The Fierce Urgency of Now

You'd have to possess a big old freezer of a Democratic heart, one of those basement models you pack with a year's worth of frozen meat, not have been warmed slightly by the sight of a black man bringing young voters out into the lily-white cold of Iowa with a message of bipartisanship and political hope. That one evening thawed some of the heartland permafrost that singes our politics, and Senator Barack Obama deserves every Democrat's respect and thanks for his eloquence.

If only every night in these United States was Iowa on January 3rd. If only every night's dusk brought goodwill and harmony and the common desire to bring Americans together, regardless of race or age or religion or party. If only every night, Americans went to bed with a warm glow and full stomachs and paid-up health insurance and an economic future better than their children's. But every night does not bring the warmth of brotherhood. And after watching this country slide toward decline over the last seven years, I cannot feed my future with hope alone, and I will not consign my children's future to a quality that's as elusive as the billions of particles of sand in the desert, and about as practically useful to a thirsty nation.

I'm prepared to believe. I 'm always down with hope. But there are also things I simply want to know. And to close the deal with Democratic voters, Senator Obama has some serious questions to answer.

The Illinois Democrat is fond of using Dr. King's famed "fierce urgency of now" metaphor, and it truly does capture this race for the nomination - but perhaps not in the way his speechwriters intend. For me, the fierce urgency of now isn't the march to the nomination; it's the election next fall, sure to be brutal. And it's the first 90 days, the first six months, the period from January to the July 4th holiday in 2009 when the next President will be at her (or his) strongest political point. That's what the fierce urgency of now is all about in this race for the White House.

And it doesn't boil down to a laundry list of academic policy papers on education, healthcare, the environment, and Iraq. Big-picture policy is fine. But I'd like answers to several questions from the new progressive front-runner.

Will he stop using the talking points of the right to defeat his political enemies on the left? Will the abandon silly talk of nonpartisanship and be prepared to take on directly the vicious slurs and unfair attacks from the right that are sure to follow his nomination - attacks on his background, race, age, religion and anything else the other side believes might stick enough to peel off a battleground state in November? Will he change his healthcare proposal to cover all Americans, and stop defending a middle-of-the-road plan that excites nobody who reads it? Will he stop referring to unions as "special interests" and dismissing the trial lawyers as a lesser breed of professional Americans? Will he prepare for debates seriously and stop relying on his natural brilliance as a speaker? Will he begin a crash course on foreign policy now with experienced, senior advisers so that he will appear better-informed next fall? Will he attack Republicans who supported the Bush Administration these last seven years, and so help Democratic congressional candidates next fall? And speaking of Congress, how will he force the do-nothing "majority" bench of worthless Democratic leadership on the Hill into some form of policy-making - ah, what's the word - audacity?

Many of us need to know this information now, given the fierce urgency of the race. It seems to me that Senator Obama needs consider his movement built, and consider what to do with his immediately. This nomination battle still has a month or more to run with many states to contest and two well-funded, talented Democrats to contest them. Both of those Democrats represent historic firsts for the party and for the country. But I know a lot about Hillary Clinton's strengths and weaknesses, her policy priorities and her performance under intense stress, her ideas and her characters. She remains my candidate and I'm confident she'll be a brilliant President.

But there is a new front-runner, if only by a hair. And if I'm to eventually believe in the audacity of hope, Senator Obama, you have to convince me on the merits of the fierce urgency of now.

Comments

[Jason Chervokas]

Looks to me like the the Clinton camp is making all the wrong moves in NH, outsmarting themselves by trying to go after Obama's constituency--younger voters, first timers--w/ a message of "change" that sounds cynical and calculated.

She should stick to selling who she really is--tough as nails, experienced, abilty to win the respect of and to work w/ political opponents--otherwise she's digging herself deeper into a hole. She's so well known, people have fixed opinions about her. She's got a Goresque problem--she can't get people to like her more, she has to get people to like him less.

Now that doesn't address the issue of Obama and policy--tho I don't think he was any less prepared for debates than, say, Clinton was to handle the illegal immigrant drivers license question--but no candidate gives you more than academic policy papers on one hand, and platitudinous talking points on the other. And few voters really make decisions based on the fine points of policy.

