Rorschach

Kevin Drum yesterday noted that "The Democratic primary has become more a Rorschach test than an actual contest." He's right. Great example. Yesterday, someone supporting a different campaign was trying to interest me in some story about how Barack Obama had sold out to insurance companies in the Illinois State Legislature. I didn't look into it, but Paul Krugman found something similar. Now I was reading the excerpt, and I had a reply to the implicit critique Krugman was making. And then I read this from Krugman: "being president isn’t at all like being a state legislator."

Exactly, I thought. Krugman has found an example of Obama doing his job as a state senator well, and decided to simply assume that he doesn't understand that being president is different from being a state senator. I see the reverse -- I see a guy who was an effective state senator, which I see as evidence that he'd be effective in other roles as well.

It's a pure rorschach issue, though. So in the interests of my sanity, I'm going to write the following sentence and then endeavor to drastically curtail my involvement in blogospheric debates about the Democratic primary: I believe that Hillary Clinton is likely to pursue a worse foreign policy than would Barack Obama or John Edwards and I don't see any clear and convincing reason to favor her on other grounds; that said, there's a lot of uncertainty surrounding the decision -- any of these three could be an excellent president and any of them could screw-up.

Comments

Can't you see that my choice is the only genuine, authentic candidate and the other ones are completely and obviously phony?

Posted by Ryan | December 19, 2007 3:38 PM

"I believe that Hillary Clinton is likely to pursue a worse foreign policy than would Barack Obama or John Edwards and I don't see any clear and convincing reason to favor her on other grounds; that said, there's a lot of uncertainty surrounding the decision -- any of these three could be an excellent president and any of them could screw-up."

In the end, I think that this type of analysis is about the best we can really do.

I support Obama. Substantively, the three leading candidates are broadly-speaking very similar. I find Obama inspiring both personally and rhetorically. I think that H. Clinton is (for a host reasons I don't fully understand) too polarizing. I think that Edwards' "fight the power" approach is less likely to produce the progressive change that I favor in a closely divided country and I don't like his anti-free trade leanings. But I could be wrong.

Posted by Chunche | December 19, 2007 3:39 PM

endeavor to drastically curtail my involvement in blogospheric debates about the Democratic primary

Is that going to be your New Year's resolution?

For you I could see that being a lot more difficult than quitting cigarettes or drugs.

Posted by peep | December 19, 2007 3:42 PM

Krugman's attacking Obama on health care again? What is this, the fourth time in two weeks?

In any case, I'd rather take a candidate who has actually helped enact health care reform in his home state (Obama) than a candidate who attempted to enact health care reform and failed miserably (Clinton).

Posted by DaveWoo | December 19, 2007 3:48 PM

I am generally a Krugman fan, but I hated to read him say that Obama "doesn't seem to understand" something because he may (or may not!) disagree with Krugman about tactics. When it comes to Rorschach tests, people don't usually have such a high degree of confidence that they are right, or at least they shouldn't.

Posted by David B. | December 19, 2007 3:51 PM

It's a pure rorschach issue, though. So in the interests of my sanity, I'm going to write the following sentence and then endeavor to drastically curtail my involvement in blogospheric debates about the Democratic primary:

Yeah, right. Good luck.

Posted by Dan Kervick | December 19, 2007 3:51 PM

I tend to agree with Krugman, especially when viewing the comments Obama made at the time and how they dovetail with his campaign rhetoric. That said, given your predominate concern with foreign policy, the differences on this may not be a 'voting' issue for you. Luckily, you don't live in Iowa, so the choice may be considerably narrowed by the time you have to make a definitive choice.

BTW, whatever happened to the early DC primary they tried to have in 2004?

Posted by AJ | December 19, 2007 3:51 PM

I agree. And I'd similarly say, Edwards appears likely to pursue better domestic policies than the other two but the differences are small and the uncertainties are very large.

The other thing not to forget is that overall it's pretty good field. All of the big three have staked out more progressive positions and are stronger candidates for general than Kerry in 2004. And remember, four years ago Joe Lieberman was considered a serious Democratic candidate.

Posted by lemuel pitkin | December 19, 2007 3:56 PM

I agree with Kevin Drum that the Clintons probably do know how to get things done in Washington. My problem is their history of doing a lot of Republican and half-Republican stuff they should not have done.

