Yes We (Still) Can

Yes We (Still) Can Plot Summary

Introduction

When Barack Obama stepped onto the national stage at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, few could have predicted the profound transformation his presidency would bring to American politics. His journey from an unlikely candidate to a two-term president marked one of the most significant periods in modern American political history, characterized by both unprecedented hope and fierce opposition. This era witnessed dramatic shifts in how politics functioned in America - from the revolutionary use of social media in campaigns to the increasing polarization of political discourse. Through examining Obama's rise, his administration's challenges, and the changing media landscape that both empowered and complicated his presidency, we gain crucial insights into how American democracy evolved during this pivotal time. The narrative explores not just the triumphs and struggles of the Obama administration, but also how these years fundamentally altered the rules of political engagement and set the stage for the dramatic political realignment that would follow. Whether you're interested in political strategy, media evolution, or understanding the roots of contemporary American division, the Obama era provides essential context for making sense of our current political reality.

Chapter 1: Origins of Hope: Obama's Rise in American Politics (2007-2008)

In late 2006, Barack Obama was a freshman senator with limited national experience but extraordinary political gifts. Few establishment figures believed he could defeat Hillary Clinton, who had spent years building a formidable political machine in preparation for the 2008 presidential race. Obama's background – son of a Kenyan father and Kansas mother, raised in Hawaii and Indonesia, with experience as a community organizer and constitutional law professor – made him an unusual presidential contender by traditional standards. The 2008 campaign represented something genuinely revolutionary in American politics. Facing the Clinton juggernaut, Obama's team innovated by embracing what campaign manager David Plouffe called a "start-up mentality." They built a decentralized organization that melded grassroots enthusiasm with sophisticated data analytics. Their approach marked a decisive break from the top-down, hierarchical campaigns that had previously defined presidential politics. Most critically, they recognized that the internet was changing the rules, enabling campaigns to bypass traditional gatekeepers and speak directly to voters. Obama's message of "hope and change" resonated powerfully with an electorate disillusioned by the Bush years, the Iraq War, and economic uncertainty. His campaign understood that in a fragmented media environment, consistency of message was paramount. While Clinton's campaign frequently shifted messaging strategies, Obama maintained unwavering discipline around his core themes. This clarity allowed voters to develop a coherent understanding of what his candidacy represented, even as the campaign continually innovated tactically. The Obama campaign pioneered strategies that would forever change how campaigns operate. They recognized early that social media platforms could mobilize supporters more effectively than traditional methods. The campaign raised unprecedented amounts through small-dollar online donations, demonstrating that grassroots enthusiasm could compete with established fundraising networks. Their sophisticated data operation allowed precise targeting of messages and get-out-the-vote efforts. Perhaps most importantly, they never feared taking calculated risks, embracing what Plouffe called being "on the high wire." This approach culminated in a historic victory that few had thought possible just a year earlier. Obama's triumph represented more than just a political achievement – it signaled a generational shift in how campaigns would be run and how Americans would engage with politics. The tactics and strategies pioneered during this campaign would become the template for future political movements across the ideological spectrum, demonstrating that outsiders with compelling messages could successfully challenge the political establishment through mastery of new communication tools and organizational methods.

