The Question of Toughness

I somehow doubt that David Brooks' glowing endorsement of Barack Obama will darken liberal doubts that he has what it takes to fight for progressive values. Basically, you face the same choice over and over again -- is Obama's undeniable ability to win sympathy and praise from the more mild-mannered and open-minded segments of the right evidence of his internal frailty or is it evidence of his ability to build a dominant political coalition. It counts, in a sense, as "evidence" for either thesis. I'll admit that I liked Obama from before I ever heard a word from him about politics or policy, so obviously I'm biased, but I see it more in the pro-Obama way.

At any rate, maybe Ed Kilgore or Mark Kleiman will convince you.

Comments

But both you and Brooks hate politics, Matthew, which is why you and Brooks love guys like Obama and McCain.

You both have the delusion of Broder-ism dancing in your heads.

Posted by Petey | December 18, 2007 3:02 PM

is Obama's undeniable ability to win sympathy and praise from the more mild-mannered and open-minded segments of the right evidence of his internal frailty or is it evidence of his ability to build a dominant political coalition[?]

I'm hoping it's merely a willingness to snap on a latex glove and jack off the fauntleroys. In a perfect world, an Obama administration would be adept at spinning the pea brains of Brooks and the rest of the World's Most Useless People™ up in the Beltsphere by recycling their own Reasonable People Platitude midden into a conventional wisdom stew, all the while dismantling the prerogatives of their entire, sickening parasite class.

But it's a fallen world.
.

Posted by Grand Moff Texan | December 18, 2007 3:11 PM

Grand Moff Texan:

You could've been a bit more down the middle with your analysis, but point taken.

Posted by Bill | December 18, 2007 3:15 PM

Is Obama's undeniable willingness to pander to David Brooks and Tim Russert on Social Security and healthcare evidence of his lack of commitment to progressive causes or is it evidence of his lack of a political backbone?

It counts, in a sense, as "evidence" for either thesis.

-----

Is Obama's undeniable weakness in general election polls compared to John Edwards evidence of his weakness in his political biography or evidence of his weakness in emphasizing issues important to the voting public?

It counts, in a sense, as "evidence" for either thesis.

Posted by Petey | December 18, 2007 3:15 PM

Once, Christopher Hitchens (writing, I think, in The Nation, but I'm not certain) stated, "Bipartisanship equals death."

And there is truth to the idea that a bipartisan agenda can be very, very bad for the principles that liberals ascribe to.

That said, I think it's foolish for anyone to believe with certainty that Clinton or Edwards or Obama has the right strategy for getting things accomplished. Each of them will face battles. Each of them will be vilified. Each of them will have to calibrate their aggressiveness, depending on the circumstances.

Bill Clinton -- aside from great personal skills -- was also very fortunate in his choice of enemies. Yet despite some very important accomplishments, there were a number of areas (e.g., minimum wage, automobile emissions) where he accomplished nothing.

I believe Obama's temperment and style might ultimately prove more effective, but, again, anyone who knows for certain is only guessing, no matter how many times they shout "Broderism" or "phony."

Posted by Ryan Scott | December 18, 2007 3:19 PM

Obama, McCain, Edwards....

All irrelevant.

Just like the rest of us, they are nothing but spectators in the Ron Paul Re-love-ution!

You've heard it before and it's true - he is the only man that can save America.

Posted by SoCalJustice | December 18, 2007 3:20 PM

Mighty white of you, Bill, but I save my most earthy metaphors for an elite, broadly construed and narrowly populated, rather than one side of an alleged political spectrum. If the time since November 2006 and now has taught us anything, it's that nothing will change so long as we are governed by the Right Sort of People.

That is, if I understood what you meant about "middle."
.

Posted by Grand Moff Texan | December 18, 2007 3:21 PM

ABC = Anyone But Clinton

After 8 years of a president who would never have been able to get elected if not for his father having been president, I don't want 4 (or 8) years of a president who never would have been able to run for major political office, let alone for president, if she hadn't been married to a former president. Clinton's candidacy is purely a product of her celebrity. Obama's is based on celebrity too, and Edwards to a lesser extent. But her celebrity is the foundation and wellspring of her entire political career. She's never won an election that was even remotely a contest, and hopefully she won't.

Obama, sure. Edwards, okali-dokaly. Clinton? No.

Petey - In this country, I question the sanity of anyone who doesn't hate politics. Politics in this country as every bit as much of a joke as the media is.

Posted by blah | December 18, 2007 3:25 PM

"Petey - In this country, I question the sanity of anyone who doesn't hate politics."

Those in the political arena who hate politics, folks like Yglesias, Brooks, and Broder; folks like McCain, Lieberman, and Obama, tend to be far more clueless than those who embrace politics.

If I hated and rejected politics like Matthew, how would I be able to figure out who to support in the Democratic race? I'd go with who I liked symbolically, and as with Matthew, end up in Obama's corner.

But instead, I like and embrace politics because, unlike Matthew, I understand that politics determines policy outcomes. So I'm in Edwards' corner.

Posted by Petey | December 18, 2007 3:35 PM

I'll admit that I liked Obama from before I ever heard a word from him about politics or policy

Huh? When was this? Obama's been in politics since the mid-90s, assuming we don't count community organizing as politics (which we very well could). And Matt would have been something like five years old when Obama was in law school...

Posted by Tom | December 18, 2007 3:37 PM

I think it will be nice to have a Democratic President who isn't absolutely loathed by 50% of the nation by Inauguration Day. As the Bush/Rove strategy has shown, while you can win elections with barely a majority, it is difficult subsequently to govern when you've pushed an "us vs. them" line.

