Todd Gitlin and Jack Shafer are largely talking past each other here, but combine their posts and you get a useful synthesis of the way most left-leaning commentators -- myself included -- feel about Obama. The fact of Obama's candidacy is remarkable. A black man, with a Muslim name, at this moment in the country's history? Not to mention a cerebral liberal? It seems impossible. And Shafer is right. It's produced some overwrought prose as writers who know how to be analytical try to convey reactions that are primarily emotional. I penned one of these pieces on the night Obama won the Iowa primary. I hadn't been supporting his candidacy, and I continued (and continue) to be skeptical of his presidency, but the idea of a black man winning a state as white as Iowa, and doing so for the simple reason that he inspired people? It was one of the most astonishing moments I've witnessed in politics. But I wouldn't say it produced my best writing, exactly. Trying to write up to the importance of a moment is a rather more difficult and dangerous task than simply explaining what's going on in a particular moment. But hey, that's an occupational hazard of blogging. If the fact of Obama's candidacy has been remarkable, however, it's hard to escape the signs that his presidency will be rather less transformative. Obama's domestic policy proposals were the weakest of the three major Democrats. His legislative instincts, as he's frequently admitted and as his career suggests, are fairly cautious. His staff is primarily comprised of competent representatives of the center-left. His campaign picked no major fights with Democratic Party orthodoxy. Nothing wrong with that, but despite what Palin and McCain suggest, an Obama victory would not herald the dawning of a glorious social democratic moment. Rather, an Obama win would elevate the mainstream of the Democratic Party, which is rather what you'd expect from the nominee who was embraced by the non-Clinton side of the party establishment. Meanwhile, an Obama administration would be subject to the same forces that foil most presidents: The system's preference for gridlock and obstruction. The wild card here is the objective reality of the moment. A Republican administration just nationalized Wall Street. Larry Summers, a longtime bete noire of the populist wing of the Democratic Party, is calling for universal health care and increased public spending and large-scale energy on climate change. Its entirely possible that Democrats will end this election 60 votes in the Senate, and none will come from Dixiecrats. The mainstream, in other words, might find the center much further to the left, and the party with much more legislative strength, than has happened in memory. If so, it's possible -- though certainly not assured -- that an Obama presidency would be as important as Obama's candidacy. But first, of course, he's got to win.