Chapter 2: New Media Landscape: Reshaping Political Communication

By the time Barack Obama entered the White House in January 2009, the traditional media landscape was undergoing seismic shifts that would fundamentally alter political communication. The economic foundation of journalism was crumbling – newspapers were laying off reporters or closing entirely as advertising revenue migrated online. Meanwhile, cable news networks were becoming increasingly partisan, and social media platforms like Twitter and Facebook were emerging as powerful forces in shaping political narratives. This transformation created new challenges for presidential communication. For decades, presidents had relied on television networks and major newspapers as the primary channels to reach Americans. Obama's communications team quickly realized these traditional pathways were losing effectiveness. The presidential "bully pulpit" – the ability to command national attention through formal addresses – was diminishing in power as media fragmentation meant fewer Americans watched such speeches. When Ronald Reagan gave a televised address in the 1980s, Americans had few viewing alternatives; by Obama's time, viewers could simply change the channel or check social media instead. Within the White House, communications strategies had to evolve rapidly. Dan Pfeiffer, who would become White House Communications Director, described how the team had to continually innovate to reach Americans where they were consuming information. This meant engaging with non-traditional outlets like podcasts, YouTube channels, and entertainment programming. When Obama appeared on "Between Two Ferns" with Zach Galifianakis to promote healthcare enrollment, it represented a strategic recognition that traditional press conferences would not reach younger Americans who needed health insurance coverage. The changing media environment also created what Pfeiffer called the "SportsCenter Effect" – a tendency to cover politics like sports, emphasizing conflict, gaffes, and horse-race dynamics over substance. The 24/7 news cycle created an "insatiable content monster" that required constant feeding. White House staff found themselves working around the clock to respond to an accelerating news environment where minor controversies could quickly dominate the discourse. The first Obama-Romney presidential debate in 2012 demonstrated how Twitter had transformed political coverage – the consensus judgment about Obama's performance was formed on social media within minutes, long before traditional analysis could take shape. This transformed media landscape ultimately provided both opportunities and hazards for the Obama administration. It allowed direct communication with supporters and innovative messaging strategies, but also enabled the rapid spread of misinformation. The administration's experience navigating this shifting terrain foreshadowed even greater challenges to come, as social media platforms would continue gaining influence over American political discourse throughout the decade. The lessons learned during this period about engaging audiences across fragmented media would become essential knowledge for any political campaign or administration moving forward.

Chapter 3: Republican Opposition and the Politics of Obstruction

From the moment Barack Obama took office in January 2009, he faced unprecedented Republican opposition that would define much of his presidency. Despite his inaugural calls for unity and bipartisanship, Republican leaders had already decided on a strategy of total resistance. This approach was exemplified by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's infamous statement that his top political priority was ensuring Obama would be a one-term president – not addressing the economic crisis or other pressing national challenges. The depth of this obstruction became apparent during the very first major legislative battle over the economic stimulus package in February 2009. Despite the economy losing nearly 800,000 jobs in a single month and the financial system teetering on collapse, not a single House Republican voted for the recovery package. This was after Obama had made significant concessions, including devoting nearly half the package to tax cuts rather than the spending measures many economists believed would provide more effective stimulus. The partisan divide would only intensify through battles over healthcare reform, financial regulation, and raising the debt ceiling. Several factors fueled this extraordinary level of opposition. The emergence of the Tea Party movement provided grassroots energy and pushed Republican lawmakers toward even more uncompromising positions. Conservative media, particularly Fox News, created what White House staff called the "Cycle of Bullshit" – where conspiracy theories and misleading narratives could quickly move from fringe websites to cable news to mainstream political discourse. Perhaps most significantly, many Republican voters had developed such intense negative feelings about Obama that Republican politicians feared primary challenges if they were seen cooperating with him. This obstructionism took various forms beyond simply voting against legislation. Republicans repeatedly used the filibuster to block nominations and legislation, deployed government shutdowns as negotiating tactics, and refused even symbolic cooperation like attending bipartisan dinners at the White House. The nadir came during the 2011 debt ceiling crisis, when Republican brinkmanship threatened to force the United States to default on its obligations, potentially triggering a global economic catastrophe. By Obama's second term, the White House had largely abandoned hopes for significant bipartisan cooperation. Instead, they developed what they called the "Pen and Phone" strategy – using executive actions, regulations, and international agreements to advance policy priorities that couldn't move through Congress. While this approach allowed progress on issues like climate change and immigration, it also led to protracted legal battles and created policies vulnerable to reversal by a future administration. The breakdown of normal legislative functioning during these years would have profound implications for American governance moving forward, signaling a shift toward greater executive power and diminished congressional capacity for addressing national challenges.