It also doesn't address your call for him to be more partisan on the stump, but that would be politcal suicide, the victor in the general election in November is going to be the one that swings independent voters in the rust belt, the farm belt, AND the big cities--precisely the x-over voters who accounted for much of Obama's margin in Iowa. Abandoning his appeal to that group in favor of partisanship and sucking up to special interest blocs who are supporting his Dem opponents (Edwards and trial lawyers, Clinton and unions)would be dumb.

[Tom W.]

Yeah, she doesn't have much time in NH. The only big thing is the debate tonight, he has to tank and she has to do well. You're right about the fixed opinions in general, but she does change minds when people get to know her. It's not her campaign that's the problem really - it's Obama's. He's a superstar right now and outshining everything else by far.

As a liberal Dem, I'll find myself once again in the "we already have him" category as Obama moves center-right - ironically following the Bill Clinton playbook from '92. You're right about that.

I would say that it's not over, eve if she loses NH and SC. But he'd be a big frontrunner and she'd need a mistake and a NY/CA firewall to beat him or get to the convention.

[Jason Chervokas]

She needs to hang on to her lead in NH or her candidacy will be listing severely.

You're right, she's always able to win people over when she gets them one-on-one or at least in small groups, but if there are any retail races left in American presidential politics they are the Iowa caucuses and the NH primary...if she's not effective softening fixed opinions in those races, that's a sign of real weakness. It ain't gonna get easier in FL, CA, or OH.

I haven't been an undecided voter this late into a presidential campaign in years. I continue to look for reasons to vote Obama by the time the NY primary rolls around. I have lots of reasons to vote HRC, but not enough for me to have committed one way or the other (or cut any checks)yet.

One other point of political tactics: Obama's margin in Iowa was largely a result of independent voters. NH will give him the same opportunity to pull in non-Dems to the Dem primary. It may be a difference maker for him that's not reflected in the polls (tho the Zogby tracker was pretty close in Iowa and it's showing Clinton +4 in NH at the moment).

[ABS]

already ready to throw in the towel, watson!

[Tom W.]

Of course not! Just asking the frontrunner some tough questions - long way to go.

[bruce b.]

TW says:

Will he prepare for debates seriously and stop relying on his natural brilliance as a speaker? Will he begin a crash course on foreign policy now with experienced, senior advisers so that he will appear better-informed next fall?

How do you know how well Obama prepares for the debates? I have watched a fair number of them, and he has never appeared unprepared.

How has he appeared ill-informed on foreign policy? Because he's willing to meet face to face with Hugo Chavez, Ahmedinejad, etc? Good for him.

There is a long article in The Nation this week comparing Obama's and Clinton's foreign policy teams. They both have people out of the Clinton administration, but Hillary tends to have the hard-liners: Albright, Sandy Berger, Holbrooke. Obama's people tend to be the Clintonistas who opposed the Iraq war, including Tony Lake, former head of the NSC, and some other younger advisors. His greybeards include Brezinski, who you might recall opposed the war as well.

You have no basis to chide Obama for not getting "experienced" senior foreign policy advice. Hillary has had to come around to Obama's point of view on foreign policy, not the other way around.

Are you implying that Obama's foreign policy positions are naiive? That sounds like a neo-con talking point to me.

[Tom W.]

Bruce, yes I find them naive - nice job calling that "neo-con."

He's been ill-prepared for the debates (we've clearly watched a different set - Biden, Clinton, Dodd and Edwards have out-performed him 100% of the time), hasn't thought seriously (yet) about foreign policy, and indeed, has not performed well in the debates. He's been incredibly lucky that Edwards has turned his claws entirely on Clinton, and that in the earlier rounds Biden, Dodd et al treated him so easily.

His homina-homina-homina routine after Bhutto's murder won't play well as time goes on. We already have one of those presidents.