Likewise, my problem with Edwards is his history. I like everything he's said lately, but I disliked much of what he said four years ago. I have more confidence in him than the Clintons, but I still have too many doubts. Why shouldn't I expect him to shift his positions back to the center once he's been nominated? Why shouldn't I expect him to rejoin his old DLC pals on every issue when he needs to get along with them and the Republicans?

I don't have the same doubts about Obama. He's a liberal and has always been a liberal. He was never for the war before he was against it.

Posted by Gary Sugar | December 19, 2007 4:03 PM

Matt, I think you missed Krugman's point. He didn't, as you suggest,

...simply assume that he doesn't understand that being president is different from being a state senator

He stated that he was concerned that Obama

...thinks that in 2009, as president, he can broker a national health care reform the same way that as a state legislator, in 2003, he brokered a deal that mollified the insurance industry.

The debate is whether Obama really thinks that. And I think that there's some evidence that he does, and that's a concern.

Posted by Mr. E. Meat | December 19, 2007 4:07 PM

Mr. E. Meat: I don't believe there is any evidence of that at all. Edwards supported Nafta and voted for favored nation status for China. Now he's a populist.

I find Obama the more reassuring choice of the three because (1) his core message seems consistant and (2) he seems an effective messenger. And that is the primary job of the president: make judgements in war and effectivly communicating policy positions that the Congress will decide eventually.

Krugman is wrong on this and I find it insulting to suggest that Obama doesn't understand how the job works having taught constitutional law for God's sake. I think he's just trying to score points in a battle he's engaged in w/Obama and carrying water for his candidate.

Posted by Rhoda | December 19, 2007 4:24 PM

Krugman is saying: If you campaign as a uniter, that is how you are going to govern. Isn't that an obvious conclusion?

Posted by apm | December 19, 2007 4:27 PM

Is this the same Kevin Drum who was ridiculing Samantha Power for being a "serious person"? I lost all respect for that guy. Power is an advisor for Obama, btw.

I'd bet Obama would govern as progressively and as competently as Clinton or Edwards. Plus he'd do the Jedi Mind Trick on moderate conservatives like David Brooks, and thereby neutralize them. I think the racial divide is probably America's biggest problem so he'd help with that. Oprah knows this.

Edwards would be great and would live up to his rhetoric and then some. His years as a trial lawyer would serve him well. (recent Dem. Presidents have been from the South: Clinton and Carter.)

Half the population is female and Hillary's election would be a huge boost for the female sex, especially the kids. I don't like Bill, and pray that after inaugeration Hillary would divorce him and date some hot young stud. That would scandalize conservatives.

10 bucks MY blogs about the Dem primary tomorrow!

Posted by Peter K. | December 19, 2007 4:33 PM

I'll take Richardson over any of the Big Three on foreign policy, thank you very much.

He's also talking about economic issues more than Clinton or Obama.

Posted by SocraticGadfly | December 19, 2007 4:33 PM

I think Matt's main point is that nobody really knows which one of the Dem candidates would make the better president so stop pretending that you do. All we have to work from is our gut instincts, and everyone's gut is a little different.

Posted by blah | December 19, 2007 4:36 PM

"I believe that Hillary Clinton is likely to pursue a worse foreign policy than would Barack Obama or John Edwards and I don't see any clear and convincing reason to favor her on other grounds; that said, there's a lot of uncertainty surrounding the decision -- any of these three could be an excellent president and any of them could screw-up."

Sounds right to me. I'm supporting Obama because I think his upside (potential for long-lasting, widespread change) is far greater than Edwards or Clinton, but I recognize there aren't huge policy or ideological distinctions between the three main candidates (save Clinton's needlessly hawkish foreign policy).

Posted by Andrew | December 19, 2007 4:41 PM

Rhoda, I have no idea why you would think Obama having taught constitutional law has anything whatsoever to do with having the political savvy and strength to push a progressive agenda forward against partisan Republicans and corrupt corporate interests. The fact that you site his teaching law as a qualification for such seems beyond naive. And this is the very problem Krugman levels at Obama and by extension his supporters. DC politics is not a constitutional law classroom. If you think it is, take a closer look at how much respect the constitution has gotten the past 6 years.

