The Trick

I know that to some liberals, Barack Obama's rhetorical style bespeaks a lack of commitment to progressive values. I don't see it that way. I've always seen it as a pretty transparent trick. He says he's not one of those liberals, he doesn't call people "wingnuts," he understands the conservative point of view, blah blah blah, and then here comes his agenda of tax hikes, tons of new spending, ambitious carbon emissions curbs, less invading of other countries for no reason, gay equality, etc. And, remarkably, you keep seeing conservatives eat it up, discerning something incredibly "new" and "exciting" in a combination of conventional liberal policy views with vaguely conciliatory rhetoric.

Along those lines, Jason Zengerle flags this incredibly positive Steve Hayes Weekly Standard cover story on Obama. Particularly these bits:

[W]hile Obama eventually settles on the mainstream liberal position--path to citizenship, crack down on employers, don't punish the workers--he does so only after acknowledging (and in some cases, embracing) the concerns of conservatives. He begins by criticizing George W. Bush on immigration from the right and says that his first priority in ending illegal immigration would be securing the borders. (Ask John McCain if it's important to list border security first when detailing your solution.) [...]

This is the Obama trick, and it explains why, despite his very liberal voting record in the Senate (and in the Illinois Senate before that), he is not viewed as a left-wing ideologue. When a student asks Obama for his views on the Second Amendment, he reminds his audience that he taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago and is thus familiar with the arguments regarding the right to bear arms. He acknowledges "a tradition of gun ownership in this country that can be respected," and says that his academic studies convinced him gun ownership "is an individual right and not just the right of a militia."

As Jason notes, the striking thing here is "that Hayes recognizes this as a trick--and he still falls for it!" And also that it's Steve Hayes who seems like a pretty hard-core hatchet man, "he's an ideological water carrier of the first order. Is there any conservative writer able to withstand Obama's charms? A nation turns its lonely eyes to Charles Krauthammer." A quick Google reveals that back in July when Obama and Hillary Clinton were in their spat about talking to "bad guys" without preconditions, Krauthammer slammed Obama so, yes, he's immune.

Comments

And when he attacks Krugman and other progressives who oppose his moronic insistence on a Social Security "crisis?" Is that a neat trick too? Or just a sign that Senator Prettyboy is a better Clintonian triangulator than HRC?

Posted by scott | December 10, 2007 2:43 PM

"I know that to some liberals, Barack Obama's rhetorical style bespeaks a lack of commitment to progressive values. I don't see it that way."

Of course, when lefties consider rhetoric, the problem isn't Obama's lack of rhetorical commitment to progressive values, it's his lack of rhetorical commitment to partisan values. We're not just selecting a President, we're also selecting a Party leader.

And there are things other than rhetoric that matter as well. Policy matters.

Posted by Petey | December 10, 2007 2:43 PM

It is really so striking that so much of Conservative "thinking" is based on a pathetic need for the approval of others? As long they get their little rhetorical pat on the head, they'll wag their tails no matter what you actually do.

Posted by skyler | December 10, 2007 2:43 PM

"Or just a sign that Senator Prettyboy is a better Clintonian triangulator than HRC?"

As a lefty who believes in a strong Democratic Party, I have my fears that an Obama Presidency would lead to a similar hollowing out of the Party's strength that the original Clintonian triangulator, Bill, presided over.

Obama's insistence on continually positioning himself outside of the Party is the single most alarming non-policy aspect to his candidacy.

Posted by Petey | December 10, 2007 2:47 PM

First, I think that Obama actually is serious about understanding the Right's worldview. He just doesn't agree with it, and he'll tell you why. It is more than a "trick."

Second, I think this quality of Obama's will help him enact policies, Petey, when he is president that progressives will like. I went to a very rural, red area over Thanksgiving and was shocked to talk to fairly conservative people say positive things about Obama. Obama just might be able to bring people along. That matters.

Posted by d | December 10, 2007 2:47 PM

Democratic politicians need to key in to this kind of rhetorical appeasement more often and stop allowing Repugnicans to center and explain the debate according to their ideological prisms. I particularly liked an idea I saw long ago floated by Dan Kervick - we need to start proposing government-backed programs that appeals to so-called "voluntarists" (similar to IRAs), followed by the inevitable budgetary crunch that comes with free-riders, that allows us to institutionalize the much-needed social programs that we have allowed to become sidetracked by right-wing talking points. It's time to start compromising so that later there can be no compromise.

Posted by Billare | December 10, 2007 2:48 PM

Ah, I nearly forgot: the key is unrealistic compromises that voters are more likely to support.

Posted by Billare | December 10, 2007 2:55 PM

Well, as a liberal, I'd feel more comfortable with a conservative who I felt understood my perspective than one who talked about how I was an America-hating baby-killer who wants to invite Osama bin Laden to the inaugural. If this conservative supported all the usual conservative policies, I still wouldn't vote for him, but I would feel better disposed to him than a conservative who espoused comparable policies while invoking personal emnity against me and mine and showing no signs of understanding other views. I don't think that would mean that I had been conned or tricked. It would just be that, for one thing, I would probably regard him as at least a marginally better human being in a general sense in spite of supporting the same screw-the-poor agenda as other conservatives, and for another, I might think that, while his starting planks are conventional conservatism, his understanding of other views might allow him to escape ideological quagmires where inflexible thinking isn't modified by real-world evidence and failed policies are continued because the politician can't think of anything else.

