Why Obama Won

Barack Obama has won the race for the Democratic nomination for president against Hillary Clinton on the issues. Sort of.

This is not what the pundits will tell you: they would rather focus upon the most superficial and trivial aspects of the two final candidates' style, personality, associates, personal history, and campaign organization and strategy, not to mention race and gender.

This is not what many on the left will say either, in recognition of how little differences there were between the two candidates' stated positions on most policies.

Still, Obama was able to defeat the once-formidable Hillary Clinton because he was perceived to be the better candidate among the increasingly progressive base of the Democratic Party.

Many progressive supporters of Clinton pointed out how many on the left tended to criticize their candidate incessantly for her militaristic and pro-corporate policies while making excuses for similar positions taken by Obama. Obama's public positions on issues which ran counter to most progressive voters were often rationalized as being necessary in order for him to be elected or as part of the unfortunate reality of corporate power in the American political system, while Clinton's similar positions were attacked as a reflection of her real agenda.

To the extent that this was true, a major reason that the left may have cut Obama more slack than it did Clinton is that many progressives gave the Clintons just that kind of benefit of the doubt back in 1992. The line at that time was that "Bill Clinton has to say those things in order to get elected, but once in office, his policies will be far more progressive than his campaign rhetoric, which is aimed at winning votes from the center." The reality, however, was that the policies emanating from the Clinton White House over the next eight years were not to the left but actually to the right of positions he touted during the campaign. Though seven and a half years of President George W. Bush makes the Clinton Era look pretty good by comparison, the reality was that the Clintons presided over the most conservative Democratic administration of the twentieth century. As a result, there was an assumption among many party progressives that a second Clinton White House would be more of the same.

Obama, by contrast, has not yet had the opportunity to disappoint. It certainly doesn't mean that he won't. In fact, he probably will. Yet it appears that most Democrats in the progressive wing of the party took the attitude that the Clintons had their chance and blew it, so let's give the nomination to the new guy who worked as a community organizer, who has a more grass roots focus, whose progressive policy positions have been more longstanding and consistent, and who has relied more on small donations and less on corporate contributors.

The most significant reason Clinton lost, however, was Iraq. Obama's outspoken and principled opposition to the war back in 2002 and his public recognition that Saddam Hussein was not a threat to the United States or any of Iraq's neighbors contrasted sharply with Clinton's support for the war and her false and alarmist statements about alleged Iraqi WMDs and links to Al-Qaeda. (See my article Obama vs. Clinton - October 2002 ) Indeed, Clinton's vote to allow President Bush to invade a country on the far side of the world that was no threat to us went well beyond "bad judgment" and moral culpability for the predictable tragedy that resulted: it was demonstrative of her dismissive attitudes toward international law, the United Nations system, the U.S. Constitution, and common sense. (See my article Why Hillary Clinton's Iraq Vote Does Matter. )

If Clinton had apologized for her vote or come out against the war earlier, as did former Senator John Edwards, she would have probably won the nomination. She failed to do so, however. And, combined with her hawkish policies in regard to Israel, Palestine, Lebanon and Iran, there was little reason to suspect that, as president, she wouldn't pursue similarly disastrous policies toward other Middle Eastern conflicts. (See my articles Hillary Clinton on International Law and Human Rights and Hillary Clinton on Military Policy . )

It is certainly true that, during his first two years in the U.S. Senate, Obama -- like Clinton and virtually every other Senate Democrat -- supported unconditional funding for the war, a position that angered his anti-war supporters. Similarly, Obama's own policy statements in regard to Israel, Palestine, Lebanon and Iran -- as well as nuclear proliferation, globalization and other foreign policy issues -- are, while better than Clinton's, still quite disappointing for those of us looking for a new direction in U.S. foreign policy. Still, there is little question that Obama defeated Clinton as a result of the power of the anti-war movement and the fact that, unlike 2004, it is no longer possible for a senator to have unapologetically voted to grant President Bush unconditional authority to launch a war of aggression at the time and circumstances of his own choosing and still receive the Democratic nomination for president.

