Happiness is an Improvement Over the Status Quo

Ezra Klein pronounces himself basically happy with the three major Democratic candidates. Matt Stoller responds with a proclamation of unhappiness, citing a variety of objectionable elements of the status quo than none of them dare tinker with. Matt's right, I think, to outline an agenda that goes well beyond the list of things Democratic Party politicians are prepared to tackle -- the related problems of America's crazy drug regulation regime and America's horrific prison system are, rightly, going to look like huge scandals to future generations and the odds of any of the major Democratic contenders doing much of anything about any of it are tiny.

That said, happiness is relative. All three of the potential nominees seem like they would make the country a better place. Hence the "fairly common sentiment among both Democratic base voters and Democratic elites" that Stoller bemoans. "Better than what we've got" seems like a kind of low bar to cross. And yet, in politics it's really the only bar that matters.

Comments

Having a non-malevolent Administration would at least mean that things would stop getting worse.

But to make them much better, a Dem President needs to have some idea what s/he'd do, or ask the Senate Democratic leadership to do, about 41 obstinate GOP Senators who voted against cloture on that President's entire legislative agenda.

Someone needs to ask the Dem contenders what they'd do about this, and pronto: Iowa's eight days away.

Posted by low-tech cyclist | December 26, 2007 2:26 PM

My main problem with the Dem. candidates this cycle (as in previous cycles) is how much out of "central casting" they are.

It's as if someone at Dem. party head-quarters called up a casting agent and asked for several character actors who specialize in playing stereo-typical liberals. The only way it would be worse is if we also had -- in addition to a carpet-bagging politician, someone who clearly is supposed to be a JFK-like figure and someone who clearly is supposed to be an RFK-life figure -- a bona fide dirty hippy who smelled of patchouli.

Of course, the health care debate isn't helping -- two of the candidates insist on providing actual details for their plans, which elements will prove in people's minds their worst stereotypes about liberals. Meanwhile noted progressives are savaging (in some cases, quite correctly) the other candidate, who understands at least the level of detail to give in presenting plans when he is merely running for President (as Congress'll have to work out the actual details later ... the Pres. needs to supply enough to make people realize the plan is workable: it's like writing a grant, people, not like writing a paper!), for being too much of a lightweight. Talk about your circular firing squad.

It would help the Democrats if they stopped acting like bad stereotypes of liberals. The Dems. might not really be all that liberal, but they represent the liberal brand -- and so far, they are driving their own brand into the ground, as per usual.

Posted by DAS | December 26, 2007 2:30 PM

But to make them much better, a Dem President needs to have some idea what s/he'd do - low-tech cyclist

Agreed. But the flip side of this is that when Dem. candidates do start to come up with actual, concrete agendas, they tend to start getting so much into detailed policy wonkery that, at best, the bore even dedicated policy wonks to death and at worst they come up with ideas that'll never make it into final bills, but do reenforce people's worst fears about liberals -- and hence become attack fodder for the GOP.

Dems. need to understand a concept I call "Details(TM)". Not to say that I understand this concept myself (otherwise I would have gotten that Fellowship). But when trying to get votes, etc., you need to tell people enough that we know that you are going to do something, you'll actually be able to get it accomplished, and we'll like what you do without being so concrete that people can attack you on it.

GOoPers do seem to be better at it then Dems. FWIW. I'm not quite sure why. Maybe it's that they are better salespeople?

Posted by DAS | December 26, 2007 2:36 PM

All three of the potential nominees seem like they would make the country a better place

isn't that more of a testament to the awfulness of the current president than to the awesomeness of any of the three frontrunners?

"better than you've got" may be the only bar that matters, but in the bush era that's a very very low bar indeed.

Posted by upyernoz | December 26, 2007 2:37 PM

"Better than what we've got" seems like a kind of low bar to cross. And yet, in politics it's really the only bar that matters."

Bloggers routinely say things like this about the primary race.

It almost certainly happens so routinely because many bloggers don't really understand what they're doing.