Posted by kahner | December 19, 2007 4:41 PM

Rhoda, I have no idea why you would think Obama having taught constitutional law has anything whatsoever to do with having the political savvy and strength to push a progressive agenda forward against partisan Republicans and corrupt corporate interests. The fact that you site his teaching law as a qualification for such seems beyond naive. And this is the very criticism Krugman levels at Obama and by extension his supporters. DC politics is not a constitutional law classroom. If you think it is, take a closer look at how much respect the constitution has gotten the past 6 years.

Posted by kahner | December 19, 2007 4:42 PM

I don't believe there is any evidence of that at all. Edwards supported Nafta and voted for favored nation status for China. Now he's a populist.

There's nothing contradictory about favoring trade deals AND populist policies. As far as I know, comparative advantage hasn't been disproved. As long as we all want government to do a lot more to help working folks, we ought to want said government to have access to as much economic wealth as possible. Trade facilitates creation of wealth. It's just that simple. Or, to put it another way, a government presiding over an economy growing at, say, 4% annually is going to be in a stronger position to provide everybody with healthcare (or a clean environment, or good public transportation, or generous retirement benefits, or high quality education, etc.) than a government presiding over an economy growing at 2% a year.

Sorry folks, labor-intensive work ain't coming back to the USA. The quicker we accept that fact and move on -- much as they've done in Scandinavia -- the better. For what it's worth, Edwards's anti-trade rhetoric is probably the one thing I don't like about him, but I figure the more fiery the rhetoric the better when it comes to getting concessions from Big Capital on items like domestic spending and the tax code. Needless to say I support John Edwards.

Posted by Jasper | December 19, 2007 4:43 PM

Oh, and if you're a liberal and you find yourself agreeing with Lou Dobbs and Pat Buchanan 80% of the time, you might want to do some introspection.

Posted by Jasper | December 19, 2007 4:45 PM

Rhoda:
Did you read the Krugman column? Krugman's point is that Obama would be too willing to bend to corporate interests. Look at the example he gave!! Thr corporations said single payer would be bad, and Obama caved. Think about that for a second!!

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | December 19, 2007 4:46 PM

Jasper:
There is a difference between fair and free trade. I think most liberals are in favor of fair not free trade.

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | December 19, 2007 4:51 PM

Joe Klein's conscience: I think most liberals are in favor of fair not free trade.

Yes, I do agree that, sadly, most liberals have fallen for the anti-consumer false doctrine of so-called "fair" trade.

Posted by Jasper | December 19, 2007 4:54 PM

I'll have to wait until after the Repub convention and the total makeover of whoever wins the GOP nomination. After the media gets all their ducks in a row concerning the details of the completely new and fictitious attainments and accomplishments of the GOP nominee, and adjusts their demeanor to the attitude of fawning sycophancy such a paragon deserves, it could be a tough match-up.

Posted by Mooser | December 19, 2007 4:56 PM

Jasper: "Yes, I do agree that, sadly, most liberals have fallen for the anti-consumer false doctrine of so-called "fair" trade"

Methinks that Jasper believes that a consumer is ahead of the game if his or her income goes down by 10% and WalMart gets cheaper by 5%.

Much of the fair trade movement is about linking free trade to measures that reduce income inequality. What's anti-consumer about that, unless the object of consumption is yachts? Another good-sized dollop of the fair trade movement is a call for world minimum standards on employment conditions. If this is anti-consumer, so is the abolition of slavery.

Yes, there are a few mindless protectionists in the fair trade movement. But an ad hominem aspersion can always be made on a minority component of a movement. Think of the goons who support mindless free trade.

Posted by Joe S. | December 19, 2007 5:09 PM

First comment: "Can't you see that my choice is the only genuine, authentic candidate and the other ones are completely and obviously phony?"

I read that and was expecting Petey had written it, and non-sarcastically.

Posted by blah2 | December 19, 2007 5:21 PM

Did you change your post from "someone from the John Edwards Campaign" to "someone supporting a different campaign"?

Posted by pol | December 19, 2007 5:34 PM

Did you change your post from "someone from the John Edwards Campaign" to "someone supporting a different campaign"?

Posted by pol | December 19, 2007 5:35 PM

Krugman is saying: If you campaign as a uniter, that is how you are going to govern. Isn't that an obvious conclusion?

Who was the last candidate to campaign as a uniter? Oh yeah, George Bush.

In any case, I don't have a problem with Obama trying to find common ground with Republicans/Insurance Companies/Iranians etc. It only becomes a problem if he insists that any solution must be a bipartisan one. He should be open for collaboration, but not a slave to it.