Unfortunately, Obama's recent announcement of his new Senior Working Group on National Security is dominated by backers of failed foreign policies who demonstrated contempt for international legal norms and support for military solutions to complex political problems, such as Madeleine Albright, Jim Steinberg, David Boren, and William Perry. Notably absent are prominent members of his original foreign policy team who advised him during the primary campaigns, which included some of the more innovative and cutting-edge thinkers from the foreign policy establishment, such as Larry Korb, Joseph Cirincione, Samantha Power, Robert Malley and Richard Clarke, all of whom opposed the invasion of Iraq and took a more holistic view of national security. Along with his hawkish speech earlier this month at the AIPAC convention, concerns are being raised that Obama is already abandoning the progressive base and shifting to the right.

The best hope for a progressive administration under a President Obama, then, may be in the fact that the Illinois senator's base is so much more progressive than he is. Just as any number of Republican politicians -- who personally may not have much affinity with the Christian right's obsession with abortion and homosexuality -- have felt obliged nevertheless to play to their base with policies and appointments which cater to their interests, Obama may feel similarly obliged in regard to the Democratic left. By contrast, Clinton was more the candidate of the party establishment, which gave rise to the assumption that her appointments and policies would have more reflected those interests. Though this distinction was not absolute -- there are plenty of establishment figures supporting Obama and plenty of grass roots feminists and other progressives who supported Clinton -- there is little question to whom Obama would owe his election.

Perhaps what has been most hopeful about the 2008 Democratic presidential race is the fact that both Obama and Clinton -- as well as all the Democratic candidates who had dropped out earlier -- took positions on Iraq, global warming, civil liberties, globalization, and other key issues considerably more progressive than did eventual nominee John Kerry or any of the other major Democratic contenders in 2004.

It is a reminder that it may be less important whom we elect as the choices we give them. As the adage goes, if the people lead, the leaders will follow.

Stephen Zunes is a professor of Politics at the University of San Francisco.

Comments

[NikkiT]

Obama did NOT win, Hillary Clinton did and this election was stolen from her, it is a sham.

Hillary Clinton leads in the popular vote.

Had MI/FL delegates been counted as voters voted, then she would have the most pledged delegates - she would have 1,725 vs 1.706 for obama.

so this election is a SHAM and that is why we will not unite.

[SeanC2]

Nice to finally see someone on Huffpo who gets the big picture. Genuine, informed progressives did no oppose Clinton because of sexism, but because her record as a senator has already proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that she can't be trusted to pursue a progressive agenda. Obama has not yet had the opportunity to discredit himself in deed, though he has most certainly discredited himself in word by his groveling before AIPAC, conservative apologetics and now the appointment of the loathsome Madeleine Albright as a policy advisor.

The only reason to support Obama is that he is clearly the lesser of three evils, but anybody who thinks this guy is going to be any more liberal or progressive than Bill Clinton needs to get a grip and start listening to what this guy says, instead of all the malarkey about "hope" and "change." If we want change in this country, we need to wake up and realize it isn't going to come by voting for a candidate anointed by the party machine and the despicable US news media to be our leader. Change will have to come from the bottom up by uniting to shut the system down through civil disobedience if this guy doesn't do what he was elected to do, which is end the war, restore civil liberties and reverse the destruction done to this country by three decades of conservatism.

[LizM]

I guess it's just too much to hope for that we will ever have an honest discussion about what the October 2002 resolution authorizing the use of US military force in Iraq was all about. It is clear from the analysis put forward in this blog post and countless others, and from the wholly inadequate media coverage of the issue, and from the public statements made by both Senators Clinton and Obama among others, that we have not moved any closer to that honest discussion on this issue during the course of this presidential campaign.

...continued...

[LizM]

...continued...

