Obama

Why is Barack Obama running against the record of George W. Bush?

Have you heard the Democrats' newest nickname for John McCain? It's "Bush 44," from a speech Joe Biden gave on Monday in Michigan. It's succinct; it's memorable; and it will convince exactly zero people to vote for Barack Obama. The biggest arrow in the Democrats' quiver is cut from an old, wooden meme that asks Americans to transfer their visceral hatred of President George W. Bush onto John McCain. If there's a way to link the Arizona senator to the lame duck president, you better believe the Democrats have thought of it. Voting record? Bush and McCain agree ninety percent of the time. Economic issues? Just "more of the same." Those adoring hugs between McCain and the president? They're the kicker of every Obama ad.

But so much for that. After four months of stagnating and ultimately drooping support for Barack Obama among the anti-Bush independents, it's time to concede that the strategy isn't working. More than half the country considers McCain a legitimate "agent of change," according to a September Gallup poll. In key blocs such as independents and Americans making more than $75,000, he's tied with Obama within the margin of error.

How can Americans consider McCain an agent of change when Democrats keep reminding them that he's just like President Bush? To amend a line from Obama's convention speech: It's not because Americans don't get it; it's because average American doesn't care.

John McCain's address to the Republican National Convention stressed the success of the surge. But the emerging Iraq state remains extremely vulnerable.

In an interview with The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg, New York Times correspondent Dexter Filkins noted the extraordinary security turnaround in much of Iraq.

The progress here is remarkable. I came back to Iraq after being away for nearly two years, and honestly, parts of it are difficult for me to recognize. The park out in front of the house where I live -- on the Tigris River -- was a dead, dying, spooky place. It's now filled with people -- families with children, women walking alone, even at night. That was inconceivable in 2006. The Iraqis who are out there walking in the parks were making their own judgments ­that it is safe enough for them to go out for a walk. They're voting with their feet. It's a wonderful thing to see.

But as Filkins goes on to explain, the key driver of the turnaround has been the rise of the Sunni Awakening. And the Awakening movement is as alienated as ever from Maliki's central government. While the American public seems to have moved on from Iraq, renewed violence is a real possibility.

One of the stranger episodes in the presidential campaign so far has been the mutual embrace of Barack Obama and Iraqi premier Nouri al-Maliki. Once derided as a feckless puppet -- of the Iranians, of the Americans, or both, depending on who's talking -- Maliki’s reputation and self-confidence have been enhanced mightily by the increasing competence of the Iraqi military, which has been greatly facilitated by the surge. And Maliki's newfound confidence has in some sense undermined the central goal of the surge strategy, namely nudging Iraq’s leadership class towards achieving an equitable and enduring political settlement. As Maliki’s confidence grows, so, apparently, does his belief that he is not so much a transitional figure as a nationalist hero, the man who won Iraq for its Shiite majority and ended the occupation.

The trouble with Maliki’s vision is that it leaves no room for the Sunni Awakening. One increasingly gets the sense that Maliki sees the Sons of Iraq, one of many names for the various Sunni militias that have turned against the insurgency, as a threat. Which is entirely understandable -- a proper state possesses a monopoly on legitimate force, and it makes perfect sense that he would eventually disband irregular militias. But the Sons of Iraq have no confidence that there will be adequate representation of Sunni interests in the new Iraqi state, and Maliki hasn’t exactly helped in this regard.

The Iraqi government now wants to purchase a modern air force -- 36 F-16 fighter jets, to wean itself off American military assistance. If Maliki’s Iraqi state were an American ally, the purchase would be unproblematic. But what kind of state is emerging in Iraq? Will it be the kind that permits free and fair elections, and in which religious minorities and other minorities of conscience can be confident that their rights will be protected and their interests respected? Maybe not. As the United States plans to reduce its military footprint in Iraq, spurred on by Maliki, it is worth keeping in mind that representation for Iraq’s minorities is the only guarantee of lasting peace. And for now, only U.S. military forces can ensure that an election will be free and fair.

Starting this October, the Iraqi government will begin paying the salaries of the Sons of Iraq. Roughly a fifth will be integrated into the ISF, and others will (so it is claimed) be given civilian employment. Perhaps all is well. But what will happen if the integration of the Sunni fighters is derailed? Imagine the politics of such a disastrous turn. The surge strategy will be (unfairly) discredited, despite the fact that the logic of the surge strategy now counsels a continued American military presence, precisely to prevent the reemergence of sectarian conflict.

Over the next few months, there is a real danger that parts of Iraq we consider peaceful will again flare up. Don’t be surprised if it elements within the Sons of Iraq choose to go rogue, enraged by the refusal of Maliki to integrate them into the Iraqi Security Forces, or by fraudulent elections.

Advocates of a continued American presence have much to answer for as well. Why is it that Maliki hasn’t made the necessary concessions? What can the U.S. do to encourage reconciliation that hasn’t been done? Has the economic strategy of the Iraqi government been adequate to the task of rebuilding the country? It was fair and reasonable to neglect these considerations during the struggle to bring Iraq back from the brink. But that neglect has proved very costly indeed.

