The New Republic

This is all reasonable stuff, but I still get queasy every time I hear this man trot out his Personal Struggle for Identity. It's telling that his first, instinctive response is to say, "if you know who you are."

And then he comes back to this fundamentally adolescent concept of being able to overcome your fear of not being accepted, or of having to seek validation from people you disagree with: "You can walk into a room with a sunny disposition, you can smile and say “Yes sir,” “No sir,” “Yes maam,” and “No maam,” and if they don’t agree with you, you’ve got the votes, and you will beat them. And you can do it with a smile on your face"

I'm sorry but coming from a 45 year-old grownup, this is just ridiculous. It's exactly what a kndly mom would say to her angry, hurt, confused adolescent son (been there, heard that, rest in peace, Mom).

The Obama Lifestory trope is out of control. Enough about this man's psychomachia. "Smiling sweetly" is simply irrelevant here, and it will only make the jackals of a realpolitik world-- health insurance companies, Club for Growth a**holes, Pakistan's ISI, Hu and Ahmadinejad and Putin and his bandit thugs-- hell, Limbaugh and Barone and Will and Kristol and other bloviators-- NONE of these people give a damn about your or our emotional equilibrium.

This campaign is becoming more and more childish. Feh

- teplukhin2you

January 7, 2008 at 1:55pm

If Obama makes it through to be elected President, I hope he'll at least match his words and do what Reagan did with his silly, but effective, speeches at key moments to get the public riled up. Reagan would state his case, explain a little context, then ask listeners to contact their representatives and senators. It helped sell enough of the public to get legislation passed.

Of course, over twenty-five years on, Reagan's ideas turn out to have helped crater this country. They didn't work. But it's a useful technique, especially for politicians who speak well.

That said, I agree that this particular rhetoric is to "me, me, me" and self-satisfied.

- timslavin

January 7, 2008 at 2:03pm

As soon as I heard Mike Murphy talk about GOPers supporting Obama in large numbers, I saw a parallel between Reagan's crossover appeal to people who wouldn't dream of supporting a conservative agenda and Obama's appeal to GOpers who wouldn't dream of supporting even half the policy stands Obama takes. (Great minds, Andrew S...)

But the smiley analogy here is really telling. Reagan too was smiley-- I recall a devastating political cartoon that compared Carter's view of the economy, represented by a Rube Goldberg-clusterf**k, and Reagan's, represented by a smiley face drawn by a child of still-nascent motor skills. But Reagan _never PERSONALIZED the matter_. His ideology was front and center. He waged a war of ideas, and he was all about doing things, which is why he's revered by conservatives (never mind what he actually accomplished).

What Obama wants to achieve-- other than self-mastery, finding himself, coming into his own as a man at peace with himself his past and his world etc-- is still unclear. He's gonna  have a bumpy road if he has to go up against a smart and savvy GOP moderate in the fall.

- teplukhin2you

January 7, 2008 at 2:08pm

Smart and savvy GOP moderate? Tep, I assume you're pretty sure McCain is going to be the GOP nominee, because none of the others are all three of these things.

- miceelf

January 7, 2008 at 2:29pm

Fools...Smiles SELL...whether you are selling burgers or million dollar industrial equipment, or you are a politician....

- tkozal

January 7, 2008 at 2:37pm

So, are you really going to elect this "feel-good" candidate without a single concrete idea on his head, after his enormous talent to offer completely empty and simultaneously mobilizing speeches?

God, the man doesn't stand for anything. One minute he is against exporting American jobs overseas, the next minute he is opposing actual policies that would achieve such results... One minute he is for health care, the next minute he is for fiscal policies that would completely damage the possibility for the state to finance such health care... And his masterpiece is on abortion: "I'll listen" (hasn't he listened enough? what has American been talking about for the last 30 years?).

No guts, only air... No ideas, only advertising techniques...

Do you want a President or a salesman?

PS: If i were an American, I wouldn't hesitate. I would vote Edwards and, if absolutely necessary, Hillary. No way, I would vote for Obama.

- luispc

January 7, 2008 at 2:41pm

miceelf -- yeah, Dems are in big trouble if Republicans nominate McCain, or maybe even Romney (he wasn't a disaster as Massachusetts governor). Let's hope they'll make the same kind of self-destructive decision the Democrats seem on the way to making. At least then the campaign might be entertaining. We could laugh while we cry...

- LISAH

January 7, 2008 at 2:46pm

He wants to sign off on (middle class) tax cuts at a time of record budget deficits.

He voted for the Patriot Act.

His health care proposal does NOT cover all of the uninsured.

He wants to increase military spending.

Really, really sick and tired of hearing about how he's a force for change and how it's a movement and...

Does anyone give care about policy?

Vote Edwards.

- The Ignorant Populist

January 7, 2008 at 2:52pm

Speaking of Obama's smiling face:  Did anyone notice how much the camera  (which loves Obama) lingered on him at the New Hampshire debate.  At one point, it zoomed in on his hand, wedding band and all, scribbling notes on his yellow pad.

Tep:  "What Obama wants to achieve . . . is still unclear."  Where exactly has Obama been unclear? He's given us straight talk on health care reform and foreign policy; he said straight out, in an earlier debate, that he was for nuclear power while Hillary was the one to give us the sunny "American enterprise" gloss on energy and the looming crisis.  

