despite what Palin and McCain suggest, an Obama victory would not herald the dawning of a glorious social democratic moment

Is that what they're suggesting? I thought it was more along the lines of a soul-crushing socialist dystopia. With a prominent role for terrorists.

Not all emotional expression is demagoguery or pollyannaish. You can be emotional and accurate. In the case of Obama winning Iowa, to ignore the emotional impact would just be weird. Being cold doesn't make it truer.

What's off about this post, IMHO, is that Ezra has set the standards for "transformative" way too high. A symptom of youth, maybe.

We haven't had a president who really represented the mainstream of the Democratic party since Carter. (Clinton triangulated against the party.) And for much longer than that -- probably all the way back to WWII -- the Democratic party has been hog-tied by its indebtedness to white Southerners.

For us to have an ordinary center-left president, who is able to govern with large center-left majorities in both houses of Congress, IS NOT BUSINESS AS USUAL. It's a place we've been trying to reach for decades.

And can I just add one thing?

The pressure of circumstance -- which Ezra addresses only at the end of the post -- is in fact 75% of the ball game.

Great presidents are not born. They're competent people happen to be in office at a time when circumstances call for greatness.

"represented the mainstream of the Democratic party since Carter"

Carter was a conservative, Southern Democrat ahead of his time on energy issues, but otherwise no liberal.

So are you saying Rush is right? OMG, socialism. There go my god given rights to, u know, shoot my guns and everything.

But aren't you skeptical of the power of the presidency to make change anyway?

the dawning of a glorious social democratic moment

Is that what they're suggesting? I thought it was more along the lines of a soul-crushing socialist dystopia.

Tomayto, tomahto.

But first, of course, he's got to win.

Indeed. But don't you get the feeling that there are many bloggers and writers out there already coming up with the first draft of their "Obama Won" article, all of which are going to overrun by that prose you speak of?

Indeed. Aside from the Great Society, which is a legitimate and powerful expression of your canonical center-left social democrat, US Democrats haven't been to the left of Eisenhower since FDR.

Most US-centric observers, I find, don't have a good intuition of what the left/right policy spectrum in the developed world actually spans. US GOP establishmentarians are roughly far right, US Democrat establishmentarians are roughly center right, US left-liberals are roughly center left.

Ezra accurately sees that an Obama presidency hardly turns the US into a social democracy. Still, after eight years of right-of-far-right authoritarian government, even an Eisenhower Republican administration, as Obama's is likely to be, may feel that way.

What is this center-left thing whereof you speak? The Clintons are center-right. Obama is more or less in the same place, maybe a bit to the left on some things, a bit to the right on others. Center-left would be someone in a position to have Bernie Sanders as a running mate.

That's the trouble with the political discourse in this country -- even the leftists have moved to the right.

Hey, I wanna hear some purple prose on Nov 5th!

This has been an incredibly protracted, and dramatic election. It follows two heartbreaking presidential cycles and eight years of absolute shit. Moreover, as I said above, it's been decades since the Left had a serious chance to write policy. Plus, he's black, and his name is Barack Hussein Obama. It's going to be another thirty or forty years before we get a moment of relief like this. So god damn it -- I want to read large swaths of prose, glowing an intense magenta!

Ezra,
Surely someone who blogs about peach salsa can blog about the import of an black man achieving what obama has achieved?

It's a big deal. Obama is a big deal.

I'd say Obama is nestled pretty snugly up against the leftward limit of an electable presidential candidate. Unlike Clinton, he really hasn't made a big show of repudiating left-wing views within the party.

Wow, some of these comments got me laughing out loud. I particularly liked "g's" "But aren't you skeptical of the power of the presidency to make change anyway?" Haha, Ezra, that's where you're supposed to say "touche!"

In any event, I agree that the times make the man, but the man's character foreshadows how he'll perform in those times. I mean, look at George W. Despite his mantra as a candidate to "they had their chance, they have not led, WE WILL!" he will not be remembered for his legislative agenda, but how the times tested him (9/11, Iraq, etc.). He failed these tests because of (major)failings in his character.

