Hillary in the rearview mirror

I was reflecting on where Obama goes next, and my thoughts led me back to an earlier comment I made on my blog, about Obama’s commitment to big changes—paradigm shifts—not incremental changes. At the time, a friend of mine believed Obama was looking for incremental change, and I argued that incrementalism characterized Hillary's approach, not Obama's. As a trench-warfare-ist, she believes you fight for every little piece of ground. Gains are small, but incremental. Over time, (if you have time) you can assemble some meaningful and commendable successes.

On a blog by a guy named Andrew Sprung, I found some support for my view, and a link to some comments made by Obama in a January debate (which I had missed).

Barack Obama may have hit the gamer in the nomination battle in last night's ABC debate. Hillary was working all night to make the case that she was the real "change" agent because she has gotten change done in the past. By contrast, she suggested that Obama's promise of change is mainly talk. When she cited Bill Clinton's balancing the budget as a major accomplishment of 'change', Obama delivered this multi-tiered response:

Look, I think it's easier to be cynical and just say, "You know what, it can't be done because Washington's designed to resist change." But in fact there have been periods of time in our history where a president inspired the American people to do better, and I think we're in one of those moments right now. I think the American people are hungry for something different and can be mobilized around big changes -- not incremental changes, not small changes.

I actually give Bill Clinton enormous credit for having balanced those budgets during those years. It did take political courage for him to do that. But we never built the majority and coalesced the American people around being able to get the other stuff done.

And, you know, so the truth is actually words do inspire. Words do help people get involved. Words do help members of Congress get into power so that they can be part of a coalition to deliver health care reform, to deliver a bold energy policy. Don't discount that power, because when the American people are determined that something is going to happen, then it happens. And if they are disaffected and cynical and fearful and told that it can't be done, then it doesn't. I'm running for president because I want to tell them, yes, we can. And that's why I think they're responding in such large numbers.

As with many of Obama's best formulations, this seemed simultaneously to rise to the moment and be the fruit of long reflection. He exactly captured the strength and the weakness of the Clinton presidency in an assessment that is generous, fair, but dead-on accurate as a critique. Bill Clinton outmaneuvered the Republicans year after year on budget essentials but he never built the coalition (generous of Obama to say "we never built...) to reform health care, or revamp energy policy, or build any other major policy bridge to the 21st century. Hillary would say that's because the vast right-wing conspiracy sabotaged them at every turn. But Bill kept handing them swords to gore him, so he never built the trust that underlies a mandate. So Obama manages to bury Clinton and to praise him. "I give him enormous credit" but....

On top of this, Obama has here the perfect response to the "he's just talk" line of attack. Politics is almost literally all talk. You've got to be good in the cloak room, at the negotiating table, on the debate floor. What gives a politician the ultimate strength to push through change, though, is to convince the mass of voters to support his or her effort for something major like health care reform. "Don't discount that power, because when the American people are determined that something is going to happen, then it happens." That says it all. That's a real political philosophy at its deepest.

Also, note the organic riff on "the fierce urgency of now": But in fact there have been periods of time in our history where a president inspired the American people to do better, and I think we're in one of those moments right now. Obama's slogans are the fruit of long reflection. They don't become fixed like a smile for the camera; they weave themselves into his language and ripen over time. He manages to shake off that broken record effect that encrusts almost every campaign.

This hits the nail on the head. When it comes time to seek reelection, the incrementalist is handicapped because his/her supporters are left disappointed by the modest improvements achieved by the incumbent. They wanted more, even if those desires weren’t fully expressed (or even fully perceived). The opposition is poised to rally their supporters by exaggerating the “destructiveness” and “presumption” of these modest changes, while championing the promise to roll them back. What we need right now are huge shifts—reengireeing federal policy to make the education of our children a national concern, not a local concern; reasserting the moral and political legitimacy of federal regulatory power, so we can, for example, introduce big changes in auto emission standards and fuel efficiency standards; enlarging the scope of that regulatory power so we can, for example, hold corporations responsible for the consequences of their bottom-line driven or shareholder-return driven decisions when those decision have demonstrably negative consequences for the larger public. All of these bold policy directions have historical precedents. Didn’t we desegregate schools in the south by overturning the presumption of local authority over education? Haven’t we made all kinds of products safer, and workplaces and work practices safer through regulation? Isn’t Superfund an example of the federal government trying to hold companies responsible for the harm they do? And Obama is right: if you rally support for big changes, and accomplish those big changes, you reposition the political fight. When the incumbent has the public on his side, because they have been recruited as active agents and catalysts for the change, the shift in policy becomes their change—and a meaningful one at that, not a timid small step toward change—and they’ll fight the opposition to defend it.

Another great piece you have to read can be found on The Huffington Post. Sam Stein provides some great analysis on why the Obama campaign is smarter than the Clinton campaign (as if evidence was required) and why Obama and Howard Dean are better stewards of the party than Terry McAuliffe. The central focus of the analysis is the "50 state strategy." Obama and the DNC plan to run operations in every state this fall, which should do three things: 1) Force the Republicans to spend money where they didn't expect to; 2) put Obama in play in states no one ever thought were competitive; and 3) help down-ticket democrats running for the Senate, House seats, and state and local offices. The Clinton campaign was organized to do one thing: put Hillary in the White House. There was no thought about the rest of the party. Clinton apostles like the horrible Debbie Wasserman Schultz still don't get it, refusing to campaign for Democrats running in opposition to Republicans with whom she has a cozy and mutually advantageous relationship. Someone from the party needs to grab Wasserman Schultz and say: Hillary lost, and the era of self-interested Democrats is over.