I like Hillary's wonkishness.  I'm never so impressed as when she's getting into the nuts and bolts of Pakistan, education and, yes, health care.   She's a technocrat who'd make an awesome cabinet member, preferably in an area like education, where there's bound to be less chance for controversy.  

- MOLLYSIMON

January 7, 2008 at 2:56pm

LISAH:  How exactly would Romney be a potential threat?  So far, he's not exactly killing them in the primary?  Sadly for the Dems, big business HATES Huckabee.  Flat tax?  Are you out of your mind that any self-respecting corporation or zillionaire would contribute to that campaign?  But one can dream . . . and, in Huck's case, pray.  

- MOLLYSIMON

January 7, 2008 at 3:05pm

He also wants to bomb Pakistan...

Just watching people on TV, you'd swear they were choosing a car or a toothpaste. It was embarrassing, C4 asked one Obama campaigner what his policy positions were - he hadn't got a clue, not a clue and what's more, he didn't care!

Vote Edwards.

- The Ignorant Populist

January 7, 2008 at 3:08pm

The problem, Johnny, is that they get fucked and we get fucked at the same time. And we don't even get to vote...

VOTE EDWARDS! YOU'RE NOT CHILDREN ANYMORE!

- luispc

January 7, 2008 at 3:18pm

miceelf - yes, McCain. I just don't see Romney coming back, or GOPers nominating the Huckster. I believe McCain has a better than 50/50 shot of getting the GOP nomination.

Molly - Obama is now drawing legions of GOP... what, moderates? Liberals? Conservatives? I'm sorry but I don't see how you can appeal simultaneously to Harold Meyerson types and to people who sneer reflexively at "tax-and-spend" "big government" liberals.

If this is all about style-- that the GOPers like Obama because, well, he's clever but Not Angry, then see my comments above about the childishness of this campaign.

Me, I'd like the nation to actually have some intense policy debates so that we can a) settle matters on stay-or-go in Iraq; single-payor or a continuation of the current insanity of linking health insurance to employment; and our botched Mexico relationship. Which would b) give the next president a clear mandate to actually get things done on all of these issues.

Smiles won't earn you a mandate on any of these hellaciously difficult issues.

- teplukhin2you

January 7, 2008 at 3:20pm

Ah, Ig, he's not talking about waging all-out war on Pakistan, he's talking about getting Al Qaeda in a remote province.  A surgical strike, if you will.  Israel does this plenty with Syria and did it in Iraq.  You could say, too, its policy has worked quite well in Gaza; there've been no suicide bombings in Israel, to date.  

On a larger scale, this was our policy on Afghanistan.  Unfortunately, we let Bush's ADHD get the better of us; he went on to Iraq, and that war--which should have been a centerpiece in our anti-terrorism campaign, has gone bust.  And if you think Hillary would be opposed to this sort of move, your nuts.  

I like Edwards, but he doesn't have the muscle.  I can't imagine him going up against McCain.  The majority of voters--and this shows in polls--sees him as too light-weight.

- MOLLYSIMON

January 7, 2008 at 3:21pm

Am I among TNR Swiftboaters?  Some of you sound like you think Obama is some black bimbo.  Here we go, the Democrats eating their young again.  Here's the election, McCain, go on, take it, our candidate isn't perfect enough.

- theQ

January 7, 2008 at 3:28pm

"the politics of addition, not the politics of division"

Ugh!  So close to a perfect line!  It should be "multiplication" rather than "addition".  Same English language meaning, much better mathematical contrast.

- apfrankel

January 7, 2008 at 3:42pm

Yeah, the whole "he wants to bomb Pakistan" thing is tiresome. Anyone who isn't willing to go after Osama bin Laden, even if he happens to be in Pakistan, is not going to get elected president. (Plus, the Pakistani government keeps telling us that the border areas where bin Laden is are beyond its ability to control with police or the military, so how is that area even "Pakistan"? That territory belongs to Pakistan about like Switzerland belongs to Germany. But I digress.)

The thing about Edwards, aside from the way in which his delivery of his stump speech has become unattractively whiney and shrill of late, is that he's opted in to the public financing system. Which means that if you remember what Clinton did to Dole in 1996, that's what Republicans will be able to do to Edwards, except multiplied by about six. If Edwards wins the nomination next month, he'll stumble into the late-summer convention down by 12 points with no way to respond directly to six months of Republican attack ads in swing states. I have a soft spot for Edwards, but if he gets the nomination, we almost don't need to bother holding the election in November. Barring a late-October revelation that the Republican nominee molests children, Edwards will be toast.

- rhubarbs

January 7, 2008 at 3:43pm

"If i were an American, I wouldn't hesitate. I would vote Edwards and, if absolutely necessary, Hillary. No way, I would vote for Obama."

Well then, I'm glad you're not an American.  Obama has made his policy positions clear, and on no issue is he less appealing than John Edwards, whose approach is divisive and counterproductive.  Obviously there's a wing of the Democratic Party that thinks the best way to achieve change is to scream until you're blue in the face and label your opponents a bunch of corrupt, greedy bastards (favored approach of Krugman and angry leftist bloggers), but I'm highly skeptical.

You guys seem to be equating charisma, intelligence and eloquence with a lack of substance.  The fact that Obama is uniquely able to articulate liberal principles in a manner that appeals to moderates and conservatives makes him a terrific Democratic candidate, not a "childish" one.