If "better than what we've got" is the criteria, why aren't we all supporting John McCain or Hillary Clinton? I have no doubt they'd both be better than what we've got.

Smart folks are interested in getting the best we can get.

Which is why smart folks tend to prefer Edwards to Clinton or Obama in the nomination race.

Posted by Petey | December 26, 2007 2:48 PM

It's as if someone at Dem. party head-quarters called up a casting agent and asked for several character actors who specialize in playing stereo-typical liberals. The only way it would be worse is if we also had -- in addition to a carpet-bagging politician, someone who clearly is supposed to be a JFK-like figure and someone who clearly is supposed to be an RFK-life figure

Uh, what?

"Carpet-bagging politician" is a Dem. party stereotype? Weren't the original carpter-baggers Republicans?

I get that Hillary's the carpetbagger. But despite the fact that one candidate is "clearly" a JFK figure, and another one is "clearly" an RFK figure, I can't for the life of me figure out which is supposed to be which.

Posted by Jason C. | December 26, 2007 2:48 PM

"I get that Hillary's the carpetbagger. But despite the fact that one candidate is "clearly" a JFK figure, and another one is "clearly" an RFK figure, I can't for the life of me figure out which is supposed to be which."

Then you're not too swift.

Posted by Petey | December 26, 2007 2:50 PM

upyernoz is right - that bar is so low that all of the Republican candidates would probably clear it.

I am personally relatively pleased with the Dems, because I think they will not only return us to Clinton I era sanity, but surpass that relatively effective government -- lessons learned and a better Congressional make up being the key (i.e. Bill Clinton, I think, would also be better in 2008).

Posted by theCoach | December 26, 2007 2:54 PM

Agreed. But the flip side of this is that when Dem. candidates do start to come up with actual, concrete agendas, they tend to start getting so much into detailed policy wonkery that, at best, the bore even dedicated policy wonks to death and at worst they come up with ideas that'll never make it into final bills...

DAS - I think you may have misread me. I wasn't talking about policy wonkery; 41 GOP Senators can block any legislation, whatever wonkery it may or may not contain.

So the question is, how do the candidates intend to deal with those 41+ obstructionist GOP Senators?

My WAG is that Hillary would try to horse-trade with them, Edwards would have Reid force them to filibuster, and Lord only knows how Obama would try to transcend this problem, but transcendence is his game; it's just not clear what approach it would enable.

But nobody knows for sure until the candidates are asked. As you can see, this is hardly policy wonkery or mind-numbing detail. It's "here's the obvious roadblock standing in the way of the next Dem President - what are you going to do about it?"

Posted by low-tech cyclist | December 26, 2007 2:59 PM

"Carpet-bagging politician" is a Dem. party stereotype? Weren't the original carpter-baggers Republicans? - Jason C.

Indeed. And the candidate in question did used to be a Republican for what it's worth. But given the political realignments that have happened between 1867 and 2007, the carpet baggers would certainly today be Democrats.

Anyway, a hint, remember RFK was a lawyer and JFK was the one who gave a nice speech.

Posted by DAS | December 26, 2007 2:59 PM

Lord only knows how Obama would try to transcend this problem, but transcendence is his game - low-tech cyclist

It's very good for you that I've not yet poured my afternoon coffee whilst reading this: otherwise, you'd owe my employer a new keyboard ;)

I get you though, now. There again, we better be careful of what we wish for. Democrats have been very clumsy talking about "meta-politics". Maybe because they don't know what they'd do? And I agree, that's a bad thing.

Posted by DAS | December 26, 2007 3:06 PM

Anyway, a hint, remember RFK was a lawyer and JFK was the one who gave a nice speech.

I've heard Obama compared to RFK on numerous occasions - the candidate who gives people hope, etc., all that B.S.

I wouldn't think Edwards supporters would want to compare their man to RFK - he was a vicious son of a bitch - releasing J. Edgar Hoover on Martin Luther King, among other things.

Posted by Jason C. | December 26, 2007 3:06 PM

What Matt Yglesias needs to remember is that no matter what candidates are running or what their positions are, Matt Stoller finds fault. That's not criticism or praise of Stoller - that's just what he does.