I say if Obama can have a generally progressive voting record and be considered "reasonable and bipartisan" by the Important People, more power to him. Remember; it isn't bipartisanship per se that we dislike, but rather bipartisanship-as-cover-for-Republican-failures of the type pedalled by Broder that is the real problem.

I'm no fan of Brooks (he called Lamont's primary against Lieberman a "jihad", something I find quite unforgivable), but I think it is going to be easier for Obama to govern with more people "on board" than less; thus making good policy outcomes more likely.

Posted by P | December 18, 2007 3:39 PM

"I say if Obama can have a generally progressive voting record and be considered "reasonable and bipartisan" by the Important People, more power to him."

If you think having a candidate who has appeal to Brooks and Broder will enable good policy outcomes, you've got an "interesting" theory of how Washington works.

Posted by Petey | December 18, 2007 3:43 PM

And please, everybody; Spare me the "But..but..the Republican Attack Machine(c) will tear hime apart!" B.S. Obama is being attacked right now about Muslim this and cocaine dealer that...and he's doing fine. For once, don't be so cowed by what hardcore Republicans will say, most of which is already being said by Clinton surrogates...

Posted by P | December 18, 2007 3:45 PM

Today the cynic in me prevails: Brooks and other moderate GOP opinion mandarins are setting a trap for undecided primary voters like me. Obama, they say, has more cross-over appeal than the other candidates, especially the reviled Clinton. They almost declare they'd vote for Obama over any other candidate, Democrat or Republican, just because, well, he's so inspiring and post-partisan. They're egging us on: if you nominate this good guy, they suggest, this guy who will build a bridge from blue-state to red-state America, we'll do the unthinkable and hand over the White House to the Democrats. The election will usher in a new era of national reconciliation, rainbows and unicorns.

Now do y'all really believe this hooey? David Brooks may well respect Obama's good character and potential to be a transformational leader, but does anyone genuinely believe he'd support a President Obama's progressive policies? Does anyone genuinely believe he'd throw the lever for Obama rather than, say, McCain or even Giuliani?

The Republicans know oh so well how to run a campaign against Obama: racist, racist and more racist. They've spent decades perfecting Swift Boat-style attacks on sterling candidates (Willie Horton, anyone?). They'll build Obama up as a primary candidate only to tear him down easily in the general (or so they calculate). The only question, should Obama win the nomination, is whether or not it would work as well as it has for decades, whether we've truly moved past the Lee Atwater legacy of divisive racial politics. And none of us know the answer to that question.

David Brooks is the pundit equivalent of Arlen Specter: quick to offer self-important commentary about the extremism of the current GOP and the appeal of certain moderate-sounding Democrats but never failing to fall in line when the hammer meets the road. Feh, I'm sick of these so-called moderates.

Posted by BryklynLibrul | December 18, 2007 3:48 PM

Petey- look at Barack's record in the Senate. Or in the Illinois Senate. That is what I would call "generally progressive". If you don't agree, I guess we have a different idea of what "generally progressive" means.

Posted by P | December 18, 2007 3:49 PM

Kleiman seems to think that Obama's style makes him harder to attack. Um, [cough] MADRASSA [/cough], no. Kilgore seems to assume that "corporate -vs- populist" still maps well with "Republican -vs- Democrat".
.

Posted by Grand Moff Texan | December 18, 2007 3:49 PM

Obama's appeal across the board is more due to the way he's been able to mount a credible candidacy for president without actually saying anything outside of platitudes about change and moving beyond what divides us, along with a warmed over incremental health plan that he thinks HMOs won't fight too hard.

Posted by justinb | December 18, 2007 3:52 PM

Tony Karon posted here: http://tonykaron.com/2007/12/18/hillarys-southern-strategy-muslim-baiting/ an item about Clinton surrogates raising the general issue of Obama's "foreignness". Karon is appalled, as probably are most MY readers. But the Republicans would do stuff like this against Obama in the fall, and (I think, contrary to everyone else I know) it would work well enough to win.
While I'm not a progressive, I would prefer Obama to almost any Republican running--but shouldn't some more thought be given to whether someone with such an exotic background could win the presidency, rather than whether or not David Brooks likes him or not? A young left liberal journalist told me the other day that the Left finds Obama's globalist, world man qualities a plus for his campaign. As a presidential candidate? It's a really big risk. No other country in the world would elect someone who seems "foreign" in a time of crisis. America is different, but probably not that different.

Posted by Scott | December 18, 2007 3:53 PM

But both you and Brooks hate politics, Matthew, which is why you and Brooks love guys like Obama and McCain.

You both have the delusion of Broder-ism dancing in your heads.

I agree with Petey (for once). I have nothing against Obama, who does in fact have a progressive record. But he presents himself as above politics, as someone who heal the nation, all of those things that stimulate the Brooks/Broder crowd in a way that anti-ED medication no longer can.

And while I like this blog, I think it's fair to say that Matt often lapses into Broderism.

None of this means you should vote against Obama. Just because Broder and Brooks like someone doesn't mean that person is bad.

Posted by Exile on Ericsson St. | December 18, 2007 3:55 PM

Brooklyn--
It's obvious to you and me, but you have to yell to get it through some people's thick skulls: THEY 'LIKE' HIM BECAUSE THEY'RE CERTAIN HE WILL LOSE THE GENERAL ELECTION. Let's see: he's black, he admits to having used cocaine, his middle name is 'Hussein,' he has Moslem relatives, and, oh yeah, he's not a populist. Yeah, I think they're right about him, just like they were right to sabotage Dean and lay off of Kerry. Right and evil, but still right.