On his radio show, Focus on the Family founder James Dobson accused Barack Obama of "deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible" and promoting a "lowest common denominator of morality."

On the face of it, Dobson's comments seem like a bizarre overreaction to a two-year-old Obama speech, in which he argued for a progressive politics more accommodating to religious believers while taking some (relatively gentle) jabs at religious conservatives. It's easier to understand Dobson's outburst, though, in the context of events like Obama's recent off-the-record meeting with evangelical leaders, after which one attendee wrote that Obama "came across as thoughtful and much more of a 'centrist' than what I would have expected," and added that while he would be voting for McCain, he wouldn't be surprised if the 2008 race were "the first time a majority of evangelicals will vote for a Democrat for president since Jimmy Carter."

Primaries in Oregon and Kentucky drew attention to the salience of the white working class vote.

There was every reason to believe that the primaries in Oregon and Kentucky would end with Senator Barack Obama winning a majority of pledged delegates to the Democratic National Convention, reinforcing the widespread sense that Senator Clinton is at this point running a vanity campaign, a highly expensive effort to enhance her self-esteem. Thoughts naturally turn to the general election, in which Oregon and Kentucky (and states very much like them) will prove crucially important to building an electoral-college majority. Both have an unusually high proportion of white working class voters, as Ruy Teixeira and Alan Abramowitz note in a brilliant report on the changing class composition of the American electorate, and this represents a challenge to Obama, who has (as Clinton reminds us incessantly) had a hard time connecting with these voters.

Rumor has it that Hillary Clinton is struggling to save face by securing the vice presidential nomination.

In an effort to halt intra-Democratic partisan bloodletting, some, including The Atlantic's own Andrew Sullivan, have suggested that Barack Obama run for president with Hillary Clinton as his running mate. And it seems that some in the Obama camp are taking the idea seriously, so seriously that senior Obama advisors are reportedly weighing whether or not to take on Clinton's campaign debt -- including, amusingly enough, Clinton's campaign debt to herself. Note that Clinton has consistently argued that Obama is not ready for the rigors of the presidency, and not ready to take on America's rivals on the world stage. He is too green, he is too trusting. If Obama does indeed acquiesce to the Clintonites' desperate pleas for some kind of face-saving gesture, he will prove Clinton right.

Barack Obama addressed a rally at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, one week before that state's Democratic primary.

It was a college crowd: young women with Kool Aid-dyed hair, mop-topped men in novelty bow-ties, kids wearing t-shirts that advertised ironic slogans ("Super Jew!") and summer holidays to Angkor Wat -- all grooving to "Big Yellow Taxi." But it was also more. A scan of the seats revealed lots of normal people as well, including a robust and enthusiastic contingent of African-Americans, thrilled to be in an Obama coalition, and by all evidence grooving to the Joni Mitchell just as to the Motown.

The coalition looked broad and deep. It did not, however, look like America, or even North Carolina. MORE

Hillary Clinton wins the Pennsylvania primary with 55% of the vote.

Does Hillary Clinton represent the future of the Democratic party? At first glance, the idea seems laughable. As Ruy Teixeira has observed, the white working class - the core of Clinton's support in Pennsylvania and in the Democratic electorate writ large - is shrinking as a share of the U.S. population, while the mass upper middle class, a crucially important of Obama's base (and one that enjoys outsized cultural and political influence), is expanding at a rapid clip. And though Clinton has won a large share of the growing Latino vote, it's possible - as a number of Obama partisans have suggested - that this could be a function of some combination of '90s nostalgia and a reluctance on the part of new immigrants and second-generation Americans to embrace a politics of hope and change, both effects that will presumably erode over time.

Barack Obama's remarks concerning the supposed bitterness of working-class Pennsylvanians have caused considerable controversy.

Was Barack Obama wrong to suggest that a sense of bitterness and disappointment has driven working-class voters to "cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them"? Note that Obama was making a number of discrete, subtle points. First, he was offering an implicit critique of the Clinton Administration, which made promises that were left unfulfilled. Second, he was trying to offer a rationale for holding views that his audience of affluent liberals might find distasteful. And third, he was making the eminently defensible and almost banal observation that people who are disappointed by high politics will often turn to primary loyalties -- the traditional, familiar truths of faith and family that endure when all else changes.

Video emerged of Barack Obama's pastor's saying that the U.S. invited the September 11 attacks with its support for state terrorism abroad.

Ever since the rise of the religious right, conservative politicians have attempted a delicate two-step with conservative Christianity's more extreme elements, simultaneously welcoming their support and keeping their more outlandish positions at arm's length. Now it's Barack Obama's turn to try the same trick -- except that the extremist in question is the pastor of his church, a spiritual mentor, and the man who married him and baptized his children. MORE

Barack Obama wins handily in Mississippi.