Posted by Clark | December 26, 2007 3:07 PM

The appropriate standard is not "better than we've got," but it's probably not Stoller's standard either.

The appropriate standard is the universe of potential Democratic candidates for president in 2008.

Of all the Democratic politicians nationwide who have the experience and credibility to make a serious run for president - all the Senators, governors, past and present, who would be legitimate, viable contenders - three have emerged as the most likely nominees.

So the question that has to be asked: are we glad it's these three, instead of some other group? If the answer is yes, then it's reasonable to describe yourself as "satisfied" or "happy" with your choices.

Posted by Jason C. | December 26, 2007 3:11 PM

Edwards is like RFK? As I remember it, RFK suddenly got liberal the first time he ran for president.

On the main question, I agree with Klein that all the Dem candidates have good enough policies, but I also think they all have very weak resumes - almost laughable.

About the policies that Stollar mentions, yes, of course I agree, but too many Americans are too proud of America's brutal, backwards traditions for any of that to happen in the next administration.

Posted by Gary Sugar | December 26, 2007 3:46 PM

All three of the potential nominees seem like they would make the country a better place.

I don't think that's true. It might have been true in 2000, but Bush and the conservative movement have locked in a good number of their gains. You can't raise wages without substantially raising taxes on the wealthy, and you can't get rid of Blackwater without taking on very powerful entrenched political interests.

Doing these things takes a new framework for solving problems, one none of these candidates have yet demonstrated. Thus, any Democrat may simply be caretaking until the next Nixon-Reagan-Bush conservative comes into office. It happened before, with Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, only this next time we will have much less leverage with the foreign countries that own our debt and industrial base.

Posted by Matt Stoller | December 26, 2007 3:56 PM

Stoller: You can't raise wages without substantially raising taxes on the wealthy, and you can't get rid of Blackwater without taking on very powerful entrenched political interests.

Matt, I don't see the connection between raising wages and raising taxes on the wealthy. Raising wages might cut into their profits - was that what you meant? - but that wouldn't involve any change to the tax code.

And to get rid of Blackwater, all the next President has to do is not renew a contract. S/he won't even need a single vote in the Senate, let alone 60.

Sure, there'll be flak, but there'll be flak if the next President does anything good.

Posted by low-tech cyclist | December 26, 2007 4:12 PM

Which is why smart folks tend to prefer Edwards to Clinton or Obama in the nomination race.
Then you're not too swift.
Posted by Petey

Christ, what an asshole.

The appropriate standard is the universe of potential Democratic candidates for president in 2008.

I agree, and I'd even widen it to current and recent left-of-center leadership figures, regardless of whether they're legitimate candidates for 2008. Bill Clinton, for example, is still reasonably well-known and respected. And isn't there some great governor who's a Democrat but was born out of the country?

Matt Stoller's right about the importance of those five issues, but he seems to ignore how rare concern for them is. I don't think there is even one person now holding a state-level political office or higher who actively works to address all those issues. I'd give Ron Pa/ul, Bernie Sanders, Dennis Kucinich and maybe a dozen or so other Congressmen credit for taking the right side on three or four of those, but even from them it seems like there isn't too much actual leadership or advocacy or controversial stands, just protest votes. If all the current candidates are unsuitable under Stoller's standards, that might be interesting in some philosophical sense, but it means that those standards just aren't very useful for practical stuff like voting.

Posted by Cyrus | December 26, 2007 4:15 PM

Don't analyze; utilize: http://theseedsof9-11.com

Posted by Peggy McGilligan | December 26, 2007 4:22 PM

"Christ, what an asshole."

I might be a bit blunt, but if you've been paying even a slight amount of attention to the Democratic nomination race, and you can't figure out who's the neo-JFK and who's the neo-RFK in the race, then you're simply not too bright.

The comparisons have been made endless times over the past 9 months because they're so fucking obvious that they approach the level of cliche.