Posted by calling all toasters | December 18, 2007 3:56 PM

I'm sure Brooks is just trying to wind up Krugman with that piece.

Posted by Chris | December 18, 2007 4:00 PM

To the extent the argument against Obama is, "some people are too racist to vote for him," who cares? Does the democratic party plan to represent those people, or just take their votes and ignore them?

Posted by henry evans | December 18, 2007 4:00 PM

Petey: Please define what you mean by politics.

Posted by Led | December 18, 2007 4:03 PM

"Petey: Please define what you mean by politics."

What happens in Washington is determined by what happens outside Washington. Elections matter. Electoral coalitions matter. How you run for office determines how you'll be able to govern in office. Etcetera.

Posted by Petey | December 18, 2007 4:09 PM

Yep, "Calling All Toasters" really nailed it, dead on.

For various reasons, Obama seems to be running as the most anti-populist of the main Democratic candidates.

Now that worked fine when he was running for President of the Harvard Law Review, and it worked again when he was running against Alan Keyes(!) for the Senate in a very "blue" state. But it didn't seem to work so well for that other Democratic Senate candidate in Tennessee...

Posted by RKU | December 18, 2007 4:10 PM

Chris:

I'm sure Brooks is just trying to wind up Krugman with that piece.

Maybe. But I bet Brooks really believes it. He drank the Kool Aid.

The column really pissed me off. More than usual. So I'm gonna have to go with Obama to see if he can keep doin the Jedi Mind Trick on middle of the road conservatives. Plus he's got Oprah in his corner.

Posted by Peter K. | December 18, 2007 4:14 PM

No other country in the world would elect someone who seems foreign in a time of crisis.

See: Fujimori in Peru during the time of Tupac Amaru and Shining Path. See: Sarkozy in France at a time of Arab/Muslim fractionalization. India just elected Sonia Gandhi's party despite the ongoing Kashmir standoff and nuclear-armed Pakistan.

This doesn't prove anything about Obama, but I just felt like fact-checking...

Posted by nbt | December 18, 2007 4:17 PM

The fact that Brooks favors Obama while pouting that "He talks about independence, but he has never quite bucked liberal orthodoxy or party discipline." suggests that right-leaning independents are willing to go along with someone who talks in conservative terms while working for liberal policies.

It's not a matter of hating or liking politics, it's whether you think politics could be something more then just calling as many people like you as you can and numerically overwhelming everyone who's different from you. I mean, that's part of it, but believing that "divergent interests can be reconciled and common solutions devised for common problem" is an implicit assumption of liberal government--if government is nothing but my team versus your term, working toward the common good makes no sense.

It's a difference between whether you should try to exert some magical control over the mental framing devices of 300 million people, or you should try to defend your chosen policy from the perspective of as many different frames and interests as possible. It's whether you scream about how evil corporations destroy the environment or you're willing to give autoworkers health care in exchange for fuel efficiency.

Posted by Consumatopia | December 18, 2007 4:22 PM

I liked Obama from before I ever heard a word from him about politics or policy

Okay, I'll take the bait. What is it about Obama that you like, if it isn't politics or policy? And if, as a professional pundit, you're favoring candidates for something that has nothing to do with politics or policy, shouldn't that bother you?

Posted by Christmas | December 18, 2007 4:22 PM

THEY 'LIKE' HIM BECAUSE THEY'RE CERTAIN HE WILL LOSE THE GENERAL ELECTION. Let's see: he's black, he admits to having used cocaine, his middle name is 'Hussein,' he has Moslem relatives, and, oh yeah, he's not a populist.

Well, at least you aren't trying to sell the line that Edwards' greatest strength is his fighting fightitude.

Posted by Duvall | December 18, 2007 4:23 PM

THEY 'LIKE' HIM BECAUSE THEY'RE CERTAIN HE WILL LOSE THE GENERAL ELECTION.

Obama can beat Huckabee. Which is why we like Huckabee even though he goes on and on about Baby Jesus.

Posted by Peter K. | December 18, 2007 4:26 PM

I think when Brooks and Broder are (accurately) described as hating politics what that means is that they hate it when anyone outside the Beltway expresses an opinion other than "God Bless America" and hate it even when they express that using any kind of profanity.

And they hate it even more when people outside the beltway nose around and find out what's going on in the corridors of power. They are by far the most anti-blogger of any major pundits -- even Chris Matthews and Joe Klein can say "left-wing blogger" or at least the names of the more pro-establishment ones (such as Matt and Josh Marshall) without a sneer.

Posted by Exile on Ericsson St. | December 18, 2007 4:30 PM

You people sound like sports radio.

Posted by Senescent | December 18, 2007 4:34 PM

I'm more than a bit tired of reading Petey's paeans to Edwards.

Yes, Edwards has claimed to be a progressive for the last couple of years as a private citizen. But he was a lousy Veep candidate in the '04 general election (if you're concerned Obama might have the famously phrased 'instinct for the capillary', I invite you to review the '04 veep debate; in that and the rest of the campaign Edwards was a walking, talking marshmallow) and in his only active involvement in public policy, Edwards was a very forgettable but relatively conservative Democratic senator.

Yes, Obama talks a very bipartisan game, at a time when our policy needs do not exactly call for compromise with the right. But remember: Obama has voted and still votes more progressively than Clinton does or Edwards did. Alone among leading Dem contenders, Obama was right on the war, and while at least Edwards has apologized he doesn't inspire my confidence on the issue. It is critical to legislative success to claim the rhetorical middle ground, and that rhetorical position need have little or no actual connection to your policies (hold your nose and think of Dubya's success in Congress in '02-'05).