[Slappy]

Tom W: I think the Dems are EXTREMELY fortunate to have the three candidates they have now. Each one has their strengths and weaknesses but they are all very good candidates and 99% of Dems will be more than happy to back whoever wins. This is a great crop of candidates to choose from. There will never be a President as liberal or on the left as myself. But as far as mainstream politicians go, these three are OK by me. Are Obama and Edwards so bad? I mean really, the pettiness of the bickering between the candidates is pretty sad. They might as well be calling each other ugly and insulting each other's moms with one liners. The GOP on the other hand have real issues they are fighting over (war, immigration, religion, taxes) and they look scattered.

And to compare Obama's foreign policy to Bush's is ridiculous. Obama has actually lived outside the country and Bush never used his passport. I doubt Obama is as naive about the world as Bush was.

P.S. I think Clinton is in deep trouble. I think the want for change is way under rated and has caught everyone off guard and will surprise us everyone how strong it is. And the young want it more than anyone and are willing to take that chance. They dont care that Clinton has all the experience. Few people in government had as much experience as Cheney and Rumsfeld. Just a hunch. I could be wrong.

[Tom K]

"Will he change his healthcare proposal to cover all Americans . . ."

Really, Tom, you're posts would be much more effective if you took a blue pencil to the HRC talking points. Anyone who's been paying attention the last few days must know that the debate this refers to is between the HRC plan (mandating health insurance like car insurance) and the Obama plan (mandating that parents cover their children, but not mandating that adults get coverage for themselves.)

I'm sure there are very fine arguments on both sides, the listening-to of which would cause my head to implode. But whatever the merits, that seems to be the subject of the debate. Saying Americans who decline coverage (which Obama insists he will somehow make affordable) aren't "covered" is (marginally) defensible at a technical level, but not at all defensible as a clear and honest way to identify what is at issue.

[Esoth]

TW, as a Yellow Dog Democrat, I'm seriously unmoved by the whining from the way-left, from the very people who are trying to submarine Obama from his own flanks, whenever he deals with them sharply. You have all this concern about how Obama will present in the fall, but what of those more satisfyingly liberal candidates, who caterwaul in response to criticism? If they whine and kvetch when Obama fights back, will they melt into a puddle of tears when faced with the full barrage from the right in the general election? And how smart would Obama be, if he abstained from responding in a way known to work, out of an excess of concern over hurt feelings, and instead tailored his comments to the liking of those attacking him?

The Bush debacle is not the vindication of liberal politics. If anything, Bush’s miserable performance is confirmation of his qualities that were always in plain sight. So the fact that Bush has been so deplorable, yet so electorally successful, is a constant reminder that the general voting public holds liberals in extreme low regard. I have no necessary aversion to bipartisanship. I remember WJC’s approval ratings at the turn of the century – he had a way of driving liberals crazy, too, which is something forgotten because of the right’s Clinton mania, and because of his wife's superior commitment to being craven before liberal interests.

As a practical matter, what do you suggest as the way to dampen down Obama’s natural debating brilliance? Perhaps he can adopt a patently false, cringe-inducing, basso/ rumbling chuckle, preferably to be used to drown out his opponents’ voices.

[Ralph]

The media blackout of John Edwards continues on this blog. He is the best chance we have for taking back the White House this year. I don't understand why Democrats are willing to take such a risk. He's got the best progressive agenda outside Kucinich, he's from the South.

I don't care about making history with the black or female candidate for president if we end up losing in November. I can assure you that Hillary's negatives are just too high nationally for her to be elected president. She can serve the country much better as a senior senator from New York.

[bruce b.]

I have been monitoring the media today (Monday 1/7), after Hillary's "eyes teared up" in the AM and the encounter/hug with Chris Matthews. It is a feeding frenzy, and a great part of it is obviously, to me, sexist and demeaning to Sen. Clinton. The whole thing has turned into a traveling soap opera.

And if the reports are correct that Edwards jumped on the bandwagon, that is a cheap shot and not to his credit.

[The Viscount]

I had lunch with not one, but two genuine southern gentlemen. (South GA and Alabama.) Both admitted that they are sick of the republican party, neither one likes Hillary and both like Obama.

My point? While I agree with Ralph and like Edwards the best, Obama has a better shot than I ever thought possible, and Hillary is almost universally disliked in the south.

I think we all agree that no matter who wins the Democratic ticket, we're voting for that person, and that person will absolutely be better than any of the jokers that 'publicans might run.