Posted by Petey | December 26, 2007 4:30 PM

And for the dimmer bulbs in the crowd:

JFK - Contempt for the left, soaring rhetoric, very young, breakthrough at the level of identity politics.

RFK - Transformation from center to left, focus on poverty, populist appeal, oddly leftist rhetoric.

And that's the short version.

Posted by Petey | December 26, 2007 4:37 PM

I don't think even John Edwards realizes how bad conditions will be, and suddenly become, in spring 2009. Clinton & Obama will snap so far to the right you aen't going to recognize them. Edwards, I believe, will snap further left than his current policies might indicate.

Saudi Arabia is establishing a near-trillion dollar "sovereign wealth fund." I fear President Edwards will face, besides the usual suspects, new economic enemies in China and the Gulf States.
Actually, I don't fear that at all. Revolution, baby.

The other two, Clinton & Obama, know who they take their orders from in the order of battle of our forever class war.

Posted by bob mcmanus | December 26, 2007 4:48 PM

Maybe it is only a 30% chance that afer the stagflation of 2008 and a Democratic win in November, in December China & SA start dumping dollars, inflation spikes, and Bernanke starts raising FF rates...but I wish I had some extra millions to bet on it.

This is gonna be one fucked Democratic resurgence, unless Democrats do the fucking.

Posted by bob mcmanus | December 26, 2007 5:02 PM

I might be a bit blunt, but if you've been paying even a slight amount of attention to the Democratic nomination race, and you can't figure out who's the neo-JFK and who's the neo-RFK in the race, then you're simply not too bright.

I guarantee you I've been paying as much attention as you have, and I've seen Barack Obama compared to RFK far more than Edwards. Maybe I'm "not too bright," but I'll put my smarts up against yours any day.

The positive trait that RFK is most associated with is civil rights, which is not something Edwards is associated with.

And it was RFK, not JFK, who broke through "at the level of identity politics." The only reason he was poised to run at all was because of his last name.

Petey, you're not blunt, you're an asshole. Everybody knows it. The RFK = Edwards, JFK = Obama analogy is a strained one; calling people "dim" for not agreeing with the aptness of the analogy is just pure dickishness.

I imagine you think it is your duty to shill for Edwards 24/7, but if you really care about Edwards's campaign, you should probably stop - for every person you might convince, you've turned ten others against Edwards.

I'm an Edwards supporter myself. But for people on the fence, the comments you make are probably pushing them away from the Edwards camp, not towards it.

And lay off the predictions about Edwards's impending triumphant revolution. You're starting to sound like a Ron Paul supporter.

Posted by Jason C. | December 26, 2007 5:10 PM

To add - I'd ask people who are on the fence to do their best not to hold Petey against Edwards.

Posted by Jason C. | December 26, 2007 5:11 PM

I'd really like to see some evidence of Obama's "contempt for the left". Frankly his background in the politics of Harvard Law School, as a community organiser and in Chicago politics point the other way, whereas JFK's aristocratic background offered no such evidence.

Obama uses centrist rhetoric because the angry-black-man scenario is unworkable for either the primary or the general election. If Obama said he'd spent the last four years studying poverty, and gave word-for-word the same speeches as Edwards he'd be put into a Jesse Jackson-like dead-end.

Posted by otto | December 26, 2007 5:27 PM

the related problems of America's crazy drug regulation regime and America's horrific prison system

If only Democrats would talk about those issues instead of gas/cigarette taxes and state mandates for inessentialities like pre-K and insulting irrelevancies like the ingredients of the Croissant, I might occasionally vote for them.

Posted by Shinyk | December 26, 2007 5:38 PM

Maybe it's age, but I see the three candidates in question through a 1968 prism, i.e., Humphrey-RFK-McCarthy. We have the establishment figure unable or unwilling to get away from the war, and with a sense of entitlement and an ambiguous relationship with the prior Democratic president; the populist who broke loose; the peace candidate, supported by elites. While no election is like any other, and the times are very different, there is a tendency to fit the latest cast into familiar roles. I certainly hope '08 doesn't have the same ending.

