Obama: "our time for change has come"

Obama is the clear Democratic winner in Iowa, with between 37 and 38 percent of the vote. Clinton and Edwards are in a dogfight for second, with just under 30 percent apiece. No one else got any significant support. Dodd, who earned a whopping 0% and one delegate to the state convention, and Joementum Biden (1%) are dropping out, according to CNN. You gotta think that Richardson (2%) will probably follow suit.

Obama is speaking now: "Thank you, Iowa. You know, they said this day would never come. They said our sights were set too high. They said this country was too divided, too disillusioned to ever come together around a common purpose. But on this January night, on this defining moment in history, you have done what the cynics said we couldn't do.

"You have done what the state of New Hampshire can do in five days. You have done what America can do in this new year, 2008. In lines that stretched around school and churches, in small towns and in big cities, you came together as Democrats, Republicans and independents, to stand up and say that we are one nation, we are one people, and our time for change has come!

"You said the time has come to move beyond the bitterness and pettiness and anger that's consumed Washington, to end the political strategy that's been all about division and instead make it about addition, to build a political coalition that stretched through red states and blue states, because that's how we'll win in November, and that's how we'll finally beat the challenges that we face as a nation.

"We are choosing hope over fear. We are choosing unity over division and sending a powerful message that change is coming to America."

I gotta admit, I'm getting goose bumps listening to him. He's good. I feel like I'm watching something historic here.

The only bad news for Obama is that Edwards is still very much in the race, so this doesn't immediately boil down to Barack vs. Hillary, as he would prefer. But I think Obama's momentum is going to become an unstoppable freight train pretty quickly. If John Kerry -- John Kerry -- could seize the momentum of an Iowa win and translate it into an out-of-nowhere nationwide victory, Obama should have no problem doing the same. I bet he wraps up the nomination on Super Duper Tuesday, February 5.

UPDATE: Obama just finished talking. I haven't watched him on the stump much, but: wow. Like I said, he came across really, really well. Inspiring, even. He's got a little bit of the old-style black preacher in his voice, but without the divisiveness of Jackson, Sharpton, et al. in his message.

By the way, only 3 percent of the voters in Iowa were black. CNN analyst Roland Martin says "Iowa has never elected an African-American to anything." So this is huge for Obama.

P.S. David Gergen says Obama's victory speech was one of his best ever. "There were echoes of Martin Luther King of that speech." I thought the same thing.

UPDATE 2: I just e-mailed my parents the following:

Did you watch Obama's speech? I just caught it, having just woke up from a nap about 15 minutes before he spoke. I thought it was amazing. I'm a pretty cynical man, senator -- well, no, "cynical" isn't the right word, but I'm a political junkie, not easily swept off my feet by rhetoric -- but Obama was giving me goose bumps. I really felt like I was watching something historic, which is exactly the feeling he was trying to instill. Everything about the speech was perfect. Really a transcendent political moment.

Barring a major stumble in the next month, I think Obama's momentum very quickly becomes unstoppable -- if Kerry, with his limited political skills, could catapult to victory from early momentum, Obama certainly can -- and both Hillary and Edwards drop out of the race after an Obama near-sweep on Super Duper Tuesday. And unless McCain wins the GOP nomination, Obama becomes the first black president with relative ease. McCain is the only one who can make it a race (and possibly only if homeland security/foreign policy issues rear their ugly head due to "facts on the ground" between now and November).

P.S. If Huckabee wins the nomination (heaven help us), Obama wins in a Reagan-like landslide.

Comments

[Joe Mama]

You all know him as Joe the Policeman on the What's Goin' Down episode of Thats My Momma . . .

[JT]

The lets get together and hold hands speech sounds nice but there are very real differences in the view of government's role in this country. A bunch of unity talk won't hold up when we get to real areas of disagreement. Sometimes you have to be willing to call someone out for their bullshit. Obama has even let his "unity" bullshit allow him to get sucked into the farce of referring to the alleged social security crisis which isn't actually a crisis unless you use George Bush's math. Obama's healthcare plan is also inferior to Hillary and Edward's plan.

[treybien]

Give it up for Jackson Heights own, Mr. Randy Watson!!!!

[Joe Mama]

alleged social security crisis which isn't actually a crisis unless you use George Bush's math

Heh. We could use more of that equanimity and patience in the debate over global warming.

[Marty West]

I saw Obama in Iowa last week and it was amazing. The man has a gift in public speaking.

[Alasdair]

Brendan - answer me this, if you would ...

