

[Hansharriet]

Most of the older people know that politicians will say anything to get elected. They will exaggerate, lie, smear their opponents and use bribes or other means to reach their goals.
Once the are elected, nobody ever checks whether they fulfill their promises. Young, especially first time voters, don't know that. They believe in the words a candidate touts over and over. That's why Obama got the youth vote. He used the word "Change" as if he represents change.
Here is the reality for the Democratic Candidates:
All candidates, except Kucinich who wants to get out of Iraq now, plan to stay in Iraq until 2013. This smells too much of oil. And as we are building the biggest US Embassy fortress in the world, we can be assured that we will stay in the Middle East for decades to come.
All candidates , except Kucinich, who wants a Single Payer nonprofit health care system, want to keep the the insurance companies involved in our health care. These companies will continue to make decisions on our health instead of our Doctors and othe health care providers and they and the greedy pharmaceutical companies will continue to make hundreds of Billions of profits by taking money out of our pockets.
The Single Payer (Government) System works very well in Canada and European countries and is much cheaper all around. Why not here?
How about doing away with the Lobbying System which corrupts our Congress, Executive and Judiciary as well as State and Local Governments?
These are just a few items. One could go on and on. For instance our economic problems, the sinking Dollar, the student loan problems, outsourcing problems, Nafta, Cafta, the trade imbalance.
How about our civil liberties which we have been losing with every new piece of "Home Security" legislation? How about some proposal on immigration legislation?
Mr. Obama, where is your proposed change? And please, no platitudes and hot air. The same goes for Hillary Clinton.

[NanNevadaDem]

Jeffrey! What do you mean: "New Hampshire is five days away and after that South Carolina."?? The Democratic Caucus/Primary calendar is:
. Iowa January 3.
. New Hampshire/first-in-the-nation primary Jan. 8.
. NEVADA / CAUCUS ON SATURDAY, JANUARY 19.
. South Carolina holds a primary on January 29
Your "east-of-the-Rockies" bias is exactly why Nevada was invited to join the early caucus calendar! Nevadans, despite our small numbers, have been working long and hard to be the first "west-of-the Rockies" states to be represented in the early caucuses! I know the candidates have been here often and will be here again after New Hampshire courting our votes, so don"t forget to pay us "west-coasters" a little more attention!

[ronmyers]

The way the knee jerk liberals are celebrating the Iowa caucus results, you would think Obama had just swept with something like a 60% majority and that that was good. No, over 60% of the Democrats with enough enthusiasm to caucus voted against him. And why is it such a great thing to nominate an immature person of mixed race and such limited experience? None of these three disqualify a candidate but let's use a little common sense to see they are not real qualifications either. This new versus old theme is stolen lock stock and barrel from JFK's 1960 campaign. Can't Obama come up with anything more original? Does he simply want to fool the dunces?

[rpmcestmoi]

What absurd reductionism. A v. B. Duh, Feldman.

[JanP]

I know that Obama stands for change, but I really want to know what changes he wants. I can't just assume that any change is a change for the better.

What is his position on the violence in Kenya. Consider this:

His father was born in Kenya, he's a Luo, the Luo and Kikuyu are killing each other. So what's Obama's take on that? What precisely would he do today if he were president of the US? Would he send troops to Kenya or flowers? Would he say let's all get together kumbaya or would he criticize the Kikuyu president and support the Luo candidate?

Obama and his wife attend the Anti-Israel Untied Church of Christ. Where does Obama stand on Israel? Does he support divestment and end of aid or does he support Israel? Is he "even handed", decidely pro-Israel or decidedly Pro-Palestinian? Where does he stand on Hamas and Hizbullah?

If the Iraqi government asked the United States to stay until al Qaeda was destroyed, would Obama keep our troops there or would he pull them out - not caring what happens.

[dsigeorge]

Very good analysis Jeffrey. To those who say America will not elect this 'black' man I say please study the demographics of Iowa. A very white conservative state giving Obama their votes from all sectors of society. A great hope for the election of the most charismatic and brilliant candidate in the last 45 years.

[daveny]

I'm amazed by the bitter partisanship and cynicism expressed in so many of the anti-Obama posts here. When I talked to my mother last night, after hearing Obama's speech, she finally got it -- "This is kind of like watching JFK for your generation, isn't it?"

We went over some of the comparisons -- but most important was the idea that it was time to hand things over to a new generation -- to take a plunge into the unknown, but to do so in hope. To turn our back on the battles being fought endlessly by the old and entrenched, and try to move forward together to face the great challenges of the future.

Yeah, I know Obama's no JFK. But he's as damn close as we've had in ages. A smart and pragmatic leader who speaks a message of hope and progress, and who commands the respect of even those who disagree with him -- because he's willing to grant them respect as well.

Kennedy was attacked as being too inexperienced. He was only a generation removed from a time when Catholics were considered barely a step above blacks in status. He was criticized for being too vague, too untested, too young. He was attacked from all sides in the Democratic primary -- from the LBJ machine to the worn-out Stevenson liberals.

But he was the right man for the time. And the time now is time for Obama.

[CatfishJohn]

.... I agree about the breathless huistrionics over obama's win...this Dem nomination is not fait accompli...even more nebulous regarding republican process and eventual outcome...calling it an inevitability that it will be oabma vs huckabee in november is as naiev as the espresso/ipod youth vote who beleive in the empty kumbaya platitudes that the opportunistic obama sold them on...look, i'd vote for obama over any repub in a heartbeat..... but you innocents need to realize one thing: america has been run by republicans since 1968 for 7/10 last admins. BECAUSE of their masteruflly playing the southern strategy/wink and nod subtle racism card in the south and border states...put down the instant messenger and $5 cup of coffee for a minute breathelss obama fawners and tell me that you really think a black man will be elected president in a nation still quietly quite racist where tens of thousands of votes will ( sadly) AUTOMATICALLY go republican in each vital border/battleground states like ky., tenn, ohio, missouri, va, and w.va. because of bubba,travis, betty joe and jim bobs reflexive unwillingness to EVER vote for a black man for president...this is a hard truth you simply fail to consider...if you think otherwise, than you are simply living in a bubble of innocent fantasy....

[longislandlol]

Young people are not making mistakes this time-- this is a revival-- a brilliant revival of the late 60's when the parents and grandparents of our present-day youth made similar choices---

[Countess]

The voters of Iowa sent a clear message about the slime politics of Clinton and there is now hope for the future.

[StephenDedalus82]

It can only be seen as a good thing that Obama drew out young voters in unprecedented numbers. They too are a part of the process. But they're making the same mistakes in logic that young people always make. This is probably the first presidential election they're really paying attention to, and they're voting with their hearts not their minds. They don't appreciate the carnage the Republicans have inflicted on the world. They buy into the media's relentless refusal to say anything positive about Democrats, so what they want is "balance" and an "end to partisanship." Never going to happen, and it shouldn't happen right now. Democrats need to do the work they need to do. They have a mandate. Why throw it away and welcome the obstructionists and the warmongers back to the table after they've proved they can't be trusted there?

[KarenZipdrive]

Millions of Americans tend to dislike women and harbor racist tendencies as well.
I suspect that Obama and Clinton would very likely be assassination targets if they won the race for the presidency.
John Edwards is cute, male and white--which American voters seem to like.
I'm for Hillary, but Edwards and Obama would both make wonderful second choices.
We Democrats are lucky to have three great leading candidates, and that's the message we should be sending to the GOP.
Let's not vilify any Democratic candidate- the Republicans will happily do that for us.

[trevor01]

Iowans enjoy choosing Democrats who could never win the presidency. I smell a rat.