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.
Follow Jeffrey Feldman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/JeffreyFeldman
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.
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.
. 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!
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.
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.
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.