Thudfactor

In mathematical terms, the Iowa caucus doesn’t make that much difference. But it does make a difference in coverage. It’s also the first time we get to see the candidate rubber meet the road. So it’s not surprising (to me, anyway) to see a lot of liberal bloggers either explicitly or implicitly reconsidering their opinion on Obama. On Wednesday before the caucus characterized the Obama / Hillary matchup this way:

Hillary Clinton’s not running to the right since she was already there (contrary to to those Republicans who’d love you to think that center is the radical left), and Obama — with his “end of social security” rhetoric and “unity” rhetoric and slagging of Kerry and Gore, etc. etc. — to be trying to race Hillary to Fox News. [ The Mayans say it's a one-term president ]

I’m regretting those words a bit now, especially since the Hillary campaign’s new line is that Obama is too liberal.

So after so many people wrote him off as a mushy centrist, why are so many of us suddenly excited about his victory in Iowa? Publius at Obsidian Wings has one answer:

The way he won tends to vindicate his candidacy’s argument … the knock against Obama is that he’s inexperienced and that he might not hold up under Rovish fire. The argument for him, however, is that he possesses the most potential energy – i.e., he has the most potential to forge new political coalitions. In short, he risks a low floor, but promises a high ceiling.

That’s a strategic consideration, and it’s not trivial. I was a big fan of Howard Dean in 2004, but when he failed to turn his online momentum into actual delegates it became clear to me that he simply couldn’t run a campaign. Obama not only won the Iowa primary, he did it handily and using a strategy most liberals — including me — have given up on: bringing in new voters and young voters. I am honestly astonished.

But that’s not the only reason. I think a major contributor was Obama’s victory speech. Progressives have been arguing for some time that progressive values are American values, and we’ve been turned off of Obama because he’s been speaking the language of “unity” and “bipartisanship.” The last seven years have made “unity” and “bipartisanship” sound a lot like “we do what the Republicans say.” Look, for example, at Lieberman. Or Harry Reid pushing Republican telecom immunity bills over the objections of Chris Dodd. Or the fact that the Democrats have managed to do almost nothing about the war in Iraq. As Maha says:

The truth is, our greatest fear is that Barack Obama will turn out to be another Hillary Clinton — all centrist caution and status quo bias. [ Repudiations ]

But listening to Obama’s speech I don’t hear that kind of “spineless” bipartisanship, and his record doesn’t suggest that either:

The problem he [ Obama ] wanted to address was that too many confessions, rather than being voluntary, were coerced — by beating the daylights out of the accused. Obama proposed requiring that interrogations and confessions be videotaped.

This seemed likely to stop the beatings, but the bill itself aroused immediate opposition. There were Republicans who were automatically tough on crime and Democrats who feared being thought soft on crime. There were death penalty abolitionists, some of whom worried that Obama’s bill, by preventing the execution of innocents, would deprive them of their best argument. Vigorous opposition came from the police, too many of whom had become accustomed to using muscle to “solve” crimes. And the incoming governor, Rod Blagojevich, announced that he was against it.

* * *

Obama proved persuasive enough that the bill passed both houses of the legislature, the Senate by an incredible 35 to 0. Then he talked Blagojevich into signing the bill, making Illinois the first state to require such videotaping.

Obama didn’t back down on what he wanted. And he didn’t shove a potentially unpopular bill through the State Legislature on a party line vote. He argued and persuaded and pushed until he got unanimous approval from people who, ultimately, finally, came around to his way of thinking. That is not only leadership, it’s Presidential quality leadership.

So it’s beginning to dawn on us that not only does Obama have the courage of his convictions, he’s been better at making our argument than we have. I suspect Obama has changed many minds. He did it without saying the word “frame,” and he did it without browbeating. He did it with persuasion and patience, and he just might be our next progressive President.