Posted by Julian Elson | December 10, 2007 3:01 PM

I don't think it is a "trick". As strange and anachronistic as it might seem in the present era, Obama just does sincerely respect people he profoundly disagrees with, and is able to stand tall and fight for his own position without hating on the other guys. If you think this is bizarre, try teaching a successful class on Constitutional Law or some other disputatious field, filled with bright and earnest students representing, without maintaining such an attitude. The blogospheric presupposition is that respect, courtesy and the capacity to listen and empathize is something only middle-of-the-roaders are capable of doing. Thus Matt thinks that the simultaneous co-existence in one individual of very progressive positions with empathetic understanding of conservatives must be some kind of trick. But this is just small and wrong.

My wife, son and several of the people in my office went to the Obama-Oprah rally at the Verizon Center in Manchester yesterday. Loyal and long-time Democratic voters all - except for my son, who will be turning 18 in June and voting in his first election in November - but not given like me to participate in blogospheric rage-fests, they get positively tingly about Obama's unity message. A lot of people in the country are apparently just fed up with hating their enemies. They see Obama as the anti-O'Reilly and anti-Beck, someone whose dignity just makes the latter seem even more pathetic and stupid.

Posted by Dan Kervick | December 10, 2007 3:04 PM

I remember one occasion when Obama deftly allayed the concerns of two conservative commentators, remarking, "These aren't the droids you're looking for." The commentators immediately agreed, saying, "You can go about your business. Move along."

Posted by alkali | December 10, 2007 3:10 PM

I guess what concerns me is not that Obama's rhetorical approach might be a trick--face it, people, in some sense everything a politician running for president does or says is a "trick"--but that the right's semi-embrace of the guy might be the real trick.

I just don't think Obama can punch his weight in the general election. The media will turn on him. He'll be called calculating or scripted or stiff or phony or homosexual. Obama and his team have no experience dealing with this kind of negative coverage. And then red America will discover that he's black.

Posted by Rob Mac | December 10, 2007 3:15 PM

I respect the enthusiasm of Dan and others for Obama, and if Obama's deal was just being a progressive while being empathetic about conservative concerns, I could be down with that. It's when he takes after progressives like PKrug and essentially calls HRC a liar ("disingenuous") and someone who lusted after the presidency for 20 years that I begin to doubt his commitment to the high-road principle. From where I sit, I wonder what Obama's "unity" stands for - is it unity for liberal goals and programs (you know, Social Security in its "crisis!") that we believe in, or unity for the principle that we like Barack and thinks he gives a good speech? Given some of his recent tactics, I'm just not sure where he falls on that line, although hell it's early and I'm open to convincing.

Posted by scott | December 10, 2007 3:18 PM

Well, as a liberal, I'd feel more comfortable with a conservative who I felt understood my perspective than one who talked about how I was an America-hating baby-killer who wants to invite Osama bin Laden to the inaugural.

Julian Elson, this is the "trick" that McCain has been using for quite some time. He's the right-winger who didn't drink the Kool-Aid! And a lot of people on the left have really respected him for this.

Posted by Rob Mac | December 10, 2007 3:18 PM

Agree with Rob Mac. Presumably Obama's trying to lay some kind of a foundation to prevent/mitigate the inevitable turning when it happens, but the question is how successful such an effort can be.

Posted by Steve V | December 10, 2007 3:20 PM

I think it's just great that Obama's rhetorical tricks appeal to conservatives who aren't going to vote for him. That will make up for his social Ssecurity policy ideas that will prevent me from voting for him either.

Posted by Gary Sugar | December 10, 2007 3:45 PM

Ahh yes Obama is more than willing to respect biogts who believe homosexuals are subhuman. But Krugman is a liar!

Its amazing that Obama's "trick" involves domestic positions to the right of the other two major candidates.

Posted by Rob | December 10, 2007 3:50 PM

"Julian Elson, this is the "trick" that McCain has been using for quite some time. He's the right-winger who didn't drink the Kool-Aid! And a lot of people on the left have really respected him for this."

Yup. But, as you may have noticed, McCain is having serious trouble winning the nomination in a year that really should be his.

The folks who vote in party primaries and caucuses tend to prefer partisans. Politicians like McCain and Obama who showily stand outside their party tend to have trouble with the folks who vote in party primaries.

Posted by Petey | December 10, 2007 3:59 PM

If Obama pulls off the nomination, he'll get a relatively nice ride from the media as a whole. There will be cattiness from the likes of Dowd, but it won't reverberate. I sometimes think that, as traditional lefty constituents, concrete policy outcomes our foremost objects, we slight the frankly royalist aspects of the presidential contest. But the campaign press doesn't; in fact, that's all they really think about: which of these guys (definitely a gender bias in how they view it) is the coolest/tallest in the saddle/most statesmanlike? In a word, who is the most regal?

Obama wins that contest handily against any of the Republicans. And the media know that, unlike any of Obama's potential opponents in either party, and although Obama's mark on history would ultimately depend on how successfully he governed, his election would be a generational event, like Reagan, JFK, and Roosevelt before him.

I don't defend this as a way to pick a President, and letting the media decide which candidate "has the most Elvis" probably is harmful to progressive outcomes (because the stupider sort are more engaged, and their irrational prejudices more effectively aroused). But this time around it probably favors us on balance.

Posted by kth | December 10, 2007 4:09 PM

Obama didn't call Krugman a liar, by the way.

It's just anecdotal evidence, but it seems like a lot of conservatives -- from Stephen Hayes to my one conservative friend -- like and respect Obama. That's enormously important from a long-term strategic perspective -- having a Democratic president who's not just a good partisan fighter (though that's better than nothing), but who is actually capable of reaching out and engaging with the other side in order to broaden support for our side.

I feel like some liberals are a bit paranoid, hearing betrayal every time Obama says something that acknowledges the underlying non-evil concerns and motivations of many people who vote for Republicans. But we absolutely need people who can talk like that, and we have to extend some benefit of the doubt, because it's a difficult rhetorical tightrope at times.