P.S. Why should we care what David Brooks thinks, anyhow?

Posted by Warren Terra | December 18, 2007 4:46 PM

Recent polls show Obama as more electable than HRC:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2007-12-17-prezpoll_N.htm

Now, allow your head to explode, Petey, thanks.

Posted by ProfD | December 18, 2007 4:51 PM

Let's not forget that John Edwards won David Brooks over even more strongly than Obama did. Click my name link for Brooks' Edwards lovefest from August -- "Ascent of a Common Man."

Posted by Neil the Ethical Werewolf | December 18, 2007 4:52 PM

I have to come down on the side of "DC pundits like Obama because they think they can 'take' him" -- dissuade him from upsetting too many apple-carts of their liking (but fix Social Security!).

To get the country I (and, I presume, most progressives) want, apple-carts aplenty are going to have to be overturned. Pundits screamed at the mildest feints Clinton made in that direction; it's going to take getting them upset to really change anything.

I like Obama well enough -- he's certainly my second choice, if Edwards just can't make it -- but the "He'll sail above politics as we know it" theme too many of his supporters seem to adhere to is fantasy. (Jimmy Carter's most loyal supporters thought the same in '76 -- then watched as he nearly lost a 30-point polling lead in the election, then had a monstrously ineffective administration)

Posted by demtom | December 18, 2007 4:55 PM

For me, the key fact is that Obama, through his likable, respectful persona and his formidable command of the English language, has a way of neutralizing a substantial proportion of Republicans (like Brooks and others) in the precise same way that Ronald Reagan, through use of those same tools, had a way of neutralizing a substantial proportion of Democrats. And was Reagan effective as a "change" agent in moving the country in a more conservative direction? I think the answer is clearly "yes," even though he (mercifully) did not complete the full right-wing agenda of his time. Would any Democrat after the last 20 years accept the bargain whereby whoever wins in 2008 moves the country to the left as much as Reagan moved the country to the right? I think so.

Did Reagan have a reputation for being a relentless partisan in his rhetoric? The answer is that, certainly once he got the nomination, he did not have such a reputation. To the contrary, though I was a partisan Democrat as a college student when Reagan was sworn in, and I fervently wished for the defeat of Reagan, there were several moments in his Presidency where he gave a speech that I thought was substantively wrong and yet I felt that it would persuade not only Republicans but enough moderates so that Reagan could get his way. It frustrated me to no end. But he did it because he was brilliant at cloaking conservative ideas in general American values that even many moderates and a few liberals identified with.

Obama will do the same for the liberal agenda that Reagan did for the conservative agenda. And, as noted, if he can move the country as far to the left as Reagan did to the right, I'd say that's a pretty good deal. Some of our agenda will not be accomplished, but far more of it than under Bill C. and far more than I'd expect under Hillary C.

The cliche used to be that Reagan could go "over the heads" of the Congressional leadership and the organized interests, because on the big issues he could persuade moderates to support him. I think what the Krugmanites are missing is that Edwards' rhetoric is very unlikely to be able to do that -- he seems to always be preaching to the choir and in a confrontational way -- whereas Obama's rhetorical and personal style can do that.

Posted by RaymondA | December 18, 2007 4:58 PM

Neither Yglesias nor Kilgore nor Kleiman understand Krugman's argument. At all.

It is NOT about mandates. It is very much about how to engage in politics.

Petey says you hate politics. I believe you do not understand politics.

Posted by Armando | December 18, 2007 5:08 PM

I'd suggest you might want to work on your reading skills a bit, ProfD...

Posted by Petey | December 18, 2007 5:08 PM

Re Scott

"No other country in the world would elect someone who seems "foreign" in a time of crisis. America is different, but probably not that different."

Mr. Scott means like Nicolas Sarkozy who if I remember correctly had a Hungarian father and a Greek mother.

Posted by SLC | December 18, 2007 5:09 PM

Petey: Presumably, stuff that happens in Washington and after elections counts as politics, too, right? Press conferences, presidential speeches, polling, lobbying (by the administration and private lobbyists), log rolling, committee negotiations, etcetera. So even if Matt disagrees with all of your examples (and I'm pretty sure he only disagrees with the relevance of campaign rhetoric), he still believes in politics. He just emphasizes different elements than you.

I tend to think your talk about who likes politics is a distraction. The real question is which democratic candidate is most likely to win, win by the largest margin and have the biggest positive effect down ballot. Obama supporters think appealing to moderates and conservatives of good faith is the best approach. Edwards supporters think that appealing to populists in both parties is the best approach. Both are engaging in politics. Both are trying to build coalitions. They're just trying to build different coalitions. Which is the winning coalition?

I think that conservative populism of the type underlying the Huckabee surge is based on religion, social conservatism and xenophobia rather than progressive economic policy or social justice. I don't think the average Huckabee voter is likely to vote for Edwards because Edwards isn't selling xenophobia or social conservatism. Even if the average Huckabee voter doesn't like the Rep candidate, he's more likely to stay home than vote Edwards. The Huckabee voter -- the conservative populist -- is not voting for a pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-immigration candidate. That voter is not available to any of the Dems. I think Obama can pickup blue collar Reagan Democrats (as can Edwards, maybe more effectively), but Obama can also pickup white collar moderates and some republicans (Edwards can't). That's why Obama's upside is bigger. YMMV. I don't think we'll know until it plays out.

Posted by Led | December 18, 2007 5:10 PM

"Petey says you hate politics. I believe you do not understand politics."

If you hate politics, you're certainly not going to understand it particularly well.

