1. Lessons from 2004 and the 90's
You can't understand Barack Obama's appeal unless you reflect on the recent history of Democratic nominees for president. For two straight presidential cycles, Democrats lost by being unable to present a candidate with a new frame for progressive politics. John Kerry amassed an array of policy proposals by election day, including a fairly bold health care plan, but fundamentally lacked the ability to sell them to the American people. He was unable to present a compelling vision for the progressive role government can play in society --- as I feel Obama did on the floor of the DNC in 2004, striking the perfect pitch:
Don't get me wrong. The people I meet in small towns and big cities, in diners and office parks, they don't expect government to solve all their problems. They know they have to work hard to get ahead and they want to. Go into the collar counties around Chicago, and people will tell you they don't want their tax money wasted by a welfare agency or the Pentagon. Go into any inner city neighborhood, and folks will tell you that government alone can't teach kids to learn. They know that parents have to parent, that children can't achieve unless we raise their expectations and turn off the television sets and eradicate the slander that says a black youth with a book is acting white. No, people don't expect government to solve all their problems. But they sense, deep in their bones, that with just a change in priorities, we can make sure that every child in America has a decent shot at life, and that the doors of opportunity remain open to all. They know we can do better. And they want that choice.
Our next president will not only be the chief spokesman, the head campaigner, and the primary fundraiser for the Democratic party over the next four to eight years, but the primary advocate for progressive policies for the next decade. There will only be one post-Bush election in which we will have the opportunity to reset the debate.
Whatever you say about the Clinton administration and Bill Clinton's obvious talents, in the end it failed to build a progressive majority, failed to make the case for a universal health care system, and, more fundamentally, failed to make a defense for the role of government in society. In this way, Bill Clinton would not, could not, lay the groundwork for a fundamental change in American politics. The Clintons have had their turn in the spotlight. As Bill Clinton said in 1992:
And we have to change in this country. You know, my wife, Hillary, gave me a book about a year ago in which the author defined insanity as just doing the same old thing over and over again and expecting a different result.
2. Barack Obama on the Clintons:
In his recent book "The Audacity of Hope," Obama wrote:
In the back and forth between Clinton and Gingrich, and in the elections of 2000 and 2004, I sometimes felt as if I were watching the psychodrama of the baby boom generation -- a tale rooted in old grudges and revenge plots hatched on a handful of college campuses long ago -- played out on the national stage.
OSKALOOSA, Iowa (AP) - Democrat Barack Obama said Wednesday that while he thinks highly of former President Clinton, voters weary of Washington-style political wrangling want to avoid "the same old thing" as Campaign 2008 unfolds.
"I admire Bill Clinton, I think he did a lot of fine things as president and he's a terrific political strategist," the Illinois senator said in an interview with The Associated Press. "What we're more interested in is in looking forward, not looking backward. I think the American people feel the same
way. They are looking for a way to break out of the harsh partisanship and the old arguments and solve problems."
[...]
Obama [said] he thinks voters are looking to turn the page - and not return to an earlier political era.
"I think I'm in a position to bring about the change that people want," said Obama. "Change can't just be a slogan. Change has to mean that we're not doing the same old thing that we've been doing."
[...]
"What I know is the kind of experience I have outside of Washington as a community organizer working with families that are struggling, as a constitutional law professor, as a state legislator dealing with the very issues that affect people, people find that experience at least as relevant, maybe more relevant, than experience in Washington."
[...]
"Hillary Clinton is a capable person and an experienced person and she's got a good track record as a senator from New York," said Obama, who said his history is one of pushing for change - not building a resume.
"I would not be in this race if I didn't think I had the capacity to bridge divisions along partisan lines, racial lines, religious lines, that was unequaled in the field," he said.
3. Bill Clinton on "Experience"
In the presidential debates in 1992, Clinton was asked about his relative lack of experience:
[Jim] LEHRER: Governor Clinton, how do you respond to the President on the -- you have two minutes -- on the question of experience? He says that is what distinguishes him from the other two of you.CLINTON: I believe experience counts, but it's not everything. Values, judgment, and the record that I have amassed in my state also should count for something. I've worked hard to create good jobs and to educate people...
And we have to change in this country. You know, my wife, Hillary, gave me a book about a year ago in which the author defined insanity as just doing the same old thing over and over again and expecting a different result. We have got to have the courage to change. Experience is important, yes. I've gotten a lot of good experience in dealing with ordinary people over the last year and month. I've touched more people's lives and seen more heartbreak and hope, more pain and more promise, than anybody else who's run for president this year. I think the American people deserve better than they're getting...
We need a new approach. The same old experience is not relevant. We're living in a new world after the Cold War, and what works in this new world is not trickle down, not government for the benefit of the privileged few, not tax and spend, but a commitment to invest in American jobs and American education, controlling American health care costs, and bringing the American people together. That is what works.
And you can have the right kind of experience and the wrong kind of experience. Mine is rooted in the real lives of real people, and it will bring real results if we have the courage to change.
For all the talk about Obama lacking the experience to be a political leader, it should be pointed out that Obama is the only leading candidate who actually worked his way up through the ranks from the most local level to the most national. This is the best education a political leader can have: to have had the contact with the real people their policies actually affect, to know how grassroots movements are built and where they fail.
Hillary Clinton, not Obama, is the candidate who stepped onto the highest level of politics due to celebrity and name recognition. Obama spent his lifetime dedicated to community organizing and knows grassroots politics inside and out. He is the only leading candidate to have really had this experience at all levels.
http://www.debates.org/pages/trans92a1.h tml#c-experience (thanks to Lovingj and sagereader).
|
|
|
Permalink :: 104 Comments :: Post a Comment
|