Of course, there are some Democrats to whom one should not extend the benefit of the doubt in this way, who have a record of spinelessness, capitulation, and generally trying to act like Republicans. And Obama's made some wrong decisions. But he has an enormous upside and it would take something much worse than his mild "attack" on Krugman to make me write him off.

Posted by Tom | December 10, 2007 4:09 PM

I've never cared much for the rhetorical bomb-lobbing favored by the Netroots. Obama's style of addressing conservatives' concerns with liberal answers is far more conducive to productive compromise and incremental progressive change. It's a quintessentially midwestern style that plays much, much better with independent voters in Peoria than the standard Bob Shrum "fighting populist" shtick. It also works because it comes off as genuine, rather than staged.

Because of his impressive political skills, Obama is very well positioned to present an ambitious progressive agenda. What concerns me is that he hasn't done this yet. His policy proposals all tend to look like acceptable post-negotiation compromises. They don't look like strong first offers. Throw in the fact that a substantial subset of conservatives are going to treat him as the Big Black Crypto-Muslim Antichrist, and one suspects that his term in office might be just as contentious as Clinton's, despite his soothing demeanor.

Which is all a roundabout way of saying that I'm still undecided.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | December 10, 2007 4:25 PM

It's such a good trick that Obama has fallen to the very bottom of my list of Democratic candidates. And I was very excited by him in 2006.

Posted by Marlowe | December 10, 2007 4:30 PM

"Because of his impressive political skills, Obama is very well positioned to present an ambitious progressive agenda. What concerns me is that he hasn't done this yet. His policy proposals all tend to look like acceptable post-negotiation compromises. They don't look like strong first offers."

I considered supporting Obama in the first couple months of this year over Edwards. By March, the Obama campaign had made clear that they were going to run to the center and make like an isosceles. They lost me at that point, and I think they lost the nomination at that point.

Both Obama and Clinton have made clear that they'd run defensive general election campaigns and defensive administrations. It's just not enough this cycle.

Posted by Petey | December 10, 2007 4:31 PM

Matt, is this in response to Brian's post today on the same subject?

I agree with Tom and the first part of LaFollette Progressive's posts above.

Two quick things:
1) Have we become so cynical that we just believe this is a "trick" rather than how Obama might actually function?
2) I believe it's Atrois who is a fan of saying look at what politicians do (how they vote) as opposed to listening to what they say. If one did that, they should be fairly convinced of Obama's progressive bona fides (especially his pre-U.S. Senate record).

Posted by Mike P | December 10, 2007 4:39 PM

Petey, between this:
"the problem isn't Obama's lack of rhetorical commitment to progressive values, it's his lack of rhetorical commitment to partisan values"

and this:
"The folks who vote in party primaries and caucuses tend to prefer partisans"

you've convinced me to vote for Obama. See, to normal, decent people, "partisan values" aren't really something worth defending.

Posted by too many steves | December 10, 2007 4:49 PM

This whole Krugman kerkuffle is so overblown. O(1) Obama proposes a plan without mandates, presumably because he doesn't think they are a good idea. (2) Krugman generally praises the plan, but laments the lack of mandates. (3) Obama subsequently explains why he thinks mandates aren't a good idea. (4) Krugman attacks Obama for adopting "right wing talking points." So Obama is allowed to have a plan that deviates from Krugman's ideal, but he's not permitted to argue for it?

I'm generally sick of hearing democrats complain about right wing talking points. It betrays a pathetic and paranoid fear of republicans. Run a good campaign that doesn't pander or insult people's intelligence and right wing attacks won't stick. Democrats need to quit blaming others for their own failures in the last two presidential elections.

Posted by Led | December 10, 2007 4:50 PM

"you've convinced me to vote for Obama."

Hah! You're Obama's target audience, too many steves, a Democratic leaning centrist who finds the left every bit as frightening as the right. You should be voting for Obama. The McCains and Obamas of the world stand for you, and you should stand with them.

Posted by Petey | December 10, 2007 5:03 PM

The thread above really crystallizes why I'm concerned about Obama. Why do we need to suck up to conservatives and validate them when they've spent at least the last 15 years, and more like the last 40, in a total war with us characterized by eliminationist rhetoric? Why can't we be proud as liberals to stand for a progressive government that works to advance the interests of all the people, not the moneyed elites, and that doesn't stand for endless war and violent intimidation overseas? I think those are good liberal, even "partisan," values, that are worth defending, and I want a warrior to defend them, because that's what we'll need against BushCo. Right now, with all due respect, I don't think that's Obama, who soft-peddles now his stances on Iran and Iraq and plays up his position on the Social Security "crisis."

Posted by scott | December 10, 2007 5:12 PM

"Why do we need to suck up to conservatives and validate them when they've spent at least the last 15 years, and more like the last 40, in a total war with us characterized by eliminationist rhetoric? Why can't we be proud as liberals to stand for a progressive government that works to advance the interests of all the people, not the moneyed elites, and that doesn't stand for endless war and violent intimidation overseas?"

We think we need to because we've consistently lost elections over the past 40 years when we've put up proud Democrats. There's no role model for how to win by doing anything but triangulating.

And that's why Edwards is such a game-changer. He offers to blaze a trail for the entire Party of how to run as a proud progressive and simultaneously bash the other side's head in at the ballot box.

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

Yeah, put this one in the "pros" column for me on Obama. You mean there's a candidate who believes in liberal values but wants to govern the entire country instead of pander to his base and not just tell you how awful Republicans are? The fact that some of you see this as a bad thing makes me sad. The job of a liberal politician should be to espouse and implement liberal values, not to snipe at the right. That's what Daily Kos is for.

