Preface: This is Dana Goldstein's insight, not mine. We were talking about Obama's new stump speech, which I had a far more positive reaction towards than his old stump speech, and she noted that in much the way he restates the arguments of conservatives before disagreeing with them, he's begun restating the arguments of progressives before answering them. So rather than just asserting that unity works, or attacking those who don't buy into it, he notes that many fear his approach to change is naive and over-optimistic, then argues that, for reasons X, Y, and Z, it's not. It's quite effective, as it at least assures the listener that Obama has heard, and theoretically thought through, their objection. A week ago, that might not have been terribly compelling. I want results, not understanding. But mixed with the fact that his basically implausible sounding electoral strategy has shown some success -- and his answer to arguments against consensus rhetoric is that his rhetoric is behind that success, it brings in more voters and thus intensifies popular pressure for his agenda -- it goes a ways in assuaging doubts. It doesn't finish them off, but it's a better counterargument than he's had thus far.