- Androscoggin

January 7, 2008 at 4:02pm

mollysimon-- my point is that if Romney manages to get the nomination (agree it doesn't seem likely at this point, but who knows -- money squawks pretty loudly, right?), he can be sold in the general election as a reasonably capable governor...And again, I think McCain would be the one to be really a problem for the Democrats.

Either way, either Clinton or Obama can be all too easily uh -- toasted -- by the Republicans. And the Democrats just keep showing they can't or won't fight back. It's not a question, theQ, of "our candidate isn't perfect enough" (name me one politician who's "perfect"). It's a question, yet again, of the oh-so-forward-looking-west-side-hollywood-liberal types who just don't get that they don't get it when it comes to real people.

- LISAH

January 7, 2008 at 4:06pm

C'mon, tep, you're reading in.  Yes, Obama has written a couple of books about his own coming of age.  Yes, that's unusual in a Presidential candidate, and, yes, it's vaguely smarmy.  But other than 'knowing who you are' line, what in the quoted passage has anything to do with a personal search for identity?  And isn't there an even more plausible interpretation of even the snippet that you re-quoted that has nothing to do with a search for identity?  I read 'know who you are' as meaning 'know where your ideological and ethical lines in the sand are.'

And Iggy Pop, Obama DOES advocate reversing Bush's tax cuts on on the wealthy, merely leaving Bush's middle-income tax cuts in place.  In contrast, your man Edwards is advocating ADDITIONAL tax relief for middle-income earners.

I can find no comment on Obama's website as to military spending.  To me, it would seem strange and unnecessary for him to have made any comment on the subject.  Can you tell me where to find an Obama quote as his opinion on military spending?

As for his health care coverage plan, yes, as an American doctor about to return to work in Australia's public, universal health system, I find Obama's plan to be highly disappointing--but only marginally more disappointing than either Clinton's or Edwards's.  Yes, brining everyone in would make the system  more efficient, but the number of people Obama leaves out will make a very marginal difference and most of them will be young and healthy and relatively unlikely to be harmed by their lack of insurance, and mandates ARE politically unpalatable.  Also, from the standpoint of a single payer advocate such as myself, all three of the Democratic plans seem like Bandaid solutions.  I'd rather the Bandaid weren't overly effective to retain some stimulus for more meaningful, radical reform in the future.

And to bring luispc in also, I think you Europeans (teplukhin2you) are made queasy by Obama's black church tones which are as American as American gets.  It isn't what you're used to, and it sounds like so much airy gibberish.  Well, Americans DO respond to this sort of thing, like it or not, and you shouldn't fault a politician for playing to his crowd.  

Finally, luis and tep, it is simply untrue that Obama has no positions and no ideas.  Go to his website and open the 'issues' tab.  He has a long list of specific policy proposals,  You may not agree with many of them, and yes there's a fair amount of vagueness--though not more than you find on the other candidate's sites, including Edwards--but he is for more than nothing.  I'm not even so sure that he doesn't TALK about policy specifics at least some of the time.  I just think the MSM gets so caught up in the uniquely rousing character of his oratory that that's all that they end up reporting.

- aeromonas

January 7, 2008 at 4:07pm

Ya, Iggy- what Obama proposed is actually not very controversial (for a candidate, regardless of what you think on the position).  Molly is right on that- her policy there is no different than Hillary or Edwards.  There was just a storm made (mostly because Hillary wanted to paint him as naive, like when he said under the right circumstances he might actually sit down with Mahmoud or Hugo or anyone- again, no different than Hill or presumably Edwards).  

That said, Luis, Obama is not an empty suit or evn anything close to that.  Yes, he has pretty speeches, but what do you want from a victory speech?  Seriously.  You are falling into the same trope that is being attached to him by Hillary and the Republicans.   Disagree with some of his positions if you want, demand perfection in your politicians, but don't denigrate the man so backwardsly.  

And, Iggy, what about Edwards do you really like?  Voting for the war?

- boneill

January 7, 2008 at 4:08pm

'( AND  teplukhin2you)' I meant to say.  I know you're not (exactly) European.

- aeromonas

January 7, 2008 at 4:10pm

Also, Iggy- you are basing your dislike for Obama partly on what one campaigner (not even campaign staffer) had to say?   That isn't really a fair shake.  

- boneill

January 7, 2008 at 4:10pm

Glad to see Edwards is sweeping the Euro vote.  That's good, because he can't win a damned thing here.  Maybe he should run against Sarkozy in a few years.

Edwards is a one-trick pony, channeling Norman Thomas and E.V. Debs.  All those nasty corporations - we like to call them job-creators - that are beating down the poor middle class.  With their SUVs, DVDs, HDTVs, etc.

He's a loser and he's going nowhere fast.  But please, please, please nominate him.  Even Freddie boy would kill him.

- butchie b

January 7, 2008 at 4:13pm

apfrankel,

I get your point about the math, but I think O was on the money going with 'addition.'  

'Addition' in this context is suitably concrete.  There's Obama, there's his political adversary, and they 'add' together to reach a solution.  'Multiplication' has too many generative connotations.  Like, does he want to spread his seed to all his political adversaries, or what?

- aeromonas

January 7, 2008 at 4:20pm

OK Androscoggin, if he has substance, howcome I do not know a single feaseble idea out of his campaign?