Posted by Adam Villani | December 10, 2007 5:20 PM

Actually, isn't this reaching out to the right to find the center thing what the left came to hate so much about Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and now Hilary Clinton? And how much good did this sort of thing do for these three? It certainly didn't keep the right from absolutely despising them and the media from joining in on the frenzy.

Obama's style of addressing conservatives' concerns with liberal answers is far more conducive to productive compromise and incremental progressive change.

LaFollette Progressive, this sounds like an excellent description of the Bill Clinton campaign of 1992.

. . . one suspects that his term in office might be just as contentious as Clinton's, despite his soothing demeanor.

No one ever had a more soothing demeanor than Bill Clinton. That is neither here nor there. We can count on whoever the next Democratic president is having a very hard time from the right and from the media.

Posted by Rob Mac | December 10, 2007 5:25 PM

Actually, isn't this reaching out to the right to find the center thing what the left came to hate so much about Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and now Hilary Clinton? And how much good did this sort of thing do for these three? It certainly didn't keep the right from absolutely despising them and the media from joining in on the frenzy.

Obama's style of addressing conservatives' concerns with liberal answers is far more conducive to productive compromise and incremental progressive change.

LaFollette Progressive, this sounds like an excellent description of the Bill Clinton campaign of 1992.

. . . one suspects that his term in office might be just as contentious as Clinton's, despite his soothing demeanor.

No one ever had a more soothing demeanor than Bill Clinton. That is neither here nor there. We can count on whoever the next Democratic president is having a very hard time from the right and from the media.

Posted by Rob Mac | December 10, 2007 5:26 PM

You mean there's a candidate who believes in liberal values but wants to govern the entire country instead of pander to his base and not just tell you how awful Republicans are?

Adam Villani, what Democratic candidates does this description NOT apply to? Who are these spittle-spewing, Republican-insulting, base-pandering candidates?

PS: Sorry for the double post!

Posted by Rob Mac | December 10, 2007 5:32 PM

Petey,
"Game changer" or no, I'm not sure...but Edwards would have an awful time in the media against the Republican nominee. The talking points against Edwards would be almost as bad as those trotted out against Hillary. I think Edwards is suffering from trying to be the most ideologically pure candidate of the top 3 Dems; it might work to get him the nomination but it would probably kill him in the general election.

Posted by Mike P | December 10, 2007 5:37 PM

Petey,

Have you purchased any shares of John Edwards's former part-time employer, Fortress Investment Group? I doubled my position at $15.94 recently, and noticed that Fortress director (and Council on Foreign Relations head) Dr. Richard N. Haass bought more at $16.02. So I'm in good company.

John Edwards may have economically destructive policy prescriptions, but like many soi disant liberal populists, he's been good at making money for himself. Forget the rhetoric and follow the money if you want to make some too.

Posted by Fred | December 10, 2007 5:42 PM

Conservatives like Obama because they're drowning, and he's sucker enough to throw them a lifeline rather than an anvil.

Posted by cd | December 10, 2007 6:04 PM

I'm not sure...but Edwards would have an awful time in the media against the Republican nominee. The talking points against Edwards would be almost as bad as those trotted out against Hillary.

What makes you say that? On what are you basing it? If I may be blunt, John Edwards is a rich, southern, youngish, vigorous, telegenic, highly articulate, heterosexual WASP with a nice family. He's right out of central casting for what modern American presidents are supposed to look and sound like. Not all that much unlike Bill Clinton. I'm not saying his economic populism wouldn't be attacked, but, given the erosion in the security of the middle class, I bet the Republicans want to run on anything but the economy. Edwards -- though he may look like a long shot at the moment*, would give the Republicans a lot of trouble in more states than either Obama or Hillary Clinton. They'd have to put lots of money into defending places like Colorado, Virginia, The Carolinas, Georgia, Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, Arkansas, etc., in addition to the must win states they'll be hard pressed to keep, Ohio and Florida.

I think Hillary will prove herself a junkyard dog in a fight with the GOP, but nonetheless her negatives are high, and she won't be as competitive in the more conservative areas and border states mentioned above. Obama's ability to run nationally is really a big mystery at this point.

Not only does Edwards give the GOP trouble in much of its electoral base, he has the advantage of being pre-vetted as he's already run nationally.

*I say longshot, but in Iowa, at least, the numbers are extremely volotile, Edwards seems to be holding his own there, and I wouldn't rule out the possibility of Obama and Clinton knocking each other out and Edwards's supposedly very loyal followers putting him in first by a nose. A win in Iowa hardly seals it for Edwards, but it would make people in other states take a second look. I'd never say never.

Posted by Jasper | December 10, 2007 6:08 PM

If I were an Edwards supporter instead of focusing on Obama, I would question the strategy that has left Edwards stagnant in the polls. Admittedly, it's allowed him to stay there, but he isn't going anywhere either.

As for me, I am very happy that Obama is breathing down Hillary's throat while the unprecedented coalition of educated liberals and black voters comes together at the right time.

Obama is Jesse Jackson with the white vote. He's Hart with organization. Bradley with the black vote. Tsongas with cross-country appeal. Did I mention he's got the war-chest? Yup. No public funds needed here.

In short, no other challenging candidate has been this close to upsetting the Democratic front-runner. And in doing so, he's making Hillary look silly and desperate.

I am still waiting for the last debates. But it's a good place to be.

Posted by Nick Kaufman | December 10, 2007 6:14 PM

Why do we need to suck up to conservatives and validate them when they've spent at least the last 15 years, and more like the last 40, in a total war with us characterized by eliminationist rhetoric?