Posted by Henderstock | December 26, 2007 5:46 PM

Maybe this is a good time to ask. Will a reasonable Edwards supporter try to persuade me that Edwards wouldn't immediately move back to the DLC center if nominated?

Posted by Gary Sugar | December 26, 2007 5:59 PM

Maybe someone can also try and persuade us that Edwards wouldn't immediately revert to Iran-war-mongering - "To ensure that Iran never gets nuclear weapons, we need to keep ALL options on the table, Let me reiterate – ALL options must remain on the table." - if nominated?

Posted by otto | December 26, 2007 6:06 PM

Well okay, but I really do want to believe that Edwards would stay liberal. I'll listen to this argument that he was just following conventional wisdom because he didn't really know foreign policy. And maybe there's another argument that I haven't heard yet.

Posted by Gary Sugar | December 26, 2007 6:22 PM

"Edwards wouldn't immediately move back to the DLC center if nominated?"

Petey can give the positive answer to this, I will give the negatives:because Edwards will need to burn every bridge to the center to get nominated & elected. They hate him. And I hate to say anything about it, but there is a chance that Edwards will experience a life-changing personal event that will move him further left.

Posted by bob mcmanus | December 26, 2007 6:26 PM

"for every person you might convince, you've turned ten others against Edwards."

How to Lose Friends and Uninfluence People is one of my favorite books.

-----

Google "RFK Edwards" and you get 250,000 hits. Google "RFK Obama" and you get 120,000 hits.

The comparisons between RFK and Edwards, and the comparisons between JFK and Obama, have been made endless times during this campaign by endless pundits and bloggers. That's why they rise to the level of cliche.

In other words, I can't claim this one as mine.

Posted by Petey | December 26, 2007 6:28 PM

"Maybe this is a good time to ask. Will a reasonable Edwards supporter try to persuade me that Edwards wouldn't immediately move back to the DLC center if nominated?"

It'd take too many words to properly make the case, but the ultra-short answer is that the '98 - '04 period seems the aberration in Edwards' life, not the norm.

During that period, he was listening to the CW of the Democratic Party. Now he's trying to change the CW of the Democratic Party.

Posted by Petey | December 26, 2007 6:32 PM

In other words, I can't claim this one as mine.

Why so modest? I can certainly believe you've compared Edwards to RFK around 100,000 times.

Posted by otto | December 26, 2007 6:32 PM

Populism is scary, especially for liberals. 2008 is going to be a populist year. Huckabee, Paul, & Edwards are the only ones willing to ride the wave instead of trying to build dykes and levees.
Once in office, Edwards will get pushed by the people more than leading them, because Edwards won't have many friends or allies in Washington.

Could be weird, I don't know that we have had many Presidents in America that used mass demonstrations and direct action to intimidate Congress. Edwards = Chavez? I hope so.

Posted by bob mcmanus | December 26, 2007 6:36 PM

"The only way it would be worse is if we also had -- in addition to a carpet-bagging politician, someone who clearly is supposed to be a JFK-like figure and someone who clearly is supposed to be an RFK-life figure -- a bona fide dirty hippy who smelled of patchouli."

Kucinich?

Posted by too many steves | December 26, 2007 6:39 PM

"Populism is scary, especially for liberals."

Populism didn't used to be scary for Dems.

During the '32 - '68 period, Dems rode populism far more than Republicans.

But since then, the GOP has been the ones benefitting from populism. Democrats have justifiably tried to build levees to hide from the electorate during that period, since the electorate wasn't friendly to them.

What makes Edwards such a transformational figure is that a win by him would create a blueprint for Congressional Dems on how to run as populists who are closer to the base and still win.

That would revolutionize the Democratic Party and American politics.

This one is mine: Edwards is the Democratic Reagan.

Posted by Petey | December 26, 2007 6:43 PM

Iran war-mongering is definitely in the cards for whoever is next President. All three Dem candidates are Iran war mongers because their basic declared notions about what Iran is up to are simply wrong and thus lead them directly to a dead-end no matter how they use "diplomacy."