I'd like to think that whether a President Obama succeeds on health care or any other facet of his agenda, it will be his response to the inevitable crises that tell us most about him. Sure, I'm not thrilled about his playing it safe with his agenda or with advisors (John Podesta and Larry Summers can both go gag me with a spoon) (did I mention Cass Sunstein?). But, I'm most excited at the prospect of having a "serious" person in the highest office in the land.

It's a pity Americans have set the bar of seriousness so low

p.s. the Larry Summers as "bete noir" also got a hearty chortle. I still can't figure out he's taken seriously after his wanting to research whether women "failed to succeed" in science for biological reasons.

First, what Ted said. He's probably going to be the most liberal president we've had since LBJ, and with a much better temperament and more integrity. At least, I'm hoping.

But the true transformation will be in process. I recently read a longish article at HuffPost about how his volunteers are organized. This is not a small deal. And how he approaches campaign rhetoric, tough on policy choices, tough on rhetoric and tough on his opponents record, but very little name calling.

"condemn the offense, not the perpetrator"

This is what we need, this is necessary for us to engage in dialog with people who have different opinions than we do. And it's a change that is prerequisite to other changes.

I think it's a little difficult to extrapolate from a candidate's legislative record and campaign policy positions to how liberal or conservative that candidate will effectively be once in office.

i mean, people like to say "clinton wasn't so liberal, he triangulated, etc." but let's also remember that clinton was saddled with a strong, conservative congress, and that he in fact tried to do liberal things--let gays in the military, hillarycare--but was thwarted by political failures. i'm sure most if not all Democratic candidates would have liked to have been as liberal as LBJ--and probably would have been if they had LBJ's overwhelmingly Democratic Congress and a public willing to give big government programs a try.

Obama's whole career has been building up to this--his whole career, he has been only as liberal as the political environment has allowed a future presidential candidate to be. but once in office, that constraint no longer applies--and it is increasingly looking like that other constraint--the opposition party--is going to be fairly weak. so my hunch is that an obama administration will be significantly to the left of how he has run.

don't you get the feeling that there are many bloggers and writers out there already coming up with the first draft of their "Obama Won" article

I already know what my "McCain Won" article is going to be. It's not so much an "article" as it is "me hanging myself."

he really hasn't made a big show of repudiating left-wing views within the party

Hang on! There are left-wing views within the Democratic party?

"Unlike Clinton, he really hasn't made a big show of repudiating left-wing views within the party."

Are you insane?
FISA alone...geez.

An Obama presidency will be much like Reagan's, in that it will be seen as treasonous to criticize him.

Mondale was certainly on the liberal side of the Democratic Party. Clinton was more economically liberal than Tsogas.

Obama is W in that he creates his own reality. Before Obama's healthcare mailers, the liberal consensus was for universal health care afterwards no so much

President Obama certainly isn't going to pursue the economic and trade policies that President Edwards would have. I would not be surprised to see him support a more liberal health care plan however.

Obama is Bill Clinton minus the bimbos. Given the current state of the Democratic Party, it was never realistic to hope for more than that. But as Ezra says, the political environment has shifted- Obama is not swimming against a rightward tide as Clinton had to do.

Obama has an enormous opportunity to shift the economic and political landscape. The 'shit pile' meltdown gives him an environment that a Democratic President hasn't had since at least Kennedy. He will only have three years to enact his agenda however since the Dems need to defend 23 Senate seats in 2012. If Obama reverts to the bold progressive from his first state senate term there is a chance for real change. If he remains the cautious post-partisan it will be a lost opportunity.

@Steve: But if there is a leftward tide, will Obama swim with it or against it?

I'm surprised that Ezra would mistake Obama for a liberal. Maybe you've heard one too many Republican talking point about how he's the most extreme liberal in the history of liberal extremism? If Obama were any more middle-of-the-road he'd actually *be* a dead armadillo.

Which is a huge improvement over the other guy or what we have now, and I'm not saying it isn't. But there's a long way left to go.