You know, health care actually costs money. A lot, even if not universal. And one must discuss minor things such as "who pays", "how much" and "who gets" . In any European country, if someone appeared saying  what Obama says, people would simply ask, "what is this man talking about?"

And if someone appeared, promising all Obama is promising on health care and on military expenses, people would at least ask him: how will you pay for all that, with the dollar crumbling (one can no longer just rely on the treasury) and with the twin-deficits becoming cronically high? And on top of everything, he even says that he'll cut taxes? So, he'll pay everything from his own pocket?

And do you think he can get away with things like "I'll listen" on issues that divide Americans, before the November election without being completely ridiculed? You'll get everyone saying that the salesman doesn't even know what he is selling (or worse, you'll get everyone saying that the salesman hides his product until he gets his pay and gets out of town...) and not everyone saying that this is a man with a "broad appeal" (Robert Redford has "broad appeal"...). Americans are not THAT stupid and, even if they were, you'll get the republican candidate firing at all the hard spots and Obama melting down... Since, he hasn't really been CONFRONTED yet... And, let me tell you that it isn't very difficult. No "Oprah feelling" can save him, then.

There are some hard policy decisions down the way (or up the way). And if Obama is not saying anything on that, someone else will force him to tell that he hasn't anything to tell (or, even worse, that he is hiding what he thinks, and avoiding serious debate  -- a serious debate Americans are in serious need of, as Tep said --, to get elected).

- luispc

January 7, 2008 at 4:21pm

theQ - this is constructive criticism for Obama. I'm trying to HELP the guy address a major issue, with enough lead time to get it  right, before the other side rips him to pieces.

walto-aero: I hear you, maybe I am reading in, but good lord, have we ever had such an intense psycho-dive for a candidate before? You share my frustration re single payor, good. But where we part company is that I agree with our resident political consultant VAcentrist that single-payor is probably a little more than half the solution to ALL the economic insecurity issues faced by working and middle-class people. If we don't get it done, I just don't see any reason to be an enthusiastic Democrat.

It's like being a devoted fan of Apple against Microsoft if Apple were to fail to bring out any new products. I hear what you're saying, and yeah, I'll vote for Obama. But I can't get excited about him if his rhetoric soars miles above and beyond the tiny baby steps he makes in the legislative/policy sphere.

- teplukhin2you

January 7, 2008 at 4:23pm

LISAH- I respect your opinion, but this is crazy:

"It's a question, yet again, of the oh-so-forward-looking-west-side-hollywood-liberal types who just don't get that they don't get it when it comes to real people."

Come on.  He just did very well in Iowa and is doing very well in New Hampshire, especially among independents.  These are hardly west side hollywood liberal types.

- jmurph79

January 7, 2008 at 4:31pm

<i>Obama is now drawing legions of GOP... what, moderates? Liberals? Conservatives? I'm sorry but I don't see how you can appeal simultaneously to Harold Meyerson types and to people who sneer reflexively at "tax-and-spend" "big government" liberals.</i>

American politics are inscrutable.  A great many Bobby Kennedy supports switched to George Wallace in '68 after Kennedy was shot.  That clearly wasn't because they compared policy statements, but it was genuine (my old man was one of them).

Obama's policy positions are not exactly what I'd want.  But the combination of his acceptable positions, and his ability to inspire, particularly young people, make him a pretty easy to take choice for me.  Charisma counts, in many ways more than the details of policy positions.  Congress will put any candidates proposals through the meat-grinder, and whether they come out burger or sausage will depend more on how the House and Senate races follow (or don't) the presidential race, than on which particular Democrat or Republican sits in the WH.

- sdemuth

January 7, 2008 at 4:31pm

If Edwards would get my vote (and I'm not making pragmatic judgments here) it is because he is an ideological fighter in a moment in which what will run Republicans down is the exposure that everything they've been selling since the 80's is downright fiction, taken from John Wayne films and Lucky Luke albums.

There is one issue that will be on everybody's mind (if you're not completely mindless): America's economy is crumbling and some hard choice will have to be made on that level. And, perhaps, some myths (on the extraordinary "benefits of globalization") will have to be attacked by someone that actually has some things to say, outside the popular line against Bush's absurd tax cuts for the rich.

Since in this era, there will be a delicate balance to be preserved. On one side of the balance, to get ways for America to stay economically strong (and consequently militarily strong) when all America's money, power and influence is crossing the Pacific ocean. On the other side, to think this through offering a credible speech (ideologically informed, how could it not be?) that exposes the actual fictions behind the Republican package.

There are things that must be debated: the labour and environmental conditions for international markets to stay open (and if they are to stay open, everyone should benefit, not just Walmart), the damage that has been created by the ideological inspired monetary policy that controls Central Banks, .

In a nutshell: only Edwards has the ability to expose the ideological bankrupcy of Republicans and to offer a credible alternative, not melting down at the first confrontation as Obama will (you can bet).

- luispc

January 7, 2008 at 4:39pm

Luis:  "OK Androscoggin, if he has substance, howcome I do not know a single feaseble idea out of his campaign?"

I have no idea why you know so little.  Perhaps you haven't been paying much attention.  Your summary of Obama's views on health care and taxes is a distortion.  Obama's health care proposal is very similar to that of Edwards, who you seem to like.  And he's proposed paying for it the same way that Edwards has -- by repealing the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy.  Your complaint about expense might be reasonable, but certainly not in the context of your support for Edwards.