Matthew seems to honestly believe that politics is irrelevant to policy outcomes, and that would obviously affect how he interprets the world of politics.

Posted by Petey | December 18, 2007 5:13 PM

nbt fact checks for us, reminding us of Sarkozy, Fujimori, and Sonia Gandhi in response to my "No other country in the world would elect someone who seems foreign in a time of crisis."
Helpful, even clever, but Sarko and Fuji were running on a relatively hard line platforms, and their "foreignness" may have made them more effective electoral carriers of the line. (French voters might feel less guilty about voting for tough policies against brown rioters if the enforcer seems a bit multiculti himself, etc.) But Obama would be running on negotiations and common sense, in repudiation of the tough line. It's the right policy, but he's probably not the one who could carry it through. Maybe if his name were Obama Kennedy-Reagan.

Posted by Scott | December 18, 2007 5:19 PM

I live in Illinois. Obama has always had progressive ideas and agenda. Republicans have always supported him knowing he is a progressive.
This is just the way it is. It's like democrats who did not agree with Reagan on anything but, still voted for him.
I know it makes people suspicious but, time and again republicans say they know Obama is left and don't agree with him on most things. But, they simply cannot help but, want to support him. It's this odd like they have for the man and don't care about his leanings.
It's about the charisma

Posted by vwcat | December 18, 2007 5:27 PM

"I tend to think your talk about who likes politics is a distraction. The real question is which democratic candidate is most likely to win, win by the largest margin and have the biggest positive effect down ballot."

Well, no.

Of course those things do matter, which is part of the reason I support Edwards.

But what also matters is that how you run for President affects what you can do as President.

Folks like Matthew and you think politics stops mattering the day after the election. It doesn't. It dictates what you can accomplish in your administration.

-----

Let's look at some winning Presidential election campaigns. The re-elections of Nixon '72, Reagan '84, and Clinton '96. The elections of Carter '76 and Bush '88.

What do these have in common? They were all campaigns based on nothing other than personality and disqualifying the opposition.

What else do they have in common? They all resulted in administrations that were either do-nothing disappointments or outright disasters for their parties.

If you only want to hold office, it's fine to run a campaign based on nothing other than yourself. But if you want to do things, you have to run a campaign based on what you want to do.

Obama is running on who he is. Edwards is running on what he wants to do. That difference will become very, very important on January 20th, 2009. Politics matters.

Posted by Petey | December 18, 2007 5:30 PM

how you run for President affects what you can do as President

This is almost ludicrously untrue.

Ronnie ran against the 'evil empire' but somehow made it to Reykjavik. I give most of the credit to Gorbachev - but the cartoon character Ronnie ran as couldn't have done it.

George H W Bush ran on 'no new taxes', and later saw reason (not that his base thanked him for it).

Clinton ran on a Robert Reich-ian economic platform (there was a whole book expounding it, which I, like everyone else, did not read) and a progressive social/lifestyle agenda. If you remember much of either of those after, say, June 1993 I'd like to hear about them. "It's the economy, stupid" wasn't only a criticism of George HW Bush, it also referred to a whole load of ideas that were never implemented.

Dubya ran as a 'uniter', a 'fiscal conservative', and a 'compassionate conservative'. Didn't govern as any of those, and the shift didn't hurt him for a long, long time.

In fact, the biggest lesson I see here is that if you can convince the people or at least the media that you're not a shrieking loon (even if, like the current inhabitant, you are), you can get a lot done on whatever your real priorities are regardless of how they compare to your campaign.

Posted by Warren Terra | December 18, 2007 5:40 PM

Hungarian father and a Greek mother

Not only that, but his Greek mother was Sephardic Jewish whose ancestors came to Thessalonica, Greece from Spain.

Posted by Tyro | December 18, 2007 5:43 PM

"P: how you run for President affects what you can do as President WT: This is almost ludicrously untrue."

OK. Let's go:

"Ronnie ran against the 'evil empire'..."

And thus was able to push unprecedented peacetime military increases through a heavily Democratic Congress.

He also ran strongly against the social safety net, and thus was able to slash it despite a heavily Democratic Congress.

How you run for President doesn't affect what you can do as President?

"Dubya ran as a..."

Bush the Younger ran strongly on only two big pieces of policy, a huge tax cut for the rich and a Medicare prescription drug benefit designed to enrich the drug companies and insurance industries.

This also happens to describe the only real things he's been able to accomplish domestically.

How you run for President doesn't affect what you can do as President?

Posted by Petey | December 18, 2007 6:01 PM

Folks like Matthew and you think politics stops mattering the day after the election.

Aiiieeee! You're not even listening. Campaign rhetoric stops mattering (mostly) the day after the election. Not politics. Politics matters a whole lot. It's just that politics is a whole lot more than rhetoric. The point Matt makes over and over again is that the difference between Edwards and Obama is largely rhetorical. Their policy proposals differ on the margins, but they seek essentially the same goals. Those goals are what matter because the details of any bill is inevitably shaped by legislative politics, and 95% of the voters don't not know the differences in the details anyway.

The fact is that Obama and Edwards are both running on what they want to do. And they are both running on who they are. Or is Edwards' "I'm the son of mill worker who spent his life fighting big corporations" message not about who he is? You like Edwards' policy proposals better. That's cool. You like the way he sounds better, which is cool too. But you keep trying to elevate your preferences into some kind of deep political theory, and I don't buy it.

Posted by Led | December 18, 2007 6:02 PM

"Campaign rhetoric stops mattering (mostly) the day after the election."

That is where you and Matthew are 100% wrong.