Where is Obama doing that? Nobody suggests that you suck up to right wing hacks. What Obama is capable of doing is convincing the man or woman on the street in red America that liberals are not necessarily condescending, insincere elitists that want to take away your freedoms as the right wing hacks have conditioned him/her to believe. Scott's comment is the equivalent of a right winger accusing a liberal of appeasing terrorists because he proposes having diplomatic relations with Iran. Not all people that have voted republican are right wing hacks that have engaged in total war for the last 15 years. Just like not all muslims are terrorists. And in order to win big in 2008 (and beyond), we need to convince some people that voted republican to vote democratic.

Posted by Led | December 10, 2007 6:16 PM

"Conservatives like Obama because they're drowning, and he's sucker enough to throw them a lifeline rather than an anvil."

Let me posit an alternative, self-interested hypothesis. I think Obama would be a great professor, motivational speaker, or leader of an advocacy organization, but he wouldn't be my choice to be chief executive of the United States. So why might some conservative commentators like him? Because he is a great 2006 candidate (when the main issue was how badly Iraq was going), but the elections will be held in '08.

If current trends in Iraq continue, Iraq won't be a major issue in the next election. Of the three leading Dem candidates, Hillary is best positioned for this sort of election, followed by Obama, followed by Edwards. If the election had been held in 2006 the order would have been Obama (because he initially opposed the war) followed by Edwards (because he, like Matt Yglesias, recanted his initial support of the war), followed by Hillary.

Posted by Fred | December 10, 2007 6:17 PM

"As for me, I am very happy that Obama is breathing down Hillary's throat while the unprecedented coalition of educated liberals and black voters comes together at the right time.

Obama is Jesse Jackson with the white vote. He's Hart with organization. Bradley with the black vote."

Isn't Hillary actually beating Obama among blacks? Obama seems to be the candidate of affluent young white liberals, attracted by the latest traditional liberal Democrat who claims to eschew traditional politics. I'd bet he attracts the same demos that Jerry Brown did in '91.

Hillary would seem to be the smart choice for black Dems. Since their goals are continued affirmative action and redistribution from more affluent groups, who is more likely to be a reliable supporter of those goals? A white woman desperate for their continued support, or a black man trying to appear colorblind?

Posted by Fred | December 10, 2007 6:26 PM

Interesting, Hillary uses mildly hawkish rhetoric on foreign policy to defend her right flank and she's an uber-hawk. Obama attacks progressives and undermines core progressive policies like Social Security and universal health coverage but he's just kidding.

Seems to me a focus on substance and taking what candidates say seriously would be more wise.

Posted by tib | December 10, 2007 6:27 PM

A primary advantage for Obama in the general is that he's NOT being pilloried as "Nurse Ratched" by moderate old-school Democrats like Chris Matthews. There's a male (and, yes, female) antipathy to Hillary that will not go away. Sexist, shmecksist, whatever it is- it's here to stay. She's a loser. He's not.

Posted by Trevor | December 10, 2007 6:29 PM

That's not just true. While one can quibble with the wisdom of raising the issue of social security now, Obama's policy proposal is just fine. Raising the cap affects the top 5% of incomes.

As for universal health coverage, his proposal is fine; from the little I ve read it's far more realistic than Hillary's. Tim Noah in Slate has written about it, so has former Labor Secretary Reich in his blog.

In any case, I think the difference between Health Care Plans is very small. I wouldn't expect any of them to get implemented as they are proposed now; there's plenty of negotiation and process to go through.

Posted by Nick Kaufman | December 10, 2007 6:32 PM

Obama's going to win this one, folks -- the primary and then the general. And then he and the Democratic controlled congress will enact progressive legislation we couldn't have dreamed of in the 00s and rarely saw considered in the 90s. And a lot of moderates and even some conservatives will love it. That's my bet, anyway, and I don't see a better bet on the table.

Look at how he's positioned himself in this race. Could he have done any better? Dude's got mad skills.

Posted by mrsaturdaypants | December 10, 2007 6:36 PM

If I were an Edwards supporter instead of focusing on Obama, I would question the strategy that has left Edwards stagnant in the polls. Admittedly, it's allowed him to stay there, but he isn't going anywhere either.

Edwards's lack of progress is puzzling, especially given the increasing economic difficulty the country is experiencing. You'd think that the problematic economy -- coupled with the high profile he has attained by a previous national run -- would leave him in a stronger position.

I think it comes down to -- and this is going to seem quite the cliche -- that he's just not sufficiently presidential. In the US system, we're not just choosing the government's CEO, we're choosing a head of state. In a parliamentary system, were Edwards the leader of the opposition, he'd have a shadow cabinet minister dealing with economic issues who could hammer away at the middle class anxiety issue. But Edwards has to make that case himself in our system. And his incessant, almost shrill focus on the issue -- while music to my Denmark-lovin' redistributionist ears, frankly brings him down in the eyes of a lot of voters. He sounds like he's running for Consumer Advocate in Chief, or Povery Ameliorator in Chief. But he's running for leader of the free world.

Not that I don't think that this election will probably be decided -- as most ultimately are -- on the economy (stupid), but you can make the economic case along with talking about other issues, especially after you get the nomination. To talk about how tough the middle class has it incessantly, almost 24/7 non-stop, hasn't proved to be a winning formula. Even Americans who need a lot of help don't want to think they're voting for someone merely because that candidate is going to give them some rich person's money. They want to be inspired. Edwards, I'm (truly) sorry to say, mostly hasn't been inspiring. Although he's still got time. What say you, Petey?