The most important number for Hillary Clinton coming out of last night's defeat in Mississippi isn't twenty-three (Barack Obama's margin of victory, in percentage points) or five (the number of delegates he'll add to his almost certainly insurmountable pledged-delegate lead), but 98,589 -- his margin in the popular vote, which will be tacked on to his pre-existing edge of roughly 646,000. For Clinton to have any chance at persuading the Democratic superdelegates to put her over the top at the convention, this is the lead she needs to reduce or wipe away. MORE

Hillary Clinton defeated Barack Obama in the Texas and Ohio primaries — reopening the race, and inviting new speculation over the 2008 Democratic ticket.

Consider the unheralded virtues of an Obama-Clinton ticket. First, politics. Both durable, distinct factions of the Democratic party — united, and working at full throttle. McCain's national-security edge — blunted overnight. Obama's domestic-policy edge — sharpened instantly. Ohio, Michigan, Florida, New Mexico — suddenly, much less a worry for Democrats. MORE

Tonight's primaries in Ohio, Texas, Rhode Island, and Vermont will settle nothing. It's already decided.

Barack Obama's still-likely nomination owes a debt to John Rawls: the inequalities built into the Democratic delegate selection system benefit the little states and history's most aggrieved figure -- the liberal activist. Let's say Hillary Clinton romps to victory in Ohio and Texas and Rhode Island. Tens of thousands of extra voters. At most, a few extra delegates. But a win is a win, right? Twenty-four ... okay, forty-eight hours later, when the afterglow has faded and the Hill raisers are on vacation, Clinton delegate guru Harold Ickes will sit down at his desk, scratch his chest through the open folds of his shirt, and have the same problem he has right now: Barack Obama's earned delegate lead is virtually insurmountable.

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama square off in what is very likely to be their last debate.

For those of us who've watched about seventeen million Democratic primary debates since the campaign kicked off, last night's debate was profoundly unedifying. Wrangling over the question of an individual mandate to purchase health insurance does not, for example, become more interesting on repeat viewing. Worse, a large number of left-of-center experts believe that this disagreement isn't actually important, and has only come to appear significant because it's been talked about so much. To admirers of Bill Clinton's record on trade policy, it was somewhat painful to watch Barack Obama assail it followed by Hillary trying to insist that she'd never said anything positive about NAFTA rather than defending her husband's eminently defensible record (and her own history of public statements) on the merits.

Perhaps the debate's most noteworthy moment was when Tim Russert managed to remind us all once again why he's one of the most pernicious forces working in journalism today, seeking to link Obama to Louis Farrakhan's record of anti-Semitic statetements. Obama, of course, reiterated the fact that he harbored no such sentiments and had condemned Farrakhan on many occasions. Clinton responded with a bizarre salvo that sums up much of what's gone wrong with her campaign -- haranguing Obama for "denouncing" Farrakhan rather than "rejecting" his support.

As a result, the Democrats appear set to nominate a candidate with both a record and a platform that are a good deal more liberal than what the party's offered in recent years without him ever having faced sustained criticism from the right. For a liberal, freedom from the timidity that's reigned in the Democratic Party ever since 1994 is an exciting prospect, but a moment's thought of how untested the new, more self-confident liberalism actually is is also a bit frightening.

Hillary Clinton campaign struggles to recapture her once-formidable lead over Barack Obama.

Barack Obama may well be ready to destroy the deepest, most fundamental law of the political universe: that somewhere, somehow, the Clintons will find a way to win.

How can Hillary Clinton possibly pull this off? The mathematics are there. If two-thirds of the remaining superdelegates -- what her campaign cleverly and class-consciously insists on calling the “automatic” delegates -- break her way, then she will win.  The history is there, and this race has been full of black-swan moments.

The remaining 16 states and 816-odd pledged delegates will probably cut in her favor. Forget these static factors: for the first time, the elite political class is finally beginning to question -- or at least, to be aware of -- some of the irritating messianism of Barack Obama. 

Barack Obama wins convincingly in Maryland, D.C., and Virginia.

Is the Democratic race over? Has the momentum so decisively shifted to Barack Obama that Hillary Clinton no longer has a realistic chance? The most striking thing about last night's round of Potomac primaries is that results overturned the emerging consensus over "wine track" versus "beer track," women and men, blacks and Latinos. After Super Tuesday, Kenneth Bear noted that Clinton had become the candidate of the silent Democratic majority of working-class whites, Latinos, seniors, and women. But now that's changed as Obama racked up significant gains in these and other groups. To demonstrate that he's more than the candidate of feel-good politics, Obama is now training his guns on "Bush-McCain Republicans." And now the bruising counterattacks, the skullduggery, and the alarmism will begin anew.

How John Edwards remade the Democrats

So who will John Edwards endorse? That's the question on the minds of Democrats everywhere now that the former senator and vice presidential candidate has bowed out of the race. MORE