Matt wonders whether Obama is a new Jimmy Carter or a new Ronald Reagan. I think that's actually the wrong comparison to fear: The question is whether he's a new first term Bill Clinton. Like Clinton, Obama has fairly little Washington experience, and is running as a charismatic, post-ideological uniter helped along by a moment of intense economic anxiety. The danger is what happens when that man and moment collide with the constrained realities of the modern Senate? 60 votes remains a high bar to clear, and the list of priorities -- health care, global warming, Iraq, ethics reform -- are daunting even in the abstract. Obama, to be sure, will have a team that's much more experienced with Washington politics and the Senate than Clinton did. Clinton's first chief of staff was Mack McLarty, an Arkansas buddy and businessman. Obama's current chief of staff is Pete Rouse, former chief of staff to Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle. Same is true down the line. Clinton had very little Washington experience in his team. Obama's circle of advisers and aides are, by and large, old Beltway hands. That, alone, is a huge difference.Additionally, as Kevin Drum argues, both Clinton and Carter emerged in moments when the Democratic "brand" was in sharp decline. The angry white males of America didn't like the patrician George W. Bush, but they weren't liberal as such. There was a great and growing backlash against government, against welfare, against "elite" liberalism that manifested in 1994, and that Clinton sought to managed and evade throughout the remainder of his presidency ("the era of big government is over..."). Similarly, Carter came to power atop disgust with Nixon, but amidst an increasing skepticism of the fractious liberal coalition -- a coalition whose congressional leaders blocked many of Carter's initiatives and that later helped Ted Kennedy mount a primary challenge against him. Obama, by contrast, is operating in a moment of historic Democratic unity and broad exhaustion with conservatism. In 1992, Democrats hadn't held the White House for 12 years, and Clinton ran a campaign explicitly premised on reforming the Democratic Party (hence the DLC, Sister Souljah, "New Democrats," etc,). Obama is running against conservatism and Bush's record. The leading magazines are running articles asking "have the Republicans run out of ideas?" It is, in short, a very different moment. Which is not to suggest it cannot prove a failed presidency. Obama faces immense policy challenges, both foreign and domestic, and the country's legislative machinery is faultier and more rusted than at virtually any time in recent memory. But he has advantages, too, chief among them an ascendant party, a weakened opposition, and a recognition -- unlike Carter and Clinton -- that mastering Washington requires understanding Washington. Image used under a Creative Commons license from Steve Rhodes. OBAMA'S MOMENT.
Matt wonders whether Obama is a new Jimmy Carter or a new Ronald Reagan. I think that's actually the wrong comparison to fear: The question is whether he's a new first term Bill Clinton. Like Clinton, Obama has fairly little Washington experience, and is running as a charismatic, post-ideological uniter helped along by a moment of intense economic anxiety. The danger is what happens when that man and moment collide with the constrained realities of the modern Senate? 60 votes remains a high bar to clear, and the list of priorities -- health care, global warming, Iraq, ethics reform -- are daunting even in the abstract. Obama, to be sure, will have a team that's much more experienced with Washington politics and the Senate than Clinton did. Clinton's first chief of staff was Mack McLarty, an Arkansas buddy and businessman. Obama's current chief of staff is Pete Rouse, former chief of staff to Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle. Same is true down the line. Clinton had very little Washington experience in his team. Obama's circle of advisers and aides are, by and large, old Beltway hands. That, alone, is a huge difference.Additionally, as Kevin Drum argues, both Clinton and Carter emerged in moments when the Democratic "brand" was in sharp decline. The angry white males of America didn't like the patrician George W. Bush, but they weren't liberal as such. There was a great and growing backlash against government, against welfare, against "elite" liberalism that manifested in 1994, and that Clinton sought to managed and evade throughout the remainder of his presidency ("the era of big government is over..."). Similarly, Carter came to power atop disgust with Nixon, but amidst an increasing skepticism of the fractious liberal coalition -- a coalition whose congressional leaders blocked many of Carter's initiatives and that later helped Ted Kennedy mount a primary challenge against him. Obama, by contrast, is operating in a moment of historic Democratic unity and broad exhaustion with conservatism. In 1992, Democrats hadn't held the White House for 12 years, and Clinton ran a campaign explicitly premised on reforming the Democratic Party (hence the DLC, Sister Souljah, "New Democrats," etc,). Obama is running against conservatism and Bush's record. The leading magazines are running articles asking "have the Republicans run out of ideas?" It is, in short, a very different moment. Which is not to suggest it cannot prove a failed presidency. Obama faces immense policy challenges, both foreign and domestic, and the country's legislative machinery is faultier and more rusted than at virtually any time in recent memory. But he has advantages, too, chief among them an ascendant party, a weakened opposition, and a recognition -- unlike Carter and Clinton -- that mastering Washington requires understanding Washington. Image used under a Creative Commons license from Steve Rhodes. 