Posted by Jinchi | December 19, 2007 5:37 PM

Comparative advantage relies on questionable assumptions, like full employment & balanced trade.(see . Anyway, even orthodox neo-classical theory predicts that free trade will lower the wages of less-skilled workers in rich countries.

Posted by Peter H | December 19, 2007 5:54 PM

Krugman has found an example of Obama doing his job as a state senator well,

I don't see how you infer that this is what Krugman himself thinks his example proves.

In fact, the example is an example in which Obama mostly simply caved to insurance interests (and then tried to make the politics of that cave look less horrible by pretending he was still fighting back, even after the cave).

How you turn that into exemplary behavior even for a state legislator is beyond me.

I think that a better way of understanding Krugman's point is that if this mediocre, compromised legislative product is the best Obama could do even as a state legislator (in Illinois, in 2003) utilizing his "negotiator skills", how well prepared is Obama to press the far more aggressive fight required of a Democratic President in these times?

Posted by frankly0 | December 19, 2007 6:01 PM

My post again:

Comparative advantage relies on questionable assumptions, like full employment & balanced trade.(see here). Anyway, even orthodox neo-classical theory predicts that free trade will lower the wages of less-skilled workers in rich countries.

Posted by Peter H | December 19, 2007 6:22 PM

I read the article as saying that Krugman is affraid that Obama will do a Hilary and get the door slammed in her face the same way.

Since Krugman's objective is to get healthcare reform it makes sense to raise the issue now rather than waiting to see if is concern is warranted after he is elected.

Besides, he as two columns a week to write.

If Obama does think the insurance industry will respond to his kumbayah and has no backup plan he is a fool. Some insurers will play ball but some will not. He has to be prepared to play hardball.

Posted by PHB | December 19, 2007 6:33 PM

I think in the end Edwards vs Obama, at least in terms of their supporters, comes down to what "big" issue you hope they solve. If inequality is your main concern you support Edwards if racism is your focal point you support Obama. I am an Edwards supporter and will be disappointed if he doesn't win, but I would be thrilled if Obama could actually breached the racial divide in this country. I assume most Obama supporters feel the same way about Edwards/inequality.

Posted by realist | December 19, 2007 6:43 PM

and of course breach is the yglesias approved alternative spelling for bridge

Posted by realist | December 19, 2007 6:45 PM

Man, enough with the kumbaya crap. What Obama says and what his record demonstrates about negotiations with the other side shouldn't be characterized as caving in. This meme out there about Obama being naive (A half-black American man who was President of Harvard's Law Review and did Chicago community organizing; I can virtually guarantee you he has seen and put up with shit that would turn most people's hair white)is ridiculous on it's face given Obama's history and record. Frankly, at some point the baseless characterization of naivete starts tying into some pretty nasty tropes.

Much as I respect Krugman, I find his most recent columns on Obama, and particularly that interview at TPM kind of embarassing. For Krugman, in his ivory tower, to characterize someone who has done community organizing in Chicago as "naive" is just regrettable hyperbole. I wish Krugman would just take a breath and realize his status does not live and die on bringing Obama down.
I agree with the central point of this post; it is a Rosarch test. I have my preferences and the reasons for my preferences reflect my priorities, but I'd be happy with almost any of the Democratic slate. My preferences inform my best guess for who would be best and it would be idiotic to pretend that my bases for choosing trump those of another candidate's supporters.

Posted by idabw | December 19, 2007 7:00 PM

And now its Rorschach
And Prozac
And everything is goovey.

Posted by Nick Cave | December 19, 2007 7:33 PM

idabw said:
Frankly, at some point the baseless characterization of naivete starts tying into some pretty nasty tropes.

and in the same post says

kind of embarassing. For Krugman, in his ivory tower, to characterize someone who has done community organizing in Chicago as "naive"
Come on, at least be consistent within a single post. Are you seriously contending that Krugman shouldn't be able to criticize Obama for naivete because Krugman is a university professor and Obama is "A half-black American man who was President of Harvard's Law Review and did Chicago community organizing". What a jackass argument. I'm sure Krugman does no live and die by Obama's futures, but he has an opinion and he clearly has strong feelings on it. So try basing your arguments on the facts at hand, not the whether one party is half black or the other is in an ivory tower. The people who use that sort of rhetoric hand out at redstate.org.