I don't really get your quasi-literate hyperventilation about Obama's "I'll listen" quote. You're evidently an angry fellow, but there are actually quite a few people out there who like consideration and conciliation.  This does not make them stupid, nor does it make them wimps.  Not every intelligent person is an angry, self-righteous ranter, and vice versa.  And it's not as though Obama will roll over and play dead when confronted by a conservative opponent.  He's shown considerable toughness in this race, and I see no indication in his past that he will "melt down" in the general.  If anything, he seems remarkably poised under fire -- certainly more poised than his Democratic opponents.

- Androscoggin

January 7, 2008 at 4:50pm

And this balance is delicate because one has to attack libertarian and globalization myths and simultaneously not confront international markets. One must offer a speech for the correction of those markets in order to get benefits for everyone. The better way is to have China or India humiliated if they do not comply with labour and environmental standards. And to get this done, you have to have a candidate that actually knows how to defend these standards at home and that can promote the necessary ideological shift. A candidate that can finally reemerge the egalitarian political against the libertarian economical. That's the only way, from my point of view, for America to succeed in the long run. If not, we're all (not just Americans) going to be buried by myths that only benefit Walmart...

- luispc

January 7, 2008 at 5:02pm

luispc said:

"OK Androscoggin, if he has substance, howcome I do not know a single feaseble idea out of his campaign?"

So just because you're ignorant of Obama's positions or policy ideas doesn't mean he doesn't have one.

- wkwami

January 7, 2008 at 5:07pm

Also, I'd like to pu in a word for voting for reasons of character, even if you are on the left. Obama has put out detailed policy positions, but that doesn't matter all that much -- it's not as if any of their policies will survive passage into law exactly intact. And Hillary herself made the argument: you never know exactly what issues will face a president, so you want to be able to trust the type of decisions they make, rather than their policy positions.

And I think many underestimate the importance of charisma and inspiration. Someone charismatic and inspirational is always more efficacious. That is someone who might, for example, persuade Americans to sacrifice in the interest of slowing climate change. That takes a leader, someone who can win over people who don't entirely agree, and someone who can build a consenus.

- epicciuto

January 7, 2008 at 5:19pm

Androscoggin, if Obama wins the primaries, I pray you're right. Until then, I just say that I'm all for consideration and conciliation. But one has to come from a place in which one has something to reconcile and some standards according to which one considerates things. And Obama is not coming from such a place (at least that I could find out). So what will he offer "consideration" for and who will he "reconcile" with? And on what basis?

A speech exclusively centered on "consideration and conciliation" is an empty speech. And from my perspective a dangerous one when some brave choices will have to be made. Lincoln or Roosevelt did not run on "consideration and conciliation". These men said: I believe in this and I'll fight for it.

Anyway, I didn't want to sound "angry". And I'm not an "angry fellow". I just like to discuss things in a provocative way (what's the internet for, anyway?). And again, good luck if Obama wins the primaries. Really, I'll be an Obamanette from that moment on.

- luispc

January 7, 2008 at 5:20pm

LISAH--this is really hard for me.  I trust your judgment, love your posts, you're a brilliant, never-lose-your-cool incredibly informed debater (love how you'dve dealt with the anti-Zionist faction).  But you're flat out wrong on Obama.  Yes  to you on Hillary, though.  The toasters are already setting off the smoke alarm (ha ha).   Where we agree:  McCain is the one to beat.  Especially if there's some horribly frightening event to occur between now and November.   And I wouldn't mind, to tell you the truth, except for one thing:   If we're scared of the Bush Supreme Court, imagine the anti-choice justices he'll stack on that wood pile.  Then again, if you leave out abortion, maybe he's not such a fright.  On this, I have no idea.  

Luis:  I'd sponsor you for a work visa, but on citizenship, forget it.  Not with the way you'd vote.  And by the way, you're not an "angry fellow."  You're just hot-blooded!

Tep:  Where were all of Iowa's independents last week?  Not home watching Ugly Betty.  

- MOLLYSIMON

January 7, 2008 at 5:27pm

Jason,

While we remember Hubert Humphrey as the Happy Warrior, the orginal Happy Warrior was none other than Al Smith, the great Democratic governor of NYC.  Given Obama's knowledge of political history, I'm sure he's aware of that fact as well when using the Happy Warrior ephithet.

- jss02002

January 7, 2008 at 5:32pm

luispc: "The better way is to have China or India humiliated if they do not comply with labour and environmental standards."

from Obama website: "He will use trade agreements to spread good labor and environmental standards around the world and stand firm against agreements like the Central American Free Trade Agreement that fail to live up to those important benchmarks."

- aeromonas

January 7, 2008 at 5:36pm

Luis,

When I lived in Chicago I knew Obama's economics advisor, Austan Goolsbee.  He is a sharp economist and someone of integrity and I truly doubt that he and Obama believe that universal health care can be put into place without additional government spending.  Please cite the source for your claim.

**************

I don't understand the people who want a president who will "stick it" to the Republicans.  If the level of partisanship, already pretty bad, is raised, the Republicans have enough votes in the Senate to hold up legislation.  Increased partisanship on the part of the president and Democratic legislators would cause the Republican legislators to stay together as a block and inhibit the crossovers that get important legislation passed.  