Posted by Petey | December 18, 2007 6:04 PM

Petey, do you really think that gaining a popular mandate from an election is the most important part of being able to carry out a policy agenda? Is it really possible to pass legislation that affects powerful interest groups like insurance companies without engaging them in any way?

Posted by the Other Paul | December 18, 2007 6:22 PM

"And thus was able to push unprecedented peacetime military increases through a heavily Democratic Congress.

He also ran strongly against the social safety net, and thus was able to slash it despite a heavily Democratic Congress."

Petey,

While the House of Represenatives remained under Democratic control througout the Reagan administration, the Senate had a Republican majority from 1981 to 1987. So, no, during most of Reagan's time in office, there was not a heavily Democratic Congress. Moreover, Reagan was able to secure majorities in the House by getting conservative-leaning Democrats to break party ranks and vote with Republicans.

Posted by eltoro | December 18, 2007 6:26 PM

Petey is confusing rhetoric and policies, and Led is right. The policies and their politics matter, but the rhetoric does not.

Obama, after all, is criticized mainly for his sunny ("naive") rhetoric, not for his policy proposals; the proposals of all three frontrunners are rather similar, with the main disagreement being about strategy and speed of health care reform. Presidents frequently govern in ways vastly different from their campaign rhetoric (Clinton and Dubya, for example, campaigned using language far to the left of their actual administrations).

Unsurprisingly, Presidents' actual policies are relatively more likely to resemble their campaign proposals than they are to resemble the rhetorical tones of their campaigns. Still, as I pointed out above with respect to Clinton and HW Bush (and as Petey ignored in his response) even policy actions frequently fail to resemble those suggested during the campaign.

Brevity is not a virtue of mine, but in short I maintain that critics of Obama's health care proposal have a point, though I think they overstate it, but to me the real naivete is found in the complaints about the unsatisfyingly bipartisan tone of Obama's rhetoric.

P.S. I thought I remembered campaign 2000 fairly well, and I don't remember Medicare Part D (enacted in 2003) as being a big part of it.

Posted by Warren Terra | December 18, 2007 6:28 PM

"Edwards is running on what he wants to do."-Petey

Can you remind us of what he wanted to do before he was elected to the US Senate?

Posted by ProfD | December 18, 2007 6:34 PM

"Petey, do you really think that gaining a popular mandate from an election is the most important part of being able to carry out a policy agenda?"

I think it's incredibly important.

If candidate X ran heavily on a platform of shaving all the cats and dogs in America and won convincingly with coattails, we'd find most of Representatives and Senators in Washington suddenly coming to the conclusion that shaving all the cats and dogs in America was great policy.

Politics matters. History shows it over and over again.

Posted by Petey | December 18, 2007 7:00 PM

And if the pet shampoo industry responded with lavishly funded ad campaigns attacking the proposal, would pounding the table and saying "The American People demand dog shaving!" really work?

Also, I'm not sure that full-throated populism is as much of an electoral winner as you think--I agree with it in a lot of ways but I'm not sure of how it plays to a broader audience.

Posted by the Other Paul | December 18, 2007 7:08 PM

This also happens to describe the only real things he's been able to accomplish domestically.

He also ran heavily against "nation building."

Just sayin'

I'm with LED on this one. To the extent that the rhetoric is "empty" (e.g. compassionate conservatism, etc), there is little impact it will have on post election politics -- the new president will adhere or not as his preference and political circumstance allows. Specific policy prescriptions during a campaign might matter more, if they become a focal point, and seen as cause for a mandate, but this rarely actually happens.

Posted by Brad L | December 18, 2007 7:16 PM

An electoral mandate lasts roughly until the President makes his first big move. After that, all that anybody cares about is "what have you done for me lately" and "what will you do for me tomorrow." Every single elected official has his own mandate, and the President's mandate doesn't trump theirs.

Posted by blah | December 18, 2007 7:17 PM

BryklynLibrul is absolutely correct.
brooks will offer all of this glowing praise, talk all of this bipartisan yang so long as it does not matter.
but come general election time, when the GOP gangsters pull their hit on obama, brooks will sit back and bemoan the fact that this is just politics and, oh well, its all fair because its politics and by gosh, they might even have a fair point or two.
and you are SO, SO right about him being the columnists' version of arlen spector.
spector has been pulling the same crap since he worked for the warren commission.
all talk, but no real action or commitment when action or a real commitment is needed.
brooks hopes beyond hope that the dems will nominate obama so that his buddies can bring their white hoods out of the closet.
that's always been a very effective tactic for the GOP.

Posted by frankie d | December 18, 2007 7:23 PM

On a related note: everyone should follow the Kleiman link, if they want to see a once-good blogger's descent into raving hysteric. Apparently Krugman is in the tank for Clinton (reading a script from Mark Penn??!!) and will do or say anything to harm the noble Obama. Really, you have to read this shit to believe it.

Posted by calling all toasters | December 18, 2007 7:24 PM

You want mad partisan hackery by a blogger? Go read Jerome Armstrong explain how Oprah somehow got George Bush elected.

Posted by mad6798j | December 18, 2007 7:29 PM

"And if the pet shampoo industry responded with lavishly funded ad campaigns attacking the proposal, would pounding the table and saying "The American People demand dog shaving!" really work?"

No you don't pound the table, you do this.

It's been more than 40 years since Democrats have tried mobilizing the electorate rather than hiding from the electorate. It's worked pretty well for the Republicans over the past several decades. We ought to try it.

Democrats love citing how the public is with us on almost every issue. In a situation like that, we ought to be embracing politics rather than shrinking from it.