Posted by Jasper | December 10, 2007 6:51 PM

Obama's going to win this one, folks -- the primary and then the general. And then he and the Democratic controlled congress will enact progressive legislation we couldn't have dreamed of in the 00s and rarely saw considered in the 90s.

Glad I wasn't drinking coffee when I read this, because I would've spewed all over the screen.

Yes, this time your heroic Dems are gonna deliver. You bet. This time they're not gonna be seduced by all those corporate dollars that are already in their coffers (good businessmen know a loser when they see it, and there's no bigger loser than Bush's GOP). Yeah boy, this time those timid Dems are gonna throw off the sheepskin, and reveal their inner -- gerbil, weasel, or tribble, or whatever small furry annoying mammal they really are.

Face it, the post-2009 Dem mantra is gonna be the same fucking bullshit it's been for the last year: Our majority isn't quite big enough. Wah! We need you to send money so we can make it bigger! Wait til after the next election! Honest!

Posted by sglover | December 10, 2007 7:05 PM

Those of you charging Obama with being a closet centrist need to look at his record.

Posted by goethean | December 10, 2007 7:05 PM

LaFollette! Scott!
Ok, LaF said:
"Because of his impressive political skills, Obama is very well positioned to present an ambitious progressive agenda. What concerns me is that he hasn't done this yet."

Yes he has, in the Illinois legislature, to name but one very totally on-point example:
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/illinoisnews/story/924725BBB328259D862573AB00145101?OpenDocument

That death penalty legislation was very hard to pass [others had tried and failed], everyone credits Obama with getting it passed, and he got it to pass by working tirelessly with the oppposition, by getting cops to endorse it, in fact. And was it compromise? Not in any crucial way, in fact he refused to compromise on one thing they were trying to get him to cave on: The law as passed requires both the interrogation AND the confession to be videotaped in order for the confession to be used in court. They wanted him to drop the interrogation and he refused. And he eventually got his way, with their blessing.

So if you want to know how this quality of Obama's plays out in real life, look there.

Posted by Phoebe | December 10, 2007 7:08 PM

"Edwards's lack of progress is puzzling, especially given the increasing economic difficulty the country is experiencing."

Today's economic conditions don't favor Edwards's traditional, heartland-oriented economic populism. The economy as a whole is doing decently, and the heartland is doing better than the coasts: high tech exporters such as John Deere are booming with the weaker dollar, and the real estate bust hasn't hurt cities like St. Louis that never really participated in the boom.

Posted by Fred | December 10, 2007 7:12 PM

Oh, and Fred:
"Hillary would seem to be the smart choice for black Dems. Since their goals are continued affirmative action and redistribution from more affluent groups, who is more likely to be a reliable supporter of those goals? A white woman desperate for their continued support, or a black man trying to appear colorblind?"

Hillary is depserate to appear tough on crime, as her husband was, and is alone among the dem candidates in opposing retroactivity for crack/powder disparity sentencing reform:

http://us.f831.mail.yahoo.com/ym/ShowLetter?MsgId=7618_5847889_12895_1899_111_0_111127_-1_0&Idx=27&YY=24695&y5beta=yes&y5beta=yes&inc=200&order=up&sort=date&pos=0&view=a&head=b&box=Obama%20O8

And as you might know, the difference between crack and powder sentencing is vast, nonsensical, and starkly slanted in favor of the white vs. black defendant.

Posted by Phoebe | December 10, 2007 7:15 PM

Yikes! Sorry!

Here's the link to the bit about H's position on the crack/powder sentencing thing:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1207/Brown_amp_Black_Forum_Clinton_on_the_right_on_drug_sentencing.html

Posted by Phoebe | December 10, 2007 7:18 PM

Another point is that gas prices tend to be higher in coastal states that impose higher taxes and more regulations on it (e.g., CA).

Posted by Fred | December 10, 2007 7:18 PM

Give me a candidate who fake right then run left (BHO) rather than one who will do the opposite (HRC).

FWIW, the Drudgereport has also been extremely charitable towards Barack, even as it continues to punch the Clintons.

Barack is a lion-tamer.

Posted by lampwick | December 10, 2007 7:22 PM

goethean:
We have, and it starts with Holy Joe being his mentor.

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | December 10, 2007 7:27 PM

Jasper,
This is mostly my gut, but I think back to how Edwards was painted by the right during the '04 election. You wrote above:

"What makes you say that? On what are you basing it? If I may be blunt, John Edwards is a rich, southern, youngish, vigorous, telegenic, highly articulate, heterosexual WASP with a nice family."

All of the above is true...but with a little twisting you get:

Rich = Made his money as a trial attorney (which Republicans will hammer him for due to his winning big settlements..."ambulance chaser" would be something you'd hear a lot)

Southern = He'd get branded as not "southern" enough (by those for whom such things matter). I'm from the South (born in NC, raised in southern VA) and I can just see it for some reason...it obviously doesn't help that the Kerry/Edwards ticket didn't win his home state last time around.

"youngish, vigorous, telegenic" = Breck Girl. This line of attack is already out there, advanced by people like MoDo. Combine that with his being a lawyer by training and you can see him being called "slick" (negatively) very easily.

He does have a great family and Elizabeth is fantastic, but if you don't think some crazy Republican will go back to the issue of his being out on the trail w/her sick, you're kidding yourself.

Posted by Mike P | December 10, 2007 7:41 PM

Have you purchased any shares of John Edwards's former part-time employer, Fortress Investment Group? I doubled my position at $15.94 recently, and noticed that Fortress director (and Council on Foreign Relations head) Dr. Richard N. Haass bought more at $16.02. So I'm in good company.