Don't fool yourselves into thinking that the Democrats will get 2/3 of the Senate.  The Republican party won't collapse like the Federalists nor is there a great struggle or trauma like the Civil War or the events of the FDR period.  Iraq is trivial in political effect compared to Vietnam War because there is no draft and the casualties are far less; and measures like the Patriot Act don't arouse emotions like the civil rights struggle of the 1960s.  Even Nixon and Watergate didn't produce a Senate with 2/3 Democrats (although they came close).  In 2008 most Republican senators up for reelection coasted to victory including John Ensign, the fellow Nevada senator of Harry Reid.  

- whimsy007

January 7, 2008 at 5:37pm

I had a feeling that would please you Butchie, and I think you might be right. Edwards would have a much harder time of it in a general. But come on even you don't think the Republicans are "pro-free markets"?

Louis - Obama's good news for us. His FP is probably the most enlightened of the three main candidates. And his strident concern for the environment is great news.

However, for Aero and the Obama-as-liberal crew - only Edwards has committed to ending national poverty in 30 years. Rhetoric maybe, but the right kind.

Only Edwards has questioned (www.foreignaffairs.org/.../reengaging-with-the-world.html) the need to expand the military by 100,000 troops. I know it's heresy to question such an axiom, but when you are spending 51 cent out of every tax dollar on arms then maybe it's time to think again. Ike is turning in his grave. I think Edwards would be best placed (ideologically) to try and grapple that beast.

Moreover, Edward's is the one candidate to stick his neck on the line and fight for peole with little or nothing. That's 16 million of your fellow country men and women living in severe poverty. 37Million are just poor. By doing this he's left himself open to the usual shite about his money, his hair cuts etc.

BTW that % of severe poor is at a record high and has grown during RECORD GDP growth. This at a time (2000 - 2005) of RECORD productivity, that was misteriously not matched with increased wage/salary growth. The paradox never ends.

Your average, wealthy, American works some of the longest hours in the Westren world, with less sick benefits, less maternity rights, less social security and may even have two jobs. Anyone who is prepared to stand up for sanity gets the nod in my book and Edwards has made that a central theme of his campaign. No one can deny that.

So, if Murdoch-Saxon economics is to be stopped it has to happen in the States first. I trust Edwards to put social provision ahead of luxury consumption more than the other two.  

- The Ignorant Populist

January 7, 2008 at 5:58pm

tep, believe me, you don't need to sell me me on the broader social and economic benefits of single payer.  I just don't think you can make a case against Obama VS THE OTHER FRONT-RUNNERS on the basis of his health care proposal.  Yes, yes, yes, his proposal on health care is ho-hum, small-bore stuff--but so are all of their proposals (except Kucinich's ).

luispc, Obama proposes to extend heatlh insurance to approximately 30 million of the 47 million currently uninsured.  He doesn't propose that the government should pay for every bit of that additional insurance.  Basically, he's going to force employers that don't currently offer insurance to do so, and subsidize those that can't.  As I note above, I consider this to be small beer.  But to the degree that BO says we can afford it, I believe he's probably correct.  For the sake of argument, let's suppose that the govt would pay for all health insurance for the uncovered 30 million.  Suppose also that costs are about $6000/per head/per year, which I think is probably in the ballpark given that most of these 30 million are children and young adults.  That comes out to $180 billion per year.  That's a big program, sure--but not compared to the Iraq war.

- aeromonas

January 7, 2008 at 5:59pm

If I was writing the Obama (or Clinton or Edwards) health care proposal--as opposed to my cherished single payer plan--I'd suggest that the recommended insurance coverage for anyone under 35 to be high-deductible, 'catastrophic' health insurance.  It'd save a lot of money, and it's all those folks really need.  If anything, the threat of having to pay $75 bucks out of pocket might keep down the unnecessary visits for colds and other complaints of the 'worried well.'

Don't let anyone tell you different, with the possible exception of the bi-annual Pap smear, there is ZERO value in the well-person doctor's visit for people younger than 35.  That goes for kids too.  In Oz you take your kids to a district health nurse for their developmental assessments and vaccinations, and you drag them to the doctor if and only if they're sick.  It works fine.  

- aeromonas

January 7, 2008 at 6:18pm

tep-

When it comes to Obama's broad appeal, I'm not sure that this is all, as you suggest, about style. It may be about something much more troubling, something buried deep within the American psyche: optimism, even wildly naive, unreal optimism. Which, in politics, has often been assoicated with idealism.

As I said on another thread, I saw Obama's victory speech Thursday night, and was moved by it. I was also impressed by the man's poise. He's relaxed on the podium the way Roger Federer is relaxed on the courts. And in this way, certainly, he is nothing like George W. Bush.

And BHO actually has accomplished something in his political career, though most of these accomplishments were realized in local (Illinois) government. (For more on this, please see a recent WP article: www.washingtonpost.com/.../AR2008010303303.html)

But there was one thing that troubled me in Obama's victory speech, and in susbequent comments in NH: that we, as a people, shouldn't dwell on the world as it is, but on the world as it should be.

I despise George W. and I very much like Barrack O., but this kind of talk does bring the two of them together in this regard: one of the great, disastrous flaws in Bush's Middle East strategy is that it appears to based upon a notion of how the world SHOULD be, rather than how it actually is.