Posted by Petey | December 18, 2007 7:40 PM

David Brooks is a radical, globalist left-winger who uses "conservative" rhetoric to promote his left-wing agenda, and now he's doing it to support a crackhead.

Damn. Everyone knows that ole Obama was hitting the crackpipe for years. He, after all, didn't get the nickname Barack "Crackhead" Obama for nothing. And now the Clintons got the goods on him.

Obama has a all but declared war upon the white race. Like his good friend Jose Angel Gutierrez, founder of La Raza, he thinks: “We have got to eliminate the gringo, and what I mean by that is if the worst comes to the worst, we have got to kill him.”

That's all I'm gonna say.

(I'm not even going to talk about Obama's proclivity for raping white women.)

Posted by Paleoconservative Peter | December 18, 2007 7:57 PM

RE PaleoConservativePeter

Wow. Just wow.

Posted by Warren Terra | December 18, 2007 8:01 PM

If he does something like that, how is he going to avoid alienating the people in Congress that he'd need to get his bills passed in a recognizable form? Also, I can easily see how someone could against the 'deny me healthcare' bill--they'd say that they weren't sure they'd be able to pass the UHC bill before the denial bill's deadline, and that it didn't make sense to take such a drastic step. And who would introduce that bill, anyway?

Posted by the Other Paul | December 18, 2007 8:02 PM

petey, I've tossed my share of bombs at you, but I gotta say, you've been making a lot of sense lately. And not just in this thread. But I'm still gonna vote Kucinich in the primary, and abstain in the general election. The Dems don't deserve even a stroll from the parking lot to the voting booth.

Posted by sglover | December 18, 2007 8:13 PM

Paleoconservative Peter,

thanks for giving us a touch of what to expect during the general election.
and that will just be the start of the festivities.
pull up a chair and get the popcorn out.

Posted by frankie d | December 18, 2007 8:13 PM

Hey PaleoPete--
I can't figure out if you're channeling O'Reilly or Tweety. Be a little more obvious next time.

Posted by calling all toasters | December 18, 2007 8:26 PM

"I'm still gonna vote Kucinich in the primary, and abstain in the general election. The Dems don't deserve even a stroll from the parking lot to the voting booth."

Ralph Nader said yesterday on Hardball that he'd vote in the general for Edwards or Kucinich. If Edwards is good enough for Ralph, he deserves a second look from an irresponsible lefty like you.

Posted by Petey | December 18, 2007 8:33 PM

Hey Petey, I know I'm not really on your wavelength anyhow, but do you really think that appeals to the moral authority of Ralph Nader are a good idea?

Posted by Warren Terra | December 18, 2007 8:34 PM

"Hey Petey, I know I'm not really on your wavelength anyhow, but do you really think that appeals to the moral authority of Ralph Nader are a good idea?"

Well, the election of '00 proved that there are 2,883,105 irresponsible lefties who vote in this country. Despite my having incredibly large problems with the decisions Ralph has made in the past decade, I'll still happily take their votes in the primaries and general for Edwards.

Posted by Petey | December 18, 2007 8:53 PM

Toughness?
I keep coming back to the death penalty reform in Illinois,

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/12/obama.death.penalty.ap/index.html?section=cnn_latest

which Obama got passed because he got the cops to endorse it. Did he give away the store? No. In fact he pointedly refused to compromise on something that would have sealed the deal a lot sooner, which was to remove the requirement for videotaping interrogations AS WELL AS confessions, in order to use the confessions at trial. Interrogations stayed, endorsed by the cops, because Obama hung in there and kept fighting. Fighting with logic and persuasion, not the kind of grandstanding alienating venom that others like to use, and that does not get results.

Posted by Phoebe | December 18, 2007 9:10 PM

He also ran heavily against "nation building."

To be fair to Bush, he hasn't built a single nation.

Petey makes complete sense when he says that having a strong platform and winning with a mandate makes it easier to achieve what you promised to do. He just elides the difference between saying what you're going to do and how you say it. The former can be important. And the difference between Edwards and Obama is mostly how they talk about what they're going to do.

No matter which of the Dems is the candidate, if he/she wins bog with coattails he/she'll have a lot of leverage to achieve his/her policy goals. It will still be a fight and he/she will have to work with Congress, but it be a lot easier. The trick is to win big with coattails. I think Obama gives you the best shot. If Edwards wins the nomination, however, I hope Petey is right and I'm wrong.

Posted by Led | December 18, 2007 9:43 PM

Ralph Nader said yesterday on Hardball that he'd vote in the general for Edwards or Kucinich. If Edwards is good enough for Ralph, he deserves a second look from an irresponsible lefty like you.

Yeah, well, there's the old petey.

Actually, I used to be pissed at Nader and the Greens myself. Ralph's endorsement doesn't hold much weight with me. (Though after watching the Dems this last year, I can only conclude that Nader was basically correct.)

Anyway, it's very difficult to get enthused about anybody who voted for the Iraq disaster, as Edwards did. I really don't care what he "learned" from it. Dems never seem to run out of "learning" opportunities. It was **always** the wrong thing to do, and indicates either political cowardice or very bad judgement -- the standard Dem liabilities.

Posted by sglover | December 18, 2007 10:35 PM

I don't understand why the skepticism is placed on Obama instead of Edwards. Obama has gotten healthcare for 125,000 Illinoisans. Obama has passed ethics reform. I mean, I know dismissive egalitarianism is the hallmark of Hillary supporters, but seriously, what the fuck has John Edwards ever done on these issues? Who the hell gave him the moral authority his supporters are now claiming for him to posture as the "tough" candidate? Did Edwards ever show his toughness when he actually, you know, had a job?