Can Senator Obama stand up to the current leaders of the House and Senate ?

If not, we could way too easily end up with another set of Carter years ... ask your revered and esteemed paternal parent what he thought of how the country did during the Carter years ...

[Brian Foster]

Maybe it's just my core partisan allegiance, but my physical reaction to Obama's speech wasn't goose bumps. It was curdling blood. No, that's too strong. Dry heaves.

I don't deny that he's an excellent speaker, with a cadence and a rhythm that is pleasant to listen to. That's a huge improvement over Gore and Kerry, and I'd say there's little question that Obama out-stumps Clinton the Masculine as well.

But that's the most I can say positive about the speech. As JT says, the unity crap sounds nice as a victory speech, but it will take a hell of a lot more substance to demonstrate that he's actually capable of being President. Or to be more precise, it ought to take a hell of a lot more. I fear that it won't, because people will be so amazed by their goose bumps and how warm and fuzzy and hopeful and inspired they feel after listening to that crap, that they utterly fail to realize that he isn't saying anything at all.

Politics of division? Red state / blue state? Audacity of hope? Who out there is openly campaigning on a theme of division? (Other than Edwards, I mean.) Who has a strategy of ignoring states because they are the wrong color? Who's out there either running a campaign *against* hope, or saying that a campaign of hope "can't be done"? As far as I can tell, no one.

Obama's speech is, at best, setting himself up as overcoming a phantom straw man. At worst, it's a brazenly manipulative psychological tool to woo the soft of heart and simple of mind through the most transparent of tactics.

And that's perhaps the most cynical thing of all in this young campaign season.

[texasyank]

What I'm looking forward to--completely looking forward to, just for fun's sake--is how the Clintons play this the next few weeks.

If the ant-Obama rhetoric/ads don't start coming every hour, on the hour, I'll be stunned.

A cynic might contrast the tone of Obama's speech with the rogue's gallery set up behind Hillary: Wes Clark, Madeline Albright, Bob "Hussein" Kerrey, and the Red-Faced Scoundrel himself, the bunch of them resemblng the police line-up in "The Usual Suspects."

A CYNIC might make the above contrast, but not me. (See? Look for a dozen verbal Clinton loop-de-loops like the above between now and, oh, the end of February, by which time they will be either unecessary or useless.)

My wife is a solid McCain supporter (I'm registered GOP), but midway through Obama's speech she asked, "You know who he reminds me of?"

I asked, "Jesse Jackson?"

"No."

Me (lightbulb on): "Martin Luther King."

"Bingo."

[texasyank]

As for Brian's points: anyone looking for more than campaign boilerplate in these moments will be disappointed.

It's a matter of degree, and a matter of tone.

Tonight we were treated to Edwards' March of the Dead, Hillary's Trip down De-Nile and Huckabee's I'd Like to Thank the Academy.

One could easily prefer Obama, given the competition. The nuts & bolts will come later.

[Condor]

I support anyone who will take the power out of the hands of the baby boomers.

[Brian Foster]

texasyank,

But that's just it. It was nothing more than "campaign boilerplate," yet it's being heralded as the Most Important Political Speech of the Year (notwithstanding we still have 363 days to go), earning comparisons to MLK, etc. And for what? Because he delivered the boilerplate in a particularly pleasant and easy-to-listen-to way? To compare that to Dr. King is to make a mockery of all that he stood and fought for.

If he's filling people with hope and goose bumps and inspiration, not based on what he says, but simply the manner in which he says it, that's remarkable. And very, very frightening -- not just from the perspective of one who wants a Republican to win, but also from the perspective of one who wants a minimally competent, known quantity to win.

And then when we get to the choice of boilerplate, as I said, Obama's is perhaps the most cynical of any candidate we heard from tonight. Clinton and Romney demonstrated their increasing irrelevance, she by continuing to claim a mantle of tested leadership and experience she does not possess, he by trying out some goofy allustion to his IOC days by claiming he won the silver and he's going for the gold. If that's the best these two can do in light of these under-performances, there's not much hope left.

Edwards, we agree, is going down on a sinking ship of class warfare.

Interestingly, Huckabee's message was very similar to Obama's, but without the implications inherent in Obama's speech that there are cynics and partisans and evildoers actively opposing him even as somehow, inexplicably, the entire nation Republican Democrat and Independent all came together in a show of unity to prove them wrong. (Never mind the fact that it was a partisan caucus in a single state, and if there are still evil cynics left over after we "all" came together, then by definition we are not united. But whatever. Campaign boilerplate, right?)