Chapter 4: Fox News and the Conservative Media Echo Chamber

The rise of Fox News as a dominant force in American media represented one of the most consequential developments in the political landscape during the Obama era. Founded in 1996 with the slogan "Fair and Balanced," Fox had evolved by 2008 into what Obama White House officials characterized as "a Republican propaganda machine masquerading as a news outlet." Rather than providing conservative perspective on events, Fox increasingly shaped a parallel information universe for its viewers that undermined basic shared facts necessary for democratic discourse. From the earliest days of Obama's candidacy, Fox News promoted narratives designed to delegitimize him. The network infamously amplified false claims that Obama had been educated in a madrassa, engaged in what one host called a "terrorist fist jab" with his wife, and later provided a platform for Donald Trump's "birther" conspiracy theories questioning Obama's citizenship. Once Obama took office, Fox personalities like Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity devoted endless hours to portraying his administration as radical, un-American, and dangerous. The relationship between Fox and the Obama White House became increasingly fraught. In 2009, communications director Anita Dunn publicly declared that Fox was "not a news organization" but rather "the communication arm of the Republican Party." This sparked a brief but intense conflict that culminated in the White House attempting to exclude Fox from a round of presidential interviews. However, other media outlets defended Fox's access rights, and the administration ultimately backed down. The incident illustrated both the growing influence of Fox and the challenges of confronting a media entity operating outside traditional journalistic norms. The most damaging aspect of Fox's approach was its role in spreading misinformation that complicated governing. During the healthcare reform debate, Fox amplified Sarah Palin's false claims about "death panels" that would supposedly decide which Americans deserved medical treatment. Despite being thoroughly debunked, this narrative took hold among many Americans – a study found that 29% of voters still believed the death panel myth years after the Affordable Care Act passed. Fox similarly promoted misleading narratives about Benghazi, IRS targeting, and numerous other controversies. What made Fox particularly influential was its relationship with Republican elected officials, who both consumed and appeared regularly on the network. This created a feedback loop where politicians would respond to controversies generated on Fox, giving those narratives additional legitimacy. By the end of Obama's presidency, Fox had helped create what some scholars called "epistemic closure" on the right – a closed information system resistant to contrary evidence or perspectives. This development would have profound implications for American politics moving forward, as it enabled increasingly radical positions to gain mainstream Republican acceptance without facing traditional media scrutiny.

Chapter 5: Twitter's Impact on Political Discourse

When Barack Obama first campaigned for president in 2008, Twitter was barely a factor in American politics. By the end of his presidency in 2017, the platform had fundamentally transformed how political communication functioned. This transformation was both positive and negative – Twitter democratized access to information and political engagement, but also accelerated polarization and rewarded the most extreme and provocative voices in public discourse. The Obama White House initially approached Twitter cautiously. White House computers initially blocked access to social media platforms over security concerns. When Press Secretary Robert Gibbs became the first senior staffer to get an official Twitter account, it was viewed as a major innovation. By Obama's second term, the administration had fully embraced Twitter as a crucial communications tool. The White House launched the @POTUS account in 2015, allowing Obama to communicate directly with the public without media filtration. This represented a significant evolution in presidential communication, providing an unprecedented level of directness and immediacy. However, Twitter's impact extended far beyond official communication channels. The platform transformed how political news was reported and consumed. During the first presidential debate between Obama and Mitt Romney in 2012, Twitter demonstrated its power to shape conventional wisdom in real-time. Within minutes of the debate starting, a consensus formed on Twitter that Obama was performing poorly, which then influenced television commentary and subsequent media coverage. As Obama adviser Dan Pfeiffer observed, "Perception became reality and it all happened in thirty minutes." This represented a dramatic acceleration of the news cycle – judgments that previously took days to crystallize now formed almost instantly. Twitter also altered who could shape political narratives. Previously, a small collection of elite journalists, pundits and politicians dominated political discourse. Twitter dramatically expanded this circle, allowing ordinary citizens, activists, and experts to join conversations that were once closed to them. This democratization had significant benefits, particularly for historically marginalized communities who gained platforms to address systemic issues. However, it also meant that inflammatory content often received the most engagement, incentivizing provocative rather than thoughtful contributions. Perhaps most consequentially, Twitter's structure incentivized political communication styles that privileged conflict, simplicity, and emotional appeals over nuance. As Pfeiffer noted, Twitter made "politics louder, meaner, and faster." Politicians who thrived on the platform were those who could craft memorable, provocative statements within character limits. This dynamic would become increasingly central to American politics, eventually culminating in the Twitter-dominated presidency of Donald Trump, who used the platform to bypass traditional media entirely. The transformation of political communication through Twitter during the Obama years thus represented a pivotal shift that would reshape how Americans engaged with politics for years to come.

