The Battle Within the Democratic Party
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/12/the-battle-within-the-democratic-party/282235/***SNIP
The tangled legacy Obama will leave his party underlies many of the current disagreements raging within the Democratic coalition. The populist-centrist split, which revolves around how much taxes ought to rise on the wealthy and whether Social Security and Medicare benefits ought to be curtailed, is only the beginning. Education reform is another point of contention: Teachers unions loathe the pro-charter-school policies embraced by Obama’s education department and many Democratic elites. Obama’s tough approach to national security and civil liberties has alienated many of the progressives who supported him as an antiwar candidate in 2008; his abortive push for intervention in Syria began the slide in his approval rating that continues today. Environmentalists continue to pressure the administration not to approve the Keystone XL pipeline. Important Democratic constituencies such as Latinos and unions feel badly let down by the Obama presidency and are kept in the tent only by the conviction that Republicans are even worse.
Most Democrats assume that, given the electorate’s increasing diversity and Republican dysfunction, the party still has a winning hand—and they may be right. If Hillary Clinton seeks the party’s nomination, she might go virtually unopposed, her effortless coronation obviating any divisive intra-party debates. So much for the great Democratic soul-searching.
“It’s the usual inside-the-Beltway panic by the Democrats,” Howard Dean, the progressive former Vermont governor and former Democratic National Committee chairman, told me. “My advice is to get a grip. There’s nothing voters dislike more than cowering. We should punch back.”
The party’s current doldrums, and the prospect of a spate of losses next year, have some party leaders warning Democrats not to get complacent. Even the most bullish Obama supporters acknowledge that the party cannot afford to take its current advantages for granted. “I don’t think we should move forward with a false sense of security that Republicans are so out of the mainstream that they could never win,” Obama strategist David Axelrod told me. “It behooves the Democratic Party to continue to advance new ideas.”
= new reply since forum marked as read
#1: Obama was very much playing the role of the junior senator from IL. His only "national figure" element was the 2004 speech. You are conflating 2006 and 2008.
#2: Because Hillary didn't do anything before being a senator. 
.
Then there's the wee problem that your claim in #1 is that a freshman senator was a massive national figure. If being only a "freshman senator" was such a massive handicap, it would have been an equal problem for Obama. Heck, it would be a greater problem, because Clinton could spin her time as First Lady as experience. Meanwhile, Obama could only claim to have made a good speech.
#3: "First" doesn't win an election. If it did, Dukakis would have won - first female VP. So would a whole lot of other women and minorities who lost various elections. "First" as winning strategy is lazy media coverage. Reporters don't have to bother researching beyond the genetialia and skin tone of the winner to figure out why they won.
You have an argument that contradicts itself multiple times, and then treats elections as a reality TV show.
And it's the same inevitability argument that failed in 2008, with minor updates. Which in itself is really dumb - "This time it's inevitable! Just forget about the last time we declared it inevitable!"
Quote from article:
" Centrists fear that liberals will drive the party out of the American mainstream with their talk of income redistribution and political correctness."