There's the Atrios line that all this talk about redistribution of wealth and Joe T. Plumber and the canard of Socialist Obama -- combined with reporting on how Saudi Alaska divvies up its resource profits to everyone in the state -- might actually push the debate to the left. When Wall Street and Detroit get billions, people might start thinking that spreading the wealth isn't that bad an idea.

Obama's argued that change begins from the bottom: let's hold him to that, shall we? Especially when it's less cautious than might suit his temperament.

Obama's argued that change begins from the bottom: let's hold him to that, shall we? Especially when it's less cautious than might suit his temperament.

See, wouldn't that be the case regardless of who won the nomination, ultimately? Because that political capital that your "side" gains after winning an election [assuming that Obama will bring in more D's] depletes pretty quickly unless "real people" keep their attention on you and your agenda. And keeping people's attention on politics to drive certain issues would actually require more than even "obamessiah" alone can manage, so political activists would actually have to, you know, engage in some activism on specific issues to keep non-activists "I voted now leave alone" types in the loop.

But if there is a leftward tide, will Obama swim with it or against it?

From my perspective on the leading edge of the baby boom, Obama is truly a transformational candidate and will be a transformational president.
The year I graduated from high school, JFK was assassinated. That summer I watched as leading liberals from my state, led by Walter Mondale and Humphrey, disenfranchised most of the Mississippi Freedom Democrats with a shitty compromise at the Democratic Convention. I watched the promise of a great society and a war on poverty disappear in the mud of Vietnam. My senior year in college Bobby Kennedy and Martin Luther King were assasinated. I was beaten by cops at the '68 Democratic convention and at the '69 moratorium demonstrations. I dropped out of graduate school to ferry friends to Canada and to work as a community organizer -- fed up with electoral politics and looking for a 'revolution'.
Too many acquaintances in the Panther party were killed.
So after that experience, I didn't expect to have any hope again.
Obama gives us some hope. He understands that change comes from the ground up and his campaign has nearly convinced us that we are not as divided or as stupid as we sometimes seem. His administration will of course be constrained and probably cautious, compromises will be necessary, and disappointments will be inevitable, but his campaign and election opens up a vein of hope that we can organize around to force the changes we so desperately need from the ground up.
The real message is not that utopia will arrive but to stand up and keep fighting.

I agree with much of the above (Ted, Doctor Jay et. al), but would like to hit stronger on circumstances as the rationale/environment for Obama as more liberal overall (as President) than all except FDR. LBJ didn't face a major domestic recession, and that will be telling in action.

The national mood is definitely populist/progressive because of the Wall Street failure and GOP trickle down economics.

I'll take one example of major reform I think we'll see:

Obama will get his health care plan largely intact, but with one major addition. The Congress will add a major option to allow citizen opt-in to a single payer (Medicare-like) government-run program (in addition to the Obama plan's support for employer-based plans with added limits on insurance companies to exclude patients/procedures, and Obama's plan to allow the uninsured to buy-into the Federal Government's employee plan with a subsidy.

Thus, the citizen will have three choices:

- Employer-based (plus guarantees)

- Fed. Empl. Health Insurance plus premium subsidies

- Medicare for all.

With choice in the hands of the citizen, the 'socialism' argument against single-payer will be blunted. I don't believe Obama would veto or provide major opposition to this program option driven by the liberal/progressives in Congress. The only issue is cost, and the envelope calculations will likely show that this addition costs no more than the alternatives and perhaps would cost less over time if the single-payer proves popular and becomes the majority choice.

This is just one area to see where Obama could end up being quite progressive. He won't propose lefty choices, but he'll accept those choices if the Congress demands them as the price for getting something done.

Obama will not pursue progressive policies but I doubt he will get in the way of Congress either. You could have end up with progressive change but the administration will not be the driving force. The problem will be when progressive legislation stalls, Obama will most likely not spend capital to break the stalemate.
(Of course the MSM will be railing about defecits for the next four years, there will be lots of Rubinites whispering in his ear and Pelosi and Reid have not exactly been liberal champions)