All three believe - right along with Bush - that Iran has no right to uranium enrichment, which by extension means Iran has no right to a nuclear energy program. Since Iran has an absolute established need for a nuclear energy program, this is a non-starter.

Iran just announced intentions to build 19 more nuclear power plants. How's that going to sit with the Dems, let alone the Repugs?

None of them have suggested the sort of "grand bargain" that might enable Iran to have their nuclear energy program without the West having to worry about it.

And suggest that Israel disarm it's nuclear arsenal?

Email me when ANY candidate does that.

Even if Bush and Cheney don't start an Iran war, it's a guarantee that a Democratic President will.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | December 26, 2007 6:43 PM

"This one is mine: Edwards is the Democratic Reagan."

Petey, Reagan was always sufficiently friendly to, and had the support of the military/industrial/financial establishment. Populism will alway be different on the left.

"...it's a guarantee that a Democratic President will."

Really can't afford it, or else they're going to have to find some way to pay for it. There will be stark choices between guns or butter. I know where I think each of the three will land.

Posted by bob mcmanus | December 26, 2007 6:56 PM

Edwards became a populist just recently. Obama was organizing poor people since he graduated from college. Just because Edwards splays himself like a heffer across the holy altar of Katrina doesn't make him the one true populist. It does mean, however, he's a very effective panderer.

I like Edwards. He's my second choice. But I don't think you can throw on a pair of tights and call yourself superman, and likewise, I don't think Edwards can go hug some poor people and call himself the populist. Uh uh, not buying that.

Posted by Abe | December 26, 2007 7:07 PM

Google "RFK Edwards" and you get 250,000 hits. Google "RFK Obama" and you get 120,000 hits. The comparisons between RFK and Edwards, and the comparisons between JFK and Obama, have been made endless times during this campaign by endless pundits and bloggers

That's your argument? That's your basis for calling people stupid?

Argumentum ad Google? (And when I google "RFK Edwards, I get 125,000.) I'll note that neither of those numbers are very large, relative to most google searches.

"Endless pundits and bloggers"? So your assumption is that if people don't pay attention to the same pundits and bloggers you do - or, god forbid, they don't pay attention to any pundits and bloggers - they're "none too swift"?

You're just being an asshole. Deal with it.

Posted by Jason C. | December 26, 2007 7:16 PM

As President Obama signs the shredding and death of Social Security, his supporters will be wetting themselves over his uniting of the two parties in a shared great achievement.

Posted by bob mcmanus | December 26, 2007 7:36 PM

Oh come on, death and shredding? Anyway, thanks. I have no problem with Edwards except what I remember from 98-04.

Likewise, I have no problem with Clinton except what I remember from 91-07.

Posted by Gary Sugar | December 26, 2007 7:52 PM

Can I ask a stupid question? How does lifting the cap on payroll taxes leads to destroying social security?

Posted by MGJ | December 26, 2007 8:03 PM

"Oh come on, death and shredding?"

We are bankrupt, or nearly bankrupt, and the bill will come due. Ending the war in Iraq will cost as much as fighting the war, for at least a decade (military Keynesianism).

Somebody is gonna be paying the bill soon. Obama has made the wrong kind of remarks on social spending, and has the wrong kind of economic advisors for me to believe he will make capitalists pay that bill.

Posted by bob mcmanus | December 26, 2007 8:06 PM

Edwards became a populist just recently.

Define 'recently.'

Can I ask a stupid question? How does lifting the cap on payroll taxes leads to destroying social security?

That's not a stupid question at all. I'd say mcmanus exaggerates, but still, lifting the cap isn't helpful and is potentially harmful.

It isn't helpful because right now, Social Security is running a huge surplus, masking the true size of the Federal general fund deficit, which simply provides the GOP with an excuse to keep the deficits and tax cuts on the rich intact. Adding extra funding for Social Security now allows greater freedom for GOP profligacy.