For just one instance, Bush thinks the Iraqis (and everybody else) would be better off with a democratically elected government, and so he turns a blind-eye to the realities of the region, and invades Iraq. We wind up with an Iraqi government elected by one portion of the population (the Shiites) that would like to see another portion of the population (the Sunnis) dead.

There are other examples, but I think many of us on this thread can agree that Bush is a wacko. My point here has to do with the particular way in which his wingnuttiness is supported by his idealism. Yes, his idealism.

For the problem with Bush is that he doesn't respect the limits reality imposes upon us, via human nature, limits the founders respected--and anticipated, via checks and balances, laws and restrictions, separation of powers.

Now I'm not suggesting that Obama is blind to the virtues of the Constitution, but his rhetoric has been tacking toward waters which I find troubling. Here's what BHO said yesterday, in response to remarks HRC had made in the most recent debate: "One of my opponents said, you know, 'Stop feeding the American people false hopes about what can be done. We need a reality check.' False hopes? About what we can do? What's that mean? What kind of message is that to send to the American people? We're going to focus on the constraints of what's possible instead of open it up, bust through them?. . . We don't need a leader telling us what we can't do. We need our leaders to inspire us to believe in what we can accomplish."

Yes, Obama is inspirational, and yes it is fine to focus on what we can accomplish. But it is also imperative to keep in mind precisely "the contraints of what's possible."

Which is one of the reasons, for instance, that nominating Hillary would be electoral suicide for the Dems. She is revlied on the right in a way that would rally that party during the general election, and she is also reviled on the left, most specifically for her vote on the Joint Resolution on Iraq.

All of which is to say, I would vote for Obama, in a primary or a general election, but some of his rhetoric does trouble me. And given the hell W. has made of Iraq, I would prefer someone with considerably more foreign policy experience  (someone, for instance, like Gore). But, realistically, it may be that Obama is the best chance the Dems have for victory in November.

- JosephCuomo

January 7, 2008 at 6:22pm

Iggy, you are right about Edwards, and I think it is great that he is out there night after night hammering these things home.   He does seem to truly believe what he is saying, and it is like a personal mission for him, which is great.  He has aided in this race, not allowing the other two to avoid those issues.

If they would.  Which I don't think so.  For all his good qualities, Edwards has been pretty one-note.  Maybe by choice, by temprament, whichever- I just don't see his mind as nuanced and felxible enough to deal with all the problems.  And I think he would be in trouble in the general election, too.  Too trial-lawery (this is not my criticism of him, but that is what would be leveled).  So I don't think he is the best overall candidate in terms of total policy, and I think he would lose.

- boneill

January 7, 2008 at 6:23pm

teppety teppety tep tep tep,

Responding to your first comment, and knowing thoroughly the shape and size and color of the dead horse you like to beat [my dead horse is coming soon, because it can't be beat enough], I need to point out that Obama is perfectly right in talking about himself in this context because he has been attacked on his style, and so of course he has to talk about style here, not substance, and also himself, as being the one with the style. So no blaming him here for that. The topic - whose style is more effective, the Krugman/Edwards angry face* or the Obama smiley face? I don't know, but I know the good cop/bad cop routine has certainly taken Clinton down some. Maybe if they could employ it on the drug companies...

But!

Here's where sunny did the impossible [dead horse alert]:

www.samefacts.com/.../obama_against_police_torture.php

*I think this was used on some green stickers that were distributed in my childhood to mark poisonous cleaning products, and they came with a catchy tune: "I am Mr. Mean! Mr. Mean is Green!"

- psantillana

January 7, 2008 at 6:28pm

Fellow Plankton:

Great thread!

Cheeses, I'm happy there's no incumbent running this time. Gives us a chance to let Democracy out into the exercise yard for a while, give her a chance to stretch in the sun a bit. That cold dank cell we've consigned her to leaves her pale and skittish, seems to me.

- williamyard

January 7, 2008 at 8:08pm

psantillana - ha, good one. If the wizards of CanWest screw up my database profile yet again, I'll change my new moniker to The Raging Anapest.

Still, your teppity-tep horse sounds like it has an awful lot of pep in his step for one headed for the glue factory...

Great thread. Nice to see Joe Cuomo back in action. I guess I end up here having to be thankful for small favors, that we have a charismatic candidate who if he avoids Dukakisland (pls retire the "competence not ideology!" line-- didn't work out so well last time around) may well get some good things done in office. But I'll pass on the kool-aid, thanks

- teplukhin2you

January 7, 2008 at 9:15pm

Iggy Pop, who do you think will do more for the poor?  Edwards, who spent his life previous to politics as a trial lawyer, or Obama, who gave up a lucrative career as a lawyer to work as a community organizer in Chicago?  Actions speak a lot louder than words in this case.  Compare the Edwards record in the Senate with the Obama record in the Illinois legislature and the Senate and you'll see that the fired-up Edwards populism of late is mostly Johnny-come-lately.  And who was the smiley candidate in 2004?

- mgreenough

January 7, 2008 at 9:35pm

tep, you welcomed JosephCuomo back.  I too feel like I've been seeing JC around the past couple of weeks after a long hiatus--since before the Night of the Long Knives.  But then I just clicked on his profile, and he's listed as the number 2 poster, right after you teppy!  It says he's got more than 600 posts!

So, what gives, JC?  You been using a different handle or sumpin?