Chapter 6: The 2016 Election: Lessons from Unexpected Defeat

The 2016 presidential election represented a stunning reversal for Democrats, as Hillary Clinton's expected victory over Donald Trump evaporated on election night. This outcome seemed particularly jarring after eight years of Obama's presidency, which many believed had solidified a demographic and political coalition that would sustain Democratic governance for years to come. The loss forced a painful reassessment of assumptions that had guided Democratic strategy throughout the Obama era. Several key factors contributed to this unexpected defeat. First, Democrats dramatically underestimated Barack Obama's unique political appeal. During his presidency, many had attributed his electoral success primarily to demographic changes and policy positions, presuming these advantages would transfer to any Democratic nominee. In reality, Obama's personal connection with voters across diverse demographic groups was exceptional. Hillary Clinton received approximately 25% less support among white voters with high school diplomas than Obama had in 2012, particularly in crucial Rust Belt states. Despite widespread assumptions that Obama represented the floor rather than the ceiling of Democratic performance with these voters, the opposite proved true. The changing media environment also played a decisive role. The fragmentation of traditional media continued accelerating, with many Americans receiving information primarily through Facebook and other social platforms that could be manipulated by both domestic and foreign actors. The Clinton campaign struggled to break through with a clear, consistent message amid the cacophony. While her team produced sophisticated policy proposals, they failed to weave these into a compelling narrative that could compete with Trump's simple "Make America Great Again" mantra. As one Democratic strategist observed after the election, when asked what Clinton's positive message had been, most voters responded with silence. The Democrats' sophisticated data and analytics operation, built upon innovations from the Obama campaigns, proved insufficient without an inspiring message. The Clinton team relied heavily on micro-targeting and data models that predicted victory, but these technical advantages couldn't compensate for strategic failures. Most critically, the campaign devoted insufficient resources to Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania – states that ultimately decided the election by narrow margins. The data-driven approach that had seemed revolutionary in 2008 and 2012 revealed its limitations when divorced from compelling storytelling and traditional campaign fundamentals. Finally, external factors created significant headwinds. FBI Director James Comey's late-breaking letter about reopened investigation into Clinton's emails shifted momentum in the campaign's final days. Russian interference through hacked emails and social media manipulation further complicated the information environment. These interventions proved especially damaging in an extremely close election decided by fewer than 80,000 votes across three states. The 2016 defeat forced Democrats to reconsider their approach to campaigning in a transformed political landscape. It demonstrated that technical advantages and demographic trends were insufficient without a message that resonated emotionally with voters across the socioeconomic spectrum. Most importantly, it revealed that the political transformation Obama had begun remained incomplete and fragile, requiring continued innovation rather than complacent reliance on previous formulas for success.