John Edwards may have economically destructive policy prescriptions, but like many soi disant liberal populists, he's been good at making money for himself. Forget the rhetoric and follow the money if you want to make some too.

???

FIG opened at $35 on the date of its IPO, back in February, and has gone down steadily ever since. It has lost more than 40% of its value in under a year.

Posted by Al | December 10, 2007 7:48 PM

First, I implore those who doubt Obama to read Dreams from My Father, which was written before he entered politics, and then tell me he is not a committed liberal.

Second, I work for a city government in a conservative part of the country. Most of my co-workers lean Republican, yet at the same time they care deeply about many "liberal" issues including water conservation, green building, and saving the wilderness for hunting, camping, and hiking. These people are not evil, just misguided in their politics. What they dislike about Democrats is more of an image thing than a policy thing. They hate being lectured too, being called rednecks, and the idea that government can fix all of our problems.

These are the people we need on our side in order to fix this country. Obama's rhetoric honors their values, which is really all they want. This allows the reasonable Republicans, and there are a lot of them out there, to join forces with liberals on a whole range of issues.

It makes me sad when I see the counter-productive attitude of the fightin' libs. It displays a lack of understanding of how the real world works. If Democrats end up with a decent majority in Congress after '08, this is absolutely NOT the time to have a partisan fighter as a president. We will already have most of the votes we need, and all we will need is a consensus-builder to move things forward. That is the role Obama was born to play.

The press love Obama. If he wins the nomination the story line will be "are we on our way to the first multi-racial president?" He will be untouchable, and any racists who wouldn't vote for Obama would never vote for Democrats anyway. They will be isolated. So tell me, why would we not want that scenario?

Posted by Nathan | December 10, 2007 7:59 PM

John Edwards may have economically destructive policy prescriptions

What kinds of policies are you talking about: Raising the minimum wage, more restrictions on predatory lending, making it easier for unions to organize, including worker standards in future trade deals? You may not like these proposals, but it's not like Edwards is the second coming of Hugo Chavez.

but like many soi disant liberal populists, he's been good at making money for himself. Forget the rhetoric and follow the money if you want to make some too

Oh, please. Please find an instance where Edwards said he's against private equity or the stock market. If Edwards was calling for the nationalization of Fortune 500 companies, then you might actually have a point.

Posted by Peter H | December 10, 2007 8:22 PM

I am a little perplexed at the sniping on all sides here. Believe it or not, the people running the campaigns of the top three Democratic contenders are not stupid. There are all doing what they rightly think they need to do to position themselves for the general election.

Clinton needs to reassure the conventional masses that as the first woman president she will be strong enough so she stakes out a more hawkish foreign policy. Obama needs to convince white folks that he is not one of those "scary" blacks, that he shares their values. And Edwards needs to demonstrate that he is principled and passionate and not just a slick, ambitious trial lawyer.

The fact that Clinton's and Obama's appeals leaves many of the progressive faithful cold is not a flaw. They are not really talking to them. Apparently, they think you guys are smart enough to figure that our for yourselves.

Posted by k | December 10, 2007 9:47 PM

"FIG opened at $35 on the date of its IPO, back in February, and has gone down steadily ever since. It has lost more than 40% of its value in under a year."

FIG's IPO was actually priced at 18, but the stock price shot up over 30 on its first day of trading. Anyone who bought at those prices was a fool. I doubt Edwards's cost basis was over 18 -- he probably got a stake before the IPO. My average cost is $17.02 -- I bought it first at $18.10 in August and then averaged down at $15.94.

Posted by Fred | December 10, 2007 10:18 PM

k,
do you really think HRC is pretending to be hawkish in order to win the center? because when does the pretending stop? and does it matter if she's pretending when she votes that way in real life?

Posted by Phoebe | December 10, 2007 11:42 PM

There are all doing what they rightly think they need to do to position themselves for the general election.

Clinton needs to reassure the conventional masses that as the first woman president she will be strong enough so she stakes out a more hawkish foreign policy. Obama needs to convince white folks that he is not one of those "scary" blacks, that he shares their values. And Edwards needs to demonstrate that he is principled and passionate and not just a slick, ambitious trial lawyer.

Or, horrors of horrors - Clinton really isn't a wimpy femme, Obama won't turn the house next door into a crack den given half a chance, and Edwards isn't angling for a recurring role on Boston Legal.

Stranger things have happened, folks.

Posted by Craig Ranapia | December 11, 2007 12:05 AM

So it seems Matt and I are mirror images: I have more faith that Hillary will be a mainstream Democrat in foreign policy and he has more faith than I do in Obama on domestic policy. Since either could win the nomination, we will each have to hope we are both correct and not both wrong.

But I actually have more faith (or is it hope?) in Edwards.

Posted by tdraicer | December 11, 2007 12:07 AM

Julian Elson, this is the "trick" that McCain has been using for quite some time. He's the right-winger who didn't drink the Kool-Aid! And a lot of people on the left have really respected him for this.

Indeed, I do regard John McCain as a better person than Giuliani or Romney! Although I think I mainly regard him as better not because he seems nicer and more understanding toward liberals, but because he's substantively opposed to torture and K-street corruption.

Not that I'd vote for him or anything. "Not a torture apologist" and "not blatantly corrupt" are things I regard as something of a minimum, not qualifications in and of themselves.

Posted by Julian Elson | December 11, 2007 1:32 AM

If you read Lakoff's Moral Politics and then read some of his stuff on framing, you'll know exactly where Obama's coming from. I realized the first time I saw him speak he had studied this. And by the way, there were a lot of new progressives around 2004 who read this book and made it their manifesto.

