Well, Barack Obama’s delivered his much-awaited speech in Berlin, to a crowd of about 200,000, many of whom were waving, not burning, American flags.
You can see the video and read the transcript, here.
Reactions are slow to trickle in, but outside Republican ranks, look to be very positive. It appears (as Chris Cilizza of the Washington Post seems to suggest at length) that Obama took a complicated and inherently risky situation and navigated it well. It was a huge crowd, but Obama did little to whip it into a frenzy. He alluded frequently to big changes in U.S. policy, but did that lightly, and coupled it with direct challenges to Europeans on issues ranging from Iran to Darfur to Zimbabwe to Afghanistan, and to anti-Americanism itself. The whole speech echoed his basic campaign thematics, but sounded relevant to the site and the occasion. And by tying the whole speech to the Berlin Airlift of sixty years ago, Obama kept the audience focused on the absolute high point in post-World War II U.S.-German relations.
It didn’t hurt, either, that Obama worked in very explicit references to his love for America.
We’ll see as it plays out, but early indications are quite good.
TDS Strategy Memos
Latest Research from:
Editor’s Corner
By Ed Kilgore
-
July 11: If Biden “Steps Aside” and Harris Steps Up, There Should Be No Falloff in Support
At New York I discussed and tried to resolve one source of anxiety about a potential alternative ticket:
One very central dynamic in the recent saga of Democratic anxiety over Joe Biden’s chances against Donald Trump, given the weaknesses he displayed in his first 2024 debate, has been the role of his understudy, Vice-President Kamala Harris. My colleague Gabriel Debenedetti explained the problem nearly two years ago as the “Kamala Harris conundrum”:
“Top party donors have privately worried to close Obama allies that they’re skeptical of Harris’s prospects as a presidential candidate, citing the implosion of her 2020 campaign and her struggles as VP. Jockeying from other potential competitors, like frenemy Gavin Newsom, suggests that few would defer to her if Biden retired. Yet Harris’s strength among the party’s most influential voters nonetheless puts her in clear pole position.”
The perception that Harris is too unpopular to pick up the party banner if Biden dropped it, but too well-positioned to be pushed aside without huge collateral damage, was a major part of the mindset of political observers when evaluating Democratic options after the debate. But now fresher evidence of Harris’s public standing shows she’s just as viable as many of the candidates floated in fantasy scenarios about an “open convention,” “mini-primary,” or smoke-filled room that would sweep away both parts of the Biden-Harris ticket.
For a good while now, Harris’s job-approval numbers have been converging with Biden’s after trailing them initially. These indicate dismal popularity among voters generally, but not in a way that makes her an unacceptable replacement candidate should she be pressed into service in an emergency. As of now, her job-approval ratio in the FiveThirtyEight averages is 37.1 percent approve to 51.2 percent disapprove. Biden’s is 37.4 percent approve to 56.8 percent disapprove. In the favorability ratios tracked by RealClearPolitics, Harris is at 38.3 favorable to 54.6 percent unfavorable, while Biden is at 39.4 percent favorable to 56.9 percent unfavorable. There’s just not a great deal of difference other than slightly lower disapproval/unfavorable numbers for the veep.
On the crucial measurement of viability as a general-election candidate against Trump, there wasn’t much credible polling prior to the post-debate crisis. An Emerson survey in February 2024 showed Harris trailing Trump by 3 percent (43 percent to 46 percent), which was a better showing than Gavin Newsom (down ten points, 36 percent to 46 percent) or Gretchen Whitmer (down 12 points, 33 percent to 45 percent).
After the debate, though, there was a sudden cascade of polling matching Democratic alternatives against Trump, and while Harris’s strength varied, she consistently did as well as or better than the fantasy alternatives. The first cookie on the plate was a one-day June 28 survey from Data for Progress, which showed virtually indistinguishable polling against Trump by Biden, Harris, Cory Booker, Pete Buttigieg, Amy Klobuchar, Gavin Newsom, J.B. Pritzker, Josh Shapiro, and Gretchen Whitmer. All of them trailed Trump by 2 to 3 percent among likely voters.
Then two national polls released on July 2 showed Harris doing better than other feasible Biden alternatives. Reuters/Ipsos (which showed Biden and Trump tied) had Harris within a point of Trump, while Newsom trailed by three points, Andy Beshear by four, Whitmer by five, and Pritzker by six points. Similarly, CNN showed Harris trailing Trump by just two points; Pete Buttigieg trailing by four points; and Gavin Newsom and Gretchen Whitmer trailing him by five points.
Emerson came back with a new poll on July 9 that wasn’t as sunny as some for Democrats generally (every tested name trailed Trump, with Biden down by three points). But again, Harris (down by six points) did better than Newsom (down eight points); Buttigieg and Whitmer (down ten points); and Shapiro (down 12 points).
There’s been some talk that Harris might help Democrats with base constituencies that are sour about Biden. There’s not much publicly available evidence testing that hypothesis, though the crosstabs in the latest CNN poll do show Harris doing modestly better than Biden among people of color, voters under the age of 35, and women.
The bottom line is that one element of the “Kamala Harris conundrum” needs to be reconsidered. There should be no real drop-off in support if Biden (against current expectations) steps aside in favor of his vice-president (the only really feasible “replacement” scenario at this point). She probably has a higher ceiling of support than Biden as well, but in any event, she would have a fresh opportunity to make a strong first or second impression on many Americans who otherwise know little about her.
That was a speech from a man devoted his country’s values and its power, its challenges and its duty to lead. We’ve learned to assume those can’t all go together.
I thought I heard a quietness in the crowd. It was as though the German left had come to hear a denunciation of Bush and got praise of Truman-and-air-power. Meanwhile the German right stayed home because they didn’t expect the anti-communist, anti-terrorist determination.
As the American commentariat gears up, something similar may be happening. Do Democrats speak of destiny? Do Republicans listen when they do? The important words of the speech don’t fit within the imaginary fences of our politics.
We’ve learned that it works another way. Someone who mentions values wants to pull back on military strength. Some one who thinks America must lead wants mainly to address dangers, not push forward for liberty. Someone who recognizes the challenges thinks they mean we can no longer afford to lead.
I’m quietly sure, though, that FDR and JFK would have applauded loud and long beside their radios. Obama’s take may be uncommon, but it’s what they both taught us and it’s historically sound. Let us all nod firmly and get to work on the international agenda laid out before us today in Berlin.