Posted by kahner | December 19, 2007 8:02 PM

Kahner, the point that needs to be made is that Hillary and Edwards supporters have both been trying to caricature Obama as this delusional magic negro with a messiah-complex who thinks he's Martin Luther King and JFK and Ghandi all rolled into one. Obama himself has never said that much. Actually, the only president who I've ever heard Obama liken himself to is, interestingly enough, Teddy Roosevelt. He has said he wants to bust trusts and bring power back to working people just like Teddy Roosevelt. That's it. That's who he compares himself to. Obama as Roosevelt. Chew on it.

Posted by Abe | December 19, 2007 8:19 PM

Actually, the only president who I've ever heard Obama liken himself to is, interestingly enough, Teddy Roosevelt.

Obama did try out the Lincoln analogy for a while at the beginning.

Posted by Jackmormon | December 19, 2007 8:30 PM

A lot of people say Obama has IT and nobody else. I've been trying to figure out what IT is, and I think I've figured it out.

The difference between Obama versus Edwards and Hillary is that Obama is a Confidence Democrat while Hillary and Edwards are Quaking Democrats. Huge difference here. What's the difference? When Obama makes a decision, he never comes across as though he's afraid of what someone will think of him. When he speaks, he talks as if he doesn't care who's listening. He doesn't pander. He doesn't posture. He does what he believes is right.

That's what his persona says to me. Now, I'm no mind-reader. Maybe Edwards is just as if not more fearless and bold than Obama. But he doesn't strike me that way. He strikes me as somebody who only turned hard-left because he needed a niche to stay competitive. He strikes me as somebody who is more interested in appearing to be progressive than actually being progressive. The Democratic Mitt Romney(although not even close to as slimy), basically.

So this is the difference: Obama strikes me as the only one of the three frontrunners who is interested in reality. Both Hillary and Edwards have to spin themselves as what they are not in order to prove their "bona-fides". They act like they're compensating for something, a lack of confidence in their own record and their own credentials. They have to build up the Republicans to this monolithic caricature that does not coincide with reality. In short, they are living in Cartoonland.

I also think anybody who tries to caricature Obama's approach as "kumbaya" is just being a jerk. If you were actually paying attention to Obama's actual rhetoric, you'd find that what he's really talking about is guns and sausages.(a variation of carrots and sticks) Which means: I'm not going to try to blow your limbs off at the outset. If you cooperate, you can have the juicy sausage. If you don't, I'll use the sausage to lure away your dogs, then I'll sick your dogs on you and have THEM bite your limbs off. If the Republicans cooperate, they'll cooperate. If they don't, Obama will go straight to Republican moderates and use red meat to make them vote their uncooperative leaders out of office.

That's what I'm hearing in Obama's rhetoric.

Posted by Abe | December 19, 2007 8:42 PM

Since many on the right reflexively distrust Krugman, and since many on the right seem intrigued by Obama (for reasons I welcome but don't totally understand), this strikes me as pretty much all to the good.

Posted by f. stop fitzgerald | December 19, 2007 8:48 PM

Rhoda, I really don't think anyone is trying to paint Obama as a "delusional magic negro with a messiah-complex". They are trying to portray him as believing in a compromise strategy as key to his administration. A "new kind of politics" that looks to the past, not the future. etc etc. And guess what? Its because that's his whole campaign. Thats what he says on the stump. Now, maybe Obama is right, and that will work. Or maybe its all just campaign rhetoric to get elected. Either way, I am not overly impressed. I'd support Obama if he won. I'd be happy to have a democrat and an african american as president (or anyone not a rich, white male would be nice). But please don't use polemic, racially charged rhetoric like "delusional magic negro with a messiah-complex" to describe my criticism of him. I doubt Mr. Krugman or other critics would appreciate the characterization either. So once again, stick to the facts not the hyperbole.

Posted by kahner | December 19, 2007 9:25 PM

Obama = Tiger Woods

He will win you some majors but he is never going to challege Augusta National to change its policies.

Posted by another semi-ridiculous comparison | December 19, 2007 9:52 PM

I think Krugman is rather instructive here:

In the tpm interview he says that the basic determinant of a candidates view on domestic policy.Why? Because the dems will not end the war until they have a permanent majority to vote it through. I work for a democratic congress person who parrots sort of the I must "support the troops" line of thinking (as stupid as that is. Also, know one is going to start another war. The neocon regime toppling method is very well discredited; the public just wont support it.