Chapter 7: Obama's Legacy and the Future of Progressive Politics

When Barack Obama left office in January 2017, he departed with extraordinarily high approval ratings despite the defeat of his chosen successor. This paradox – personal popularity combined with party electoral defeat – encapsulated the complex legacy of his presidency. Obama had achieved landmark policy accomplishments and transformed American political culture in profound ways, yet these changes remained contested and vulnerable to reversal. Obama's policy achievements were substantial by any measure. The Affordable Care Act extended health insurance to over 20 million previously uninsured Americans. The Recovery Act prevented a second Great Depression and began investments in clean energy that would accelerate in subsequent years. His administration negotiated the Paris Climate Agreement, the Iran Nuclear Deal, and normalized relations with Cuba. Through executive actions, Obama protected DREAMers from deportation, advanced LGBTQ rights, and established new environmental protections. These accomplishments demonstrated the continued possibility of meaningful progressive governance despite fierce opposition. Yet these policy achievements faced significant limitations. Many required executive action rather than legislation due to congressional obstruction, making them vulnerable to reversal by subsequent administrations. Economic recovery, while substantial, failed to address underlying structural inequalities that continued fueling populist discontent. The promise of post-partisan governance that had animated Obama's initial candidacy remained unfulfilled as polarization intensified throughout his presidency. The Republican Party moved increasingly toward a politics of grievance and obstruction that would culminate in Trump's election. Perhaps Obama's most enduring legacy was cultural rather than policy-oriented. His presidency inspired millions of young people to engage with politics for the first time. In his final interview as president, Obama expressed hope that "twenty years from now, I can look back and say, wow, look at all these people who first got involved—maybe even when they were too young to vote—in government, politics, issues, nonprofits, public service, and that wave just kind of—a cleansing wave washes over the country." This vision of a new generation of politically engaged citizens represented Obama's highest aspiration for transformative change. For progressive politics moving forward, Obama's experience offered crucial lessons. First, technical innovation in campaigning and governing remained essential but insufficient without compelling messaging that connected emotionally with voters. Second, demographic changes alone would not guarantee political success – Democrats needed to actively build and maintain coalitions across diverse groups. Third, effective governance required not just winning elections but transforming institutions to make them more responsive to public needs. Finally, sustainable progressive change required engaging people beyond elections through ongoing organizing and movement-building. As Americans entered the Trump era, Obama's legacy remained contested territory. Critics from the left argued he had been too cautious and compromising; those on the right sought to dismantle his achievements. Yet his fundamental insight – that America's demographic and cultural evolution created opportunities for progressive governance if properly mobilized – remained a guiding principle for those seeking to build on his work. The true measure of Obama's transformation of American politics would ultimately depend on whether the generation he inspired could continue bending the arc of history toward justice.

Summary

The Obama era fundamentally transformed the landscape of American politics, establishing new rules of engagement that continue shaping our democracy today. Throughout these years, two powerful forces operated in constant tension: an inspirational vision of progressive change powered by technological innovation and grassroots enthusiasm versus intensifying polarization fueled by partisan media and political obstruction. This dynamic defined not just Obama's presidency but established the template for contemporary American politics – innovative communication strategies, data-driven campaigning, direct engagement with voters through social media, and the growing influence of partisan information ecosystems. The lessons from this transformative period remain essential for understanding our current political moment. First, technological innovation in campaigning and governing must be paired with authentic, emotionally resonant messaging to be effective. Second, the fragmentation of media has permanently altered how Americans receive information, requiring new approaches to building shared understanding across diverse communities. Finally, successful political movements must balance sophisticated technical approaches with fundamental human connection – the ability to inspire hope and articulate a vision that transcends partisan division. As America continues navigating its complex political future, the innovations, successes, and failures of the Obama era provide crucial context for understanding how democracy can function in an age of technological disruption and intense polarization.

About Author

Loading...

Dan Pfeiffer

Read more

Related Books by Dan Pfeiffer

Loading...

Un-Trumping America

Dan Pfeiffer

A Plan to Make America a Democracy Again

★★★★☆4.2