It's easy to act like a "fighter" when you're unemployed and you've taken on a side-hobby of running for president.

I'm sorry I'm getting ticked, but you rarely hear Obama supporters castigating Edwards the way Edwards supporters are castigating Obama on his supposed lack of progressive bona-fides. Let's look at this objectively: Edwards calculated his only way of winning this primary was to shift from moderate Lieber-Dem to hard left, that way he could piss with all kinds of sound and fury about how his opponents aren't progressive enough. People want to act like Krugman deserves respect? What about the fact that Edwards was by all means a DLC dem and Obama has always been a solid progressive? How come none of Edwards' band of self-righteous hagiographers ever bring that up?

I'll be honest: I like Edwards' rhetoric. I despise how he uses that rhetoric to posture hard-left and then act like he's the original progressive savior. I despise how his supporters(Krugman especially) play ignorant of records and history and try to cast Edwards as the second coming of FDR. That's just plain false and obnoxious, in my view. FDR wasn't a spineless neophyte who allowed Republicans to steamroll him every single time it mattered.

I'd also like to point out that this notion that Obama lacks substance is clearly false. He's the only candidate with a technology plan. Only one with a plan on China toy exports. Only one with a realistic and specific plan to withdraw from Iraq. Only one who has actually lead by blocking key appointees in several government agencies. Only one with a plan on disabilities.

I don't hate Edwards. I'd be happy if either Edwards or Obama was the nominee. I'm just sick of Edwards supporters acting self-righteous and spinning Edwards' credentials, record, and plans as "clearly superior" in ways they actually aren't.

Posted by Abe | December 18, 2007 11:25 PM

"Yeah, well, there's the old petey."

It's primary season. For the most part, I'm trying to avoid discourse via insult these days.

"Anyway, it's very difficult to get enthused about anybody who voted for the Iraq disaster, as Edwards did. I really don't care what he "learned" from it. Dems never seem to run out of "learning" opportunities."

RFK was a pretty good learner, and I think post-'04 Edwards has been a pretty good learner too.

You don't have to get enthused about him. You can even vote Kucinich in the primaries, if you must. But vote Edwards in the general. He's standing for making the Democratic Party significantly more responsive to the left, which should be worth some reward.

Posted by Petey | December 19, 2007 12:32 AM

I would have voted for the resolution knowing what I know today, because it was the right thing to do to give the president the authority to confront Saddam Hussein

nuff said

Posted by novakant | December 19, 2007 6:26 AM

He was right when he said it, and he's a weasel now for shifting ground. Edwards' "plan" for Iraq is to organize a self-inflicted defeat, and more comprehensively screw up an already badly screwed up mandatory national project.

We've been trying to find a way to bring our Iraq fiasco to a reasonable conclusion for going on twenty years now. We've already made about every available mistake. Now that things might actually be working out, the idea that we should just run away and try to hide strikes me as bizarre. Who seriously thinks Iraq is about to stop being a vital national interest just because lots of people would like to hit the remote and go back to Animal Planet?

Posted by Robert Powell | December 19, 2007 1:04 PM

We've been trying to find a way to bring our Iraq fiasco to a reasonable conclusion for going on twenty years now. We've already made about every available mistake. Now that things might actually be working out, the idea that we should just run away and try to hide strikes me as bizarre. Who seriously thinks Iraq is about to stop being a vital national interest just because lots of people would like to hit the remote and go back to Animal Planet?

Iraq is a "vital national interest" only to those who insist that things like "prestige" and "national spirit" and other such abstractions are actually worth something, and that they should somehow define our civilization, even our daily existence. It's time to get beyond this bullshit, and look at more sane and fundamental concerns. In keeping with the thread topic, I note that NONE of the Dem front-runners will even hint that our imperial assumptions have gone stone neurotic.

Posted by sglover | December 19, 2007 2:27 PM

I believe Brooks was accurate that Obama's strength comes from within. Do not underestimate this quality especially after the last 20 years of Bush - Clinton plutocracy. I've seen enough of baby boomer generation leadership. That generation has always been fascinated by itself. It's ludicrous that Bill Clinton questions Obama's ability to hit the ground running if elected. Isn't this the same oaf who held up LAX for nearly 3 hours getting a haircut on Air Force 1 in the first month of his presidency? Clinton made many insidious decisions and in the end never stood for anything, a slick poll-checking Machiavellian. Hilary's outfit permeates with the same vibe - aggressive, unauthentic, double tongued, egotistical, searching, groping. The current Bush presidency has been despicable and the Clinton presidency was seriously low-end, bordering on trash. Do we all really want 24 years of Bush - Clinton nepotism and incompetence? Who's next, Jeb? His son? Chelsea? These family's are gross and depressing.

Posted by Dave | December 19, 2007 3:19 PM

sglover--you are correct to point out that all three Dem front-runners recognize a reality you apparently don't, which is that Iraq is important for a lot more, and more concrete, reasons than "prestige" and "national spirit". It's evidence of good sense on their part, and vital for them if they are to be taken seriously by most voters.

Dave--I actually thought Clinton did well after a slow start. I could have done without his greenhorn errors on healthcare, and making "gays in the military" an major issue while genocide was going on a day's drive away from US troops which could have, and belatedly did, bring it to an instant halt. But in the end, he tamed the deficit, used US power as a force for Good in the world, and had a tremendous success with welfare reform. Not a bad result, and it would likely have been a lot better without the Ken Starr inquisition. But I can't argue with your and Brooks' approval of Obama. He looks like the real deal to me too.

Posted by Robert Powell | December 20, 2007 11:28 AM