Again, I'm not saying it was a bad speech, nor am I denying that he is the most enjoyable to listen to. I'm just saying that it wasn't the masterpiece it's being proclaimed to be. Or, if it is, then that says a lot more negative about us as an electorate than it says positive about him as a candidate.

[anonamom]

David Brooks disagrees with you in this morning's op-ed in the NYT about John Edwards. He says yesterday's caucus results "are probably the end of Edward's political career."
If 30% of the vote is all that virtually living in Iowa for the past four years and putting that wonderful wife of his onstage every chance she got between chemo appointments got him, I agree.

[anon]

His speech doesn't even make sense. He got 37% of the vote among Democrats in a Democratic primary. That seems pretty "divided" to me. No "uniting" quite yet. If this were 80%, it might be something. And if this were the general election, it might be something. But once he starts getting scrutinized for his positions, the silly things like supporting sex education in kindergarten or doing crack as a teenager, it's going to get a lot messier.

[Sean]

Indeed. Global fuzzies and nothing more.

That said, the idea of a President Obama scares me a lot less than the idea of a President Huckabee. (Shiver.)

[M.A.Leekley]

For a light-hearted alternative to the NH primary:

http://www.mountwashington.org/news/release.php?id=30

[Joe Mama]

And on a more serious note, I thought Michelle Obama's dress showed off a little too much badonkadonk...

[Jess]

Joe Mama - that got me. Major chortle.

[Joe Mama]

Thanks, Jess. Just because Mrs. Obama's derrière took the stage 5 minutes after she did, and hasn't exited yet . . .

I kid, I kid ;-)

[B]

Foster nailed it:

"But that's just it. It was nothing more than "campaign boilerplate," yet it's being heralded as the Most Important Political Speech of the Year (notwithstanding we still have 363 days to go), earning comparisons to MLK, etc. And for what? Because he delivered the boilerplate in a particularly pleasant and easy-to-listen-to way? To compare that to Dr. King is to make a mockery of all that he stood and fought for."

[S]

Bloy,

The idea that if Huckabee wins the nomination Obama will win 48 or so states in a Reagan-like beating of the opposition is pretty outlandish. I fear that Loyette is clouding your political judgement! Obama needs the 18-29 year old block. Good luck relying on that group. Elections are about ideas and personalities. I would say Obama and Huckabee push on personality so the election would come down to ideas. Obama is a liberal even in the mind of the likes of Olberman, whereas Huckabee is clearly a moderate Republican despite his brazen evangelicalism. Look at the comments of Rush, Coulter, and Noonan. They hate Huckabee.

Next time you make a prediction like this, I would say you wait until the goosebumps die down.

[LaRev]

Forget comparing him to Dr. King. Last night, Obama was Abe Lincoln.
That he'll get kids and black voters who've never voted out to the polls is incredibly encouraging to me. Something's about to change, and I wouldn't have been able to say that a few months ago (hell, I would barely be able to say it yesterday afternoon).
Go America.

[Derek]

Certainly no "Reagan-like" landslide. Reagan won in '84 because he was running as an incumbent. It's a lot easier when people have a known quantity who's succeeded at a task for the last four years to pause and say, "Yeah, four more years is fine by me." Same kind of thing for FDR in '36. Alternatively, people may say, "Yeah, these last four years really were that bad," like they did for FDR in '32 and Reagan in '80.

[Derek]

Head-to-heads reflect that there's no imminent "landslide." In Alabama, Huckabee leads Obama 52-37; in Kansas, 50-41; in Kentucky, 51-38.

[Derek]

In the "swing states" of New Mexico, it's 46-45 Huckabee, and in Missouri, 47-45.

Obviously, these polls are absurdly early. But given Obama's charisma and massive (and I do mean massive, as in, 10-20x) cash advantage, it's worth noting that it hasn't really hurt Huckabee in the state polls. There's no question that I think Obama has a better chance to win if (big if, of course) his opponent is Huckabee, but it certainly won't be a "landslide" (barring some shocking revelation yet-unrevealed).

[Derek]

Lincoln? At the time, voting was left to 21-year-olds-and-up, and whites.

But I guess I see a similarity. A young, well-spoken man from Illinois who never won any meaningful office and had no experience, but was launched to the presidency as a mere compromise pick because of the inadequacy of others during a time where the nation was on the verge of massive division, and, when in office, though opposing that division, found himself confronted with war and decided to plunge forward into it, recklessly abandoning portions of the Constitution for the preservating of the whole, before...