Posted by KathyF | December 11, 2007 2:00 AM

These people are not evil, just misguided in their politics. What they dislike about Democrats is more of an image thing than a policy thing. They hate being lectured too, being called rednecks, and the idea that government can fix all of our problems.

You think that their goodwill exceeds their ego. Experience says that ain't necessarily so.

Where are these mythical Democrats who walk around claiming 'government can fix all our problems'? I'd like to meet a few. The Great Society is now 40 years ago. You're probably confusing your colleagues' smugness and excuses for actual reasonable objections.

Posted by cd | December 11, 2007 5:42 AM

A liberal politician who is actually good at politics?

We must destroy this unnatural abomination!

Posted by DTM | December 11, 2007 8:36 AM

Kervick wrote:

I don't think it is a "trick". As strange and anachronistic as it might seem in the present era, Obama just does sincerely respect people he profoundly disagrees with, and is able to stand tall and fight for his own position without hating on the other guys. If you think this is bizarre, try teaching a successful class on Constitutional Law or some other disputatious field, filled with bright and earnest students representing, without maintaining such an attitude. The blogospheric presupposition is that respect, courtesy and the capacity to listen and empathize is something only middle-of-the-roaders are capable of doing. Thus Matt thinks that the simultaneous co-existence in one individual of very progressive positions with empathetic understanding of conservatives must be some kind of trick. But this is just small and wrong.

My wife, son and several of the people in my office went to the Obama-Oprah rally at the Verizon Center in Manchester yesterday. Loyal and long-time Democratic voters all - except for my son, who will be turning 18 in June and voting in his first election in November - but not given like me to participate in blogospheric rage-fests, they get positively tingly about Obama's unity message. A lot of people in the country are apparently just fed up with hating their enemies. They see Obama as the anti-O'Reilly and anti-Beck, someone whose dignity just makes the latter seem even more pathetic and stupid.

Best comment of the discussion. Imagine believing in your ideas and standing up for them, but not spewing hate at everyone who disagrees. This could be a revolutionary concept. It's a little bit sickening that there are folks on the left who are offended by this.

The timing is perfect, which I think largely drove Obama's decision to run this time and is fueling his "fierce urgency of now" stump theme. America has never been more eager to hear Obama's message than after these past 10-12 years of hateful and bitterly divisive politics. The Republican party is fragmenting, and there is a once-in-generation opportunity for a transformational candidate like Obama to sweep some of those fragments into the liberal coalition and create a political realignment in America. Clinton, at this moment, would be a disaster and an opportunity lost. Edwards certainly wouldn't be a disaster, but neither would he be able to capitalize on this opportunity in the way that Obama can.

Posted by J.B. | December 11, 2007 12:48 PM

For what it's worth, I'm a relatively conservative Republican, and unless by some miracle Ron Paul wins the Republican nomination, I will vote for Obama if he is the Democratic nominee.
I realize that Paul and Obama are polar opposites. But in the absence of an electable true conservative (by which I mean limited government, no wars without Congressional declarations, restoration of habeas corpus, federalism, etc), I would rather someone of Obama's personality be elected. Yes, he's inexperienced, and more than a little left-wing. But there is something about him that gives me hope that the country could be more unified than it has ever been during the Bush-Clinton-Bush years (and God forbid that cycle continues with another Clinton).
So count me as another Republican, who has never voted for a Democratic candidate for president, who has been "tricked" by Obama. I think he's the real deal, and can bring something fresh and invigorating into the political arena. I also don't think he will order the torturing of detainees or send our troops into a foreign policy disaster.
One more thing: His collegial and charismatic personality lend themselves to foreign diplomacy, which we desperately need. While I would prefer a Ron Paul who would just say, "We will leave you alone," I would be happy for a president who treats other countries (including our enemies) with respect, understanding, and humility.

Posted by fed up repub | December 11, 2007 1:39 PM

Imagine believing in your ideas and standing up for them, but not spewing hate at everyone who disagrees.

Obama is the only one of the Democrats (other than Kucinich, I guess) who attracts true believers. That certainly proves him to be a very skilled politician.

I don't see anything in Obama that makes him seem to believe his ideas any more than any of the Democrats. And I don't know of any major politician on the left who "spew[s] hate at everyone who disagrees." Obama can play as nasty as anyone, which, frankly, is what's turning a lot of people on this thread against him. His team released an opo press release on Paul Krugman of all people. And he's accused Hilary Clinton of (horrors!) plotting to become president.

I say this not to attack Obama as worse than other politicians, but to say he's the same. If you like him, great. He's a good liberal as his record shows. But this "uniter not a divider" message is just as silly and insincere coming from him as it was coming from GWB.

Posted by Rob Mac | December 11, 2007 6:08 PM

do you really think HRC is pretending to be hawkish in order to win the center? because when does the pretending stop?

I wouldn't call it pretending but I think she is a very careful, disciplined, some might say calculating, politician who has worked hard to develop an image that she can sell. I would not expect her foreign policy as President to be much different from what we saw when her husband was President, that is, aggressive but not insane like Cheney's. As a result, I tend to favor Obama and Edwards over Clinton.

Posted by k | December 11, 2007 7:36 PM

Interesting, Hillary uses mildly hawkish rhetoric on foreign policy to defend her right flank and she's an uber-hawk. Obama attacks progressives and undermines core progressive policies like Social Security and universal health coverage but he's just kidding.

I think this illustrates what many people in here aren't getting. Hillary doesn't just use hawkish rhetoric, she also has a hawkish voting record. Obama, despite using rhetoric that might piss off the base, actually does favor progressive policies. His voting record reflects that. On Social Security, for example, his policy prescriptions are quite liberal.

Posted by Josh | December 12, 2007 11:22 PM