However, the public is thirsting for economic change. Most people are just not doing as well as they once were. So that is where most change will occur.

My seems to think mostly in foreign policy terms about the presidency. Obama or Edwards will change the course, so to speak. However, the idea that Obama will do something spectacularly different or has some greater qualities is not borne of the facts. Rhetoric is not a substitute for policy. Can he charm us out of the military industrial complex? My guess is no.

On the other hand, building a stable coalition is about appealing to Americas shared class interests. 80+ percent of the public has a common cause. The old dem party was built on a large class coalition, not anticommunism. And I feel the anti-Iraq coalition is a fleeting long term political enterprise. Class is not.

Posted by jeff | December 19, 2007 9:52 PM

The difference between Obama versus Edwards and Hillary is that Obama is a Confidence Democrat while Hillary and Edwards are Quaking Democrats.

Yeah...the guy who won a cakewalk election and sells himself on hope and is afraid to upset his corporate donors (obama is awash in corporate money) is so tough. Come on. Obama is the democrat least willing to stand up and say unpopular things. if anything he wants to be everything to everyone. You know, just hope and all out problems will go away.

Posted by jeff | December 19, 2007 10:06 PM

Mr. Obama has always avoided taking a real stand on issues, though I would be glad to be proved wrong. On recent votes important to the democratic
base and its issues, he has issued statements, but
has always conveniently absented himself from voting on them in congress. The latest issue on wiretapping is an example. To be fair, on this particular matter, Clinton also dodged the vote.

An earlier incident in the senate comes to mind when Mr Obama tried his Kumbaya routine and promptly got publicly bullied and humiliated by Mr. McCain. I am personally not confident that he has the spine to fight for what he claims to believe in.

Posted by krsa | December 19, 2007 10:22 PM

Edwards has accomplished nothing of significance outside of a courtroom. And Hillary, jeez, she took on the insurers (kind of), got waxed, and spent the last 13 years dancing to the Mark Penn pied piper tune. Obama got something done in Springfield, and he'll do it as President. Game set match.

Posted by David B. | December 19, 2007 10:26 PM

So in the interests of my sanity, I'm going to write the following sentence and then endeavor to drastically curtail my involvement in blogospheric debates about the Democratic primary: I believe that Hillary Clinton is likely to pursue a worse foreign policy than would Barack Obama or John Edwards and I don't see any clear and convincing reason to favor her on other grounds; that said, there's a lot of uncertainty surrounding the decision -- any of these three could be an excellent president and any of them could screw-up.

Tell you what: learn to write, then get back to us.

Posted by Normally I'm Pretty Flexible | December 19, 2007 11:36 PM

Abe:
You are joking, right? The Rethugs are gonna fight like hell to block anything the Dems are going to want to do. If you can guarantee me we will have 60+ Dems in the Senate in '09, I might believe you. Otherwise we need someone who is willing to fight for progressive ideals. Is Obama willing to use every tool at his disposal? Will he piss off Brooks and Broder in order to get the best possible deal done? I am skeptical. Nice smear of Edwards by comparing him to Willard. Someone else made a great analogy. They compared Obama to Tiger Woods. It applies on that neither are willing to truly shake up the establishment too much(if at all).

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | December 19, 2007 11:40 PM

"any of these three could be an excellent president and any of them could screw-up."

My take: none of these three would be an EXCELLENT President and just about all of them could screw up big time - and probably will.

First, there is no such thing as an "excellent" President except one who resigns on Inauguration Day. (Old Karl Hess: Q: What would you do as President? A: I'd quit.)

Second, Hillary has zero chance of being an "excellent" - or even a non-corrupt - President. Bill proved that.

Third, Obama has already screwed up by continuing the "Iran is a threat" rhetoric. If you claim he doesn't really believe it, then he's just another political liar - and has again screwed up.

Edwards I haven't followed that closely - but no doubt he's got "issues" as well.

And ALL of them are beholden to the same campaign contributors who brought you the Iraq war.

So Matt thinks all of them "could" be an "excellent" President?

When he learns to spell and use proper grammar...

"endeavor to drastically curtail my involvement in blogospheric debates about the Democratic primary"

In other words, his first post tomorrow will be about the primary.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | December 19, 2007 11:45 PM

There was one other President whose main political experience was in the Illinois legislature, except for a brief time in the US Congress (as a rep, rather than a Senator).