It's harmful in two ways: first is that eventually that money that the general fund is borrowing from the Social Security trust fund will have to be paid back, if Social Security is to be maintained as is. We don't have much of a Social Security trust fund problem, if we have one at all; we've got a big general fund deficit, though. The real risk is that the general fund deficit will eventually become Social Security's problem. More freedom to be profligate with the general fund now will increase the difficulty of paying it all back beginning in 2017.

The other way it's harmful is that a Democrat's giving credence to the GOP talking points that Something Needs To Be Done about Social Security gives cover for the GOP to try to 'reform' it yet again in ways that would gut it. I'm sure Obama has no plan to gut Social Security, but the GOP sure does, and there's no reason to give them half a chance.

Posted by low-tech cyclist | December 26, 2007 8:40 PM

Well, Bob, you might be right about the bankruptcy coming first.

But if we aren't now, if either Bush or a Democrat attacks Iran, we sure as hell will be then, when China dumps the dollar, and the oil price spikes.

Which raises the question: has ANY Democrat addressed the current economic state of the country? I can't remember seeing any posts about that here.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | December 26, 2007 8:53 PM

Well, I've said it before---I regard Edwards as the "least bad" of the major Democratic candidates...

Is "least bad" good enough? Hard to say...

Posted by RKU | December 26, 2007 9:07 PM

America's crazy drug regulation regime and America's horrific prison system are also big concerns of mine. I support Obama because I believe he knows what we know, but has the political sense to stfu about it until he's in office. Then he'll get those Repubs on board and say bye bye to the Bill Clinton catering-to-fear legacy. That is my prediction.

Posted by Phoebe | December 27, 2007 12:07 AM

No, Phoebe, I don't buy the idea of a con. It never was a con because he never said anything about Kumbaya in the first place. The only way it would be a con would be if he had proclaimed his agenda to be compromise. It's not. That's Clinton's agenda. His agenda is and always has been, "Come to my table and hash out an agreement progressive enough to pass muster. If you refuse to come to my table and hash that deal, you can STFU. If you refuse to STFU, we'll use the John Edwards playbook."

Obama in a nutshell.

Posted by Abe | December 27, 2007 12:42 AM

We are bankrupt, or nearly bankrupt, and the bill will come due.

Bob: How do you figure? Last time I looked total public sector spending in the US was only 36% or so of GDP, and the portion of that spending financed by borrowing was below the OECD average. Moreover, America's workforce and population as a whole are younger than the norm for rich countries, and is growing somewhat faster. These demographic data points argue in favor of America's long term fiscal health, especially in comparison to other rich countries. Health care spending is obviously a weak spot, but absolutely nobody thinks the US healthcare sector will stave of systemic reform forever.

I support Obama because I believe he knows what we know, but has the political sense to stfu about it until he's in office. Then he'll get those Repubs on board and say bye bye to the Bill Clinton catering-to-fear legacy. That is my prediction.

Ahhh, yes. The tried and true mind-reading approach to political science. I predict President Obama will renounce his Democratic party membership, declare himself an independent, fire his VP and appoint John McCain, and introduce legislation privatizing Social Security.

Posted by Jonah | December 27, 2007 12:43 AM

"Come to my table and hash out an agreement progressive enough to pass muster. If you refuse to come to my table and hash that deal, you can STFU. If you refuse to STFU, we'll use the John Edwards playbook."

Obama in a nutshell.

One of the reasons I'm leaning Edwards. These jokers have made it abundantly clear for the past 14 years that they WILL NOT DEAL!! So let's skip to the STFU part. Obama will take two years to get to Edwards' square one.

Posted by nolaboyd | December 27, 2007 12:13 PM

"Edwards became a populist just recently. Obama was organizing poor people since he graduated from college."

Obama was a community organizer for FOUR years some twenty years ago. (1984 to 1988)

Edwards has been something of a populist his entire life. Take a look at who his clients were when he opened his own firm in 1993. Here is a copy of the Two America's speech from four years ago http://www.jregrassroots.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=5052

Edwards (and Obama) has spent the better part of his adult life working to help average Americans through direct advocacy and elected office.

Posted by every man a king | December 27, 2007 11:22 PM