- aeromonas

January 8, 2008 at 12:28am

aeromonas, I don't know if those have any relation to reality.  Every time I click on someone it looks as if they are number 1 or 2, and I know my postings have been wildly exaggerated. Perhaps this is to assuage my ego, but I only rely on a select group of wholly imaginary sycophants to do that.   That said, good to see you JoCo.  

- boneill

January 8, 2008 at 12:33am

Thanks, bone.  Like so much on this shonky website, I'll just ignore those stats completely.

In a likely vain attempt to keep this good, old school thread alive a little, I'd like to direct luispc and Iggy Pop to the following internal link (That's if you haven't already spotted it front and center on the home page):

www.tnr.com/.../story.html

To take the editors' point in a slightly different direction, Obama IS specific on policy, and not on that, his policy specifics aren't much different from either Clinton's or Edwards's.  

I suspect that this relative unity on practical matters goes a long way to explain why you two, over there in Europe, have come away with the impression that Obama is all hot air.  If policy specifics cannot differentiate the candidates, then the candidates must find other ways to differentiate themselves.  So instead of debating health care, we get Experience, Righteous Anger, and Hope.  You Old World liberal types, coming from a long tradition of atheistic, socialistic politics and trade-unionism, respond to Righteous Anger, as is your wont.  But the John Edwards, angry man strategy has never been one to get you very far in America.  You guys are made uncomfortable by Obama's quasi-religious tone.  You're like that Guardian poster quoted here the other day.  But I'd argue that you just don't get American politics.  

The past 15 years has been characterized by political stalemate in the US.  The only way Bush has been able to get anything done--mostly negative acomplishments--has been to cheat and lie and subvert the Constitution.  I like Edwards, but my feeling is that in power, he wouldn't accomplish very much.  Obama's smiley majority-building line would seem to have some promise in this regard.

Or maybe I'm just kidding myelf.

- aeromonas

January 8, 2008 at 1:08am

"from Obama website: "He will use trade agreements to spread good labor and environmental standards around the world and stand firm against agreements like the Central American Free Trade Agreement that fail to live up to those important benchmarks.""

That's good. But more must be defended. For instance: in these last decades globalization, while mithically tied to the benefit of the greatest number, has created a "race to the bottom". We have a new market functionning worldwide, and the policies pursued until now have been exclusively centered on "market making", leaving completely overshadowed the essential "market correcting" dimension. On this latest dimension (at a time when the difference between rich and poor is increasing in all Western world and is reaching shameful Latin American standards in America) we must focus all our attention. First step: to create new agreements backed by the EU and US on specific standards to be complied and that must be complied with by any country willing access to the international markets. Which means that America will have to comply, as well, with those standards, promoting policies that benefit the many and not just the few and that actually create the conditions for future generations to live on this planet.

Perhaps, underneath what's Obama saying is this. But excuse me for feelling disappointed when he seems to be all for "conciliation", as if being affraid to sound in any way ideological.

And, Aeromonas, I understand that American specificity on almost religious inspiration. I even admire it and perhaps that is telling us that a true American spirit is still alive after the dark last decades. I'm just affraid that, in Obama's case, he is touching the sweet spot without willing to affirm the substantive points that must be affirmed, even if is beaten on this or on that battle.

Because there is one point that must be stressed: the Republicans in late seventies and eighties created an ideological shift that still dominates the American polity and that putted the Democrats on a defensive position. Even Bill Clinton pursued policies based on that ideological shift (things like supply-side and so on), being a proto-Republican President. And if I'm enthusiastic about Edwards it is because, finally, you have a candidate that is leaving the defensive position and promoting a counter-ideological shift.

Anyway, everyone, thanks for the many clarifications made.

- luispc

January 8, 2008 at 3:25am

Mollysimon -- if you're still checking this thread -- thanks for the kind words...and I loved the toaster  setting off the smoke alarm....I'm still watching...but still don't get it...

jmurph79 -- west side hollywood liberals live all over the place....

- LISAH

January 8, 2008 at 10:52am

So, Luis, it's bad, very bad, for those nasty Americans to tell people what to do.

Except when it's not, like with trade agreements that tell other sovereign nations what their labor and environmental standards should be.

Which is it?

- butchie b

January 8, 2008 at 11:08am

tep, aeromonas, & boneill-

Thanks for the kind words.

As for the posting stats, aeromonas, I think boneill may be right. I think they may have no relation to reality.

As for the subject of this thread, tep, you write: ". . .we have a charismatic candidate [Obama] who. . .may well get some good things done in office. But I'll pass on the kool-aid, thanks."

I guess that was the point I was making (though in a roundabout way) in my earlier post.

I'll just add this: optimism--especially naive, unfounded, unreal optimism in the face of impossible odds--is a distinctly American theme, one which can be found almost anywhere one looks in pop culture, from chat shows to memoirs to movies.

For just one instance, how many times have you seen a hero (Arnold, Sly, Jean Claude, Vim, the Rock, Tom Cruise) with a pistiol taking on a room full of villains with machine guns--and winning?

Which is to say, Obama's smiley-face optimism/idealism seems to have tapped into something at the mushy core of the American psyche. Which may translate into a Dem victory in November. And which may also deliver us a new president who can get a few good things done.

But, like tep, I'll pass on the kool aid, thank you.

- JosephCuomo

January 8, 2008 at 2:45pm