Abraham Lincoln.

Posted by JH | December 20, 2007 12:53 AM

Don't curtail your involvement!

It's Krugman who should curtail his involvement.

Posted by KathyF | December 20, 2007 2:07 AM

jeff wrote-"Yeah...the guy who won a cakewalk election and sells himself on hope and is afraid to upset his corporate donors (obama is awash in corporate money) is so tough."

Won with the biggest plurality in Illinois history, btw, winning every single demographic category including roughly half of all Republicans. Hillary won a cakewalk election with the help of a former president in a solid blue state. Edwards, who was up by roughly 4-8 points when he decided to run, may very well have lost his own Senate seat in 2004. Oh, btw, Obama has the highest approval ratings in the Senate.

But in regards to your main points: Obama doesn't take lobbyist or PAC money. That alone is as much as anybody in this race has done(aside from Edwards' very expedient "no, I'm not broke, I'm principled" posturing on public financing"). Actually, Obama was the very first person to stick his neck out for public financing, as from the beginning of the race he put out a challenge to he eventual Republican nominee that said he would agree to run a joint publicly financed campaign with whomever he faced. Obama is in fact one of the biggest collaborators with John McCain's efforts to advance public financing.

Obama passed the first ethics reform in Illinois in 25 years. Obama passed the biggest ethics reform since Watergate in the US Senate. Obama is the only candidate in this primary who has done ANYTHING, whatsoever, to take on corporate interests. Edwards' anti-corporate rhetoric sounds good, but if anyone shows themselves to be an empty suit it is him, who has done absolutely nothing to back up his words(and Hillary has no problems with corporatism, as long as corporatism is backing her).

jeff further wrote-"Obama is the democrat least willing to stand up and say unpopular things. if anything he wants to be everything to everyone. You know, just hope and all out problems will go away."

Obama stood up to the NEA in support of merit pay(although he was actually talking supplementary merit pay, but it wasn't spun that way). Obama stood up to the automakers in helping to raise CAFE standards for the first time in a decade and has proposed raising gas mileage standards to a minimum of 40 MPG. Obama stood up on ethics reform, which faced major opposition from both parties. Obama stood up on predatory lending many many months ago before any talk of subprime mortgages. Obama stood up on blocking the appointments of several Bush partisan appointees to federal regulatory agencies. I could go on. . . oh, I know! Obama stood up against the public opinion of 75% of the country, a media consensus, neo-liberal weaklings like the two other frontrunners in this race and opposed the war in Iraq. Not only that, he opposed it for all the right reasons, identifying all the reasons we shouldn't invade, identifying to the T all the consequences that ended up happening exactly how he predicted.

Yeah, you're premise that Obama "doesn't stand up" IS absurd.

Moving on. . .
Joe Klein's conscience-So you're saying Edwards is a fighter? How come he never fought when he actually had a job? How come both chances he got to NOT get steamrolled, as a senator and as a presidential candidate, he got steamrolled? Four years and one mea culpa later and suddenly he's a progressive tough-guy, the "only man with the stones to fight those evil vicious corporate swine". Bullshit. He IS Willard--only nicer looking, less slimy, and pontifficating in ways that would be very endearing if only he wasn't so disingenuous in trying to crown himself with the title of Great Populist Champion that his pansy neo-liberal record certainly doesn't entitle him to.

Obama NEVER said his goal was Kumbaya. The Edwards and Hillary backers came up with that one, which shows complete ignorance at what Obama is trying to do. Obama never allied himself with Brooks and Broder.

Obama's argument can be broken down like this:

1. EDUCATE Shine a light on government, get the facts, tell the truth. Hold Fireside Webcasts every week and use the bully pulpit(ala FDR). The less ignorant people are, the more progressive they will become. Obama has drawn up radical plans to create the most transparent government ever. He wants every document, every piece of dirty government business to be put out into the open so that people can clearly see who's honest and who's a hack. He will create an easy-to-use feedback system, direct contact(and as well, accountability) between the president and the people. Push public service beyond any presidency in history. Push public participation more than any other presidency in history. Engage the electorate. Make them part and parcel with the government--transform the very White House into the base of the biggest grassroots organization ever built.(Shorter Jefferson: Democracacy enabled by informed and engaged citizenry)

Then:

2. CARROTS Fraternize with the enemy. Talk with Republicans we don't like. Try pursuasion, see if it works. Stick to principles and always speak from a position of "I'm considering what you think but this is better". See if you can get the Republicans to cooperate. Give them every chance to be good guys. Show some respect.

