When Journalism Turns Personal

Some analysts, says the New Republic's John Judis, are wrongly looking at Obama's win through the prism of the Carter and Clinton presidencies:

"Both Carter and Clinton did misjudge the mood of the country. They tried unsuccessfully to govern a country from the center-left that was moving to the right (in Carter's case) or that was only just beginning to move leftward (in Clinton's case), and were rebuked by the voters.

"But Obama is taking office under dramatically different circumstances. His election is the culmination of a Democratic realignment that began in the '90s, was held in abeyance by September 11, and had resumed in the 2006 election.

"This realignment is predicated on a change in political demography and geography. Groups that had been disproportionately Republican have become disproportionately Democratic; and red states like Virginia have become blue . . .

"The country is definitely no longer 'America the conservative.' And with the Republican Party and big business identified with a potentially disastrous downturn, it could become over the next four years 'America the liberal.' That's what makes this election fundamentally different from 1976 or 1992. That's what makes this election fundamentally different from 1976 or 1992. Unlike Carter and Clinton, Obama will be taking office with the wind at his back rather than in his face."

But Fred Barnes makes a very different argument in the WSJ:

"In the Carter and Clinton eras, there were dozens of moderate and conservative Democrats in Congress, a disproportionate number of them committee chairs. Now the Democratic majorities in both houses are composed almost uniformly of liberals. Those few who aren't, including the tiny but heralded gang of moderates elected to the House in 2006, usually knuckle under on liberal issues. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi bosses them around like hired help."

I don't discount the impact of the moderate Dems elected in '06 and this year, and besides, the Republicans have also moved to the right. Both parties colluded in redistricting that allowed their most ideological members to easily win reelection time and again.

How did a previously obscure state senator with a funny name pull it off? Atlantic's Marc Ambinder has some highlights:

"--The exit polls demographics tell a story of an expansion of the Democratic-leaning electorate by Obama; he did much better with Kerry than Hispanics; he grew the ranks of younger voters; he grew the African American vote; he did a bit better among white voters, but still lost working class whites by nearly 20 points. Obama won among new voters by more than 30 points.

"-- Obama is a once-in-a-generation candidate, a brilliant communicator in an age of communication. Cool and consistent under pressure. He grew over the course of two years into a candidate voters believed was ready to be president. The right candidate at the right moment. The most un-Bush of any of the Democratic candidates.

"-- The financial crisis, and the candidates' response to it. Probably the crucial moment for both campaigns . . . Voters seemed to prefer Obama's steadiness to McCain's suspended campaign . . .