The purpose of this resolution was decidedly not to give the unconditional green light for an invasion of Iraq. Actually, nothing could be further from the truth. The purpose of this resolution had nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not Iraq was a threat, imminent or otherwise, to the US or to its neighbors or with alleged al’Qaeda links. It had nothing to do with the doctrine of pre-emption. And, a vote for this resolution was most definitely NOT a “vote for war”.

This resolution had to do with compelling Saddam to comply with certain UN resolutions dealing with weapons of mass destruction that he had been violating since the end of the Gulf War in 1991. The purpose of this resolution was to send a strong message to the UN to keep sanctions on Iraq and UN weapons inspectors in Iraq and to force Saddam to comply with those UN resolutions that required him to give up his biological and chemical weapons and programs. Saddam would have a simple choice to make - give up his weapons or give up his power.

...continued...

[LizM]

...continued...

At the time, Secretary Powell was working closely with his UN colleagues to do just that. This Iraq resolution was an attempt to give the president and his secretary of state the clout they needed to compel the UN to keep the sanctions on and the weapons inspectors in until Saddam complied with the terms of his surrender of 1991. A strong show of support for the Iraq resolution was the best path toward avoiding war as the last resort to force Saddam’s compliance.

For a better understanding of the AUMF, here is a great link to the transcripts for the debate surrounding this resolution on the Senate and House floors. As far as the Senate is concerned, I would focus on those Senators who knew what they were talking about and pay particular attention to the statements made by Senator Biden, as he was one of the few who intimately understood what that resolution was, and was not, all about and the context within which that vote took place.

http://authforce.liberatedtext.org/
http://authforce.liberatedtext.org/021010/cr10oc02-70_02.html#biden01

[Desiderata]

At last, the celebratory party has, in Mr. Zune, it's designated sober driver. I've been waiting for a quality piece here on Huffpost that would vanquish the stars in our eyes, pour us a cup of coffee and prepare us to face the challenges of the morning after.

We, the inspired supporters of Barack Obama, must now allow him to step down from that political rock star pedestal. Already some of us are disappointed by exit of some of his bright foreign policy advisors to make room for some of the same old policy wonks from the past.

We are not amused by the irony. A small cut to the heart among more that must inevitably follow.

No matter. Obama will disappoint, but he will also strive to be worthy of the trust that has made his Presidency (dare I write that word) inevitable.

Sure, compromise is part of the beast that is politics. But here is one man we can believe, without stars in our eyes, will never trade his soul, let alone his country, on the alter of the New World Order.

As additional insurance, First Lady Michelle will surely keep Barack's feet firmly on the ground. The stars may e-mail him, but Michelle is who Barack depends on to keep him real.

[BillZBubb]

Obama is going to leave those on the left who voted for him and trashed Hillary Clinton with a lot of big disappointments. His craven speech to AIPAC was just the beginning.

But, Obama did run a masterful primary campaign and won for two reasons: 1) as you mention his supposed anti-war, bring 'em home now position won him the youth vote and the progressive vote. This guaranteed good results in the caucus states. 2) He played the race card through surrogates by taking Clinton statements out of context and painting the Clintons and their supporters as racists. This galvanized the African American vote behind him thus guaranteeing wins across the Southern primaries.

The caucuses and Southern delegates were enough to win the nomination. Now Obama is running to the center to try and build enough of a coalition to win the election.

[justobserve]

So, how do you interprete Bill Clinton's "he is like Jackson" after Obama had also won the whitest state Iowa? Is it "he is black like Jackson" or "he can only win black state"? What other context should it be?

[Chartier]

Very insightful and helpful. While Obama was certainly not my first choice, I was really pleased by the tilt of his foreign policy comments during the primary season--he seemed clearly inclined to distance himself from the bullying and neo-colonialism that marked the foreign policies of both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. Abandoning Power and others in favor of Madeleine Albright, who told us during the Clinton years that the deaths of Iraqi children as a result of the embargo were justified, does not bode well for an Obama administration, whatever Obama's own personal instincts. His constituents on the left really do need to hold his feet to the fire.