3. STICKS If #2 doesn't work, that's where #1 comes in. Utilize the bully pulpit afforded by the most open and transparent and actively engaged presidency in US history to defeat Republicans in the court of public opinion. They will wilt. And if they don't wilt, they will pay and a super-majority will be voted in to enact the change the obstructionists tried to stop.

3 steps. There's your comprehensive approach. Notice: Step 2 is distinctly Hillary. Step 3 is dinstinctly Edwards. But step 1, the one that enables steps 2 and 3 to work, is the one that is only being pushed by Obama. There's your difference, there's your change. That's something Obama and only Obama is offering.

Without active citizenship, both Hillary and Edwards' approaches are bound to fail.

Posted by Abe | December 20, 2007 3:27 AM

Of course, it's well worth noting two things:

1) Saying "there's no way to tell the difference between the three" is the central core of Clinton's strategy. Funny how almost of the folks who say that are supporting Clinton.

2) Kevin Drum's paychecks come from one of the largest financial supporters of the Clinton campaign in the country. Funny how that coincides almost perfectly with his blogging on the race.

But don't bother your head with minor stuff like that Matt. All this primary unpleasantness will be over soon enough, and then you can just spend the next 4 or 8 years complaining that we chose the wrong nominee.

And I'd say Kevin is in line for a raise after his performance this year.

Posted by Petey | December 20, 2007 7:30 AM

Rhoda, I have no idea why you would think Obama having taught constitutional law has anything whatsoever to do with having the political savvy and strength to push a progressive agenda forward against partisan Republicans and corrupt corporate interests. The fact that you site his teaching law as a qualification for such seems beyond naive. And this is the very criticism Krugman levels at Obama and by extension his supporters. DC politics is not a constitutional law classroom. If you think it is, take a closer look at how much respect the constitution has gotten the past 6 years.

I cite it because he's always made out to be this naive idiot-savant that has no skills or practical knowledge behind his drive to become president of the united states.

I didn't make that magical negro comment, btw.

I think it's patently false to claim he doesn't have the skills to push through reforms when he has demonstrated these skills in IL as a legislator and has demonstrated his political skills in taking his momment on the national stage in 2004 and leveraging it so well: it means he will know how to use the President's bully pulpit. Hillary Clinton has been there for 30 plus years and has never taken the opportunity to do the same things. She has failed to stand up for core democratic beliefs in my mind and effect change: the war in Iraq and the Iran guards thing being the most recent.

I don't understand how I was being naive in hoping for a president grounded in the constitution; it'd make a nice change.

Posted by Rhoda | December 20, 2007 9:48 AM

Rhoda, sorry about the magial negro confusion. Someone else rebutted a point I made in reference to you. I missed the "posted by" line actaully Abe. And I'm not a huge Hillary fan, I def lean edwards but I don't have illusions any of them are so great. I just don't think Obama is that great either, in part for reasons i stated about. And finally, I want a president grounded in the constitution, but my point is that the other side clearly is not. So academic constitutional knowledge is not the key to success here. Now i'm going back to sleep because i'm sick and its almost xmas. (i would say christmas but i'm part of the war on that)

Posted by kahner | December 20, 2007 10:07 AM

"2) Kevin Drum's paychecks come from one of the largest financial supporters of the Clinton campaign in the country. Funny how that coincides almost perfectly with his blogging on the race."

Good to know. This why I like the Internets, easy to find out who's paying who to do what.

Posted by Peter K. | December 20, 2007 12:35 PM

The key point Krugman makes is that Obama worked as a legislator with Republican opposition who were semi-reasonable. He seems to be undertaking a campaign for President using similar strategies as then.

Trouble is, as Krugman says, "there are no moderate Republicans" in Congress. National level congressional politics has become much less like the collegial systems of the past and much more parliamentary, largely due to changes in funding structures, media ownership and focus and a bunch of other structural societal factors.

Obama may understand all this and have a plan to do things differently, but as others have noted, his entire stump speech and campaign is based around pretending it's all going to be a bright bipartisan future.

And that's just how young Tony Blair was and that's just how Tony ended up supporting GWB...

So I think it's fair to worry about it, if you're a progressive.

Posted by Meh | December 21, 2007 12:06 PM