...wait, I think I overshot the similarities there.

[yea]

a nice side benefit when obama gets elected is that since this is the first time young people are coming out to vote in big numbers, we'll likely see issues that young people care about get more national attention.

[Brian Foster]

"we'll likely see issues that young people care about get more national attention. "

Just out of curiosity, what issues do you suppose those are?

[Derek]

Brian, we need young people to make us aware of issues previously-ignored, like abortion, the war, global warming, and Social Security.

[Devil's Adv.]

"That he'll get kids and black voters who've never voted out to the polls is incredibly encouraging to me."

Is it really a good thing to have people who have never voted (and presumably never cared or paid attention to politics) doing so now because they like the way a candidate talks/looks? I'm all for participation, but informed participation is more valuable.

(And yes, I am aware that voting is a right, informed or not.)

[yea]

brian,

stuff most dont care about but a lot of young people do.

-corrupt student loan policies
-draconian alcohol laws left-over from prohibition
-the failure that is known as the war on drugs (ie, prison time for people possess marijuana)
-environmental issues are important to younger voters
-internet freedom (ie the internet gambling prohibition, and net-neutrality)
-homosexual rights

theres probably a ton more than this and i obvouisly only speak for myself. of course no one would ever run on anything like this because a lot of these are political suicide, but if the trend in iowa holds and young voters become a real demographic maybe we'll see some real change.

Got it, so young voters don't want to pay back their loans, drink, do drugs, gamble, and drive cars that run on fairy dust. Fantastic.

[yea]

2:31:42,

good job, thats exactly what i said. i assume you have a hard time on the reading comprehension portion of standardized tests.

[yea]

i dont want to hijack this discussion by getting into a flame war with someone. accordingly, this is my last post on this discussion. i shouldnt have insulted that anon poster but i get annoyed when the tone of a discussion goes toward just mocking people rather than making points or discussing things.

just to sum up the point i was trying to make. young people have always been known as people who dont vote. iowa was the first time i can remember them being a significant voting block that made a difference. this is exactly what dean hoped to do in 2003 and it totally failed. if obama rides a surge of young voters to the white house, or even to a long dogfight with hillary for the nomination, i think we could see a policy shift where politicains realizae that young/college age voters actually matter. i think thats a very good thing.

the issues i listed above are real. this country spends way too much money prosecuting people (primarily minorities)for petty drug offenses, even some drugs that are harmless and have medicinal purposes. student loan originators and universities work together to give loans to students who have no real possibility of being able to pay them back. the internet is the biggest revolution in freedom of speech since television, and stuff like selective bandwith caps, internet gambling prohibition and other restrictions threatens that. people can vote and die in iraq but get permanent black marks on their record if they get caught drinking. these arn't "young people" issues per se, but i think they are issues that affect a lot of young people and are ignored by politicains since the people they affect don't vote often. perhaps that has changed.

[Sandy Underpants]

We've seen how the Republicans run the country, that's why they got voted out in '06 and will do the same in '08. We've seen the way the Clintons ran the country, that's why so many people were excited last night when somebody fresh won, and in convincing fashion. If you don't understand that the country has been enduring divisive politics the last 16 years, you must be smoking whatever Britney is smoking.

[Joe Mama]

corrupt student loan policies

I hope you're not referring to my interest rate of 2.75% (which I was inundated by the gov't and private lenders with reminders to consolidate on rather favorable terms).

[Joe Mama]

student loan originators and universities work together to give loans to students who have no real possibility of being able to pay them back.

Cry me a f*cking river. I owe $50K and if I wanted to, I could pay it back at a little over $100 a month. Moreover, lenders provide numerous different payment options to borrowers across the board, so I really don't know what you're talking about. Am I honestly missing something here, or is this just another trumped up grievance?

[LaRev]

All I'm saying is that he's going to bring people to the table. We all know how many people in this country who can vote don't, and I think there's at least a chunk of those people who don't vote because they don't think their vote matters. If Obama can get people to change that way of thinking, that makes him different from just about any other candidate we've seen in a long time. As an American, Democrat or Republican, that hopefully at least excites you.

Re: Student loans

Since when is college funding a right? If you can't afford a loan, don't friggin' take one. Oh wait, I forgot. If America acutally thought that way there would be no mortgage "crisis," no credit card debt, and no credit crunch.

It's called personal accountability, and America just doesn't have it.