McCaskill for Obama

Senator Claire McCaskill endorses Barack Obama. Hillary Clinton still obviously has the overall endorsements leader, as the establishment candidate is bound to, but the recent high-profile endorsements have all tilted Obama's way. I have to say that I don't totally understand why that is. You would have thought this would have come after Iowa as people try to jump on the apparently victorious bandwagon. It's true that Obama's odds look better than they did in, say, November but I think you'd have to say that Clinton is the favorite to win so Obama's endorses are taking risks and politicians aren't normally big risk takers.

UPDATE: See also Josh Marshall.

Comments

I wonder if McCaskill, Nelson and Johnson are subtly signaling to blue-state Dems that Obama is far more electable than Clinton in November -- which is, at this point, the single most compelling reason to vote for Obama in, say, a California or New Jersey or New York primary on Super Tuesday. I assume all three Senators have their fingers on the pulses of their constituencies.

Posted by BryklynLibrul | January 13, 2008 9:23 AM

The risk is the Democratic Party losing in 2008 or winning in 2008 so that Hillary Clinton is in office to preserve the status quo.

Posted by You're ignoring the real risks | January 13, 2008 9:27 AM

These aren't exactly the world's most awesomest endorsements, from a leftist perspective.

Ben Nelson supports war and torture and giveaways to the wealthy. He's basically a useful placeholder that gives Harry Reid a vote every now and again.

Tim Johnson has been a solid vote for Bush economics, and voted to confirm Alito.

Obviously, that's what you get with red-state Democrats. That's why they're red states - they elect conservatives, whether Democrats or Republicans.

But, there are two takes here. One is that people who have continually voted for maintaining the status quo of corporatism and imperialism are turning around and supporting Obama, which should make us concerned about Obama. The other is that people who have continually voted for maintaining the status quo of corporatism and imperialism are turning around and supporting Obama, who doesn't agree with them on those issues, which should make people optimistic about Obama's ability to win votes.

The question is, then, how dead-certain are we that Obama really does disagree, and really will act on his disagreements with his endorsers on the key issues of the day?

Posted by DivGuy | January 13, 2008 9:54 AM

Easy, a red state Democrat won't survive long enough to feel President Clinton II's wrath.

Posted by aleks | January 13, 2008 9:54 AM

They way these endorsements have come in, I have to believe they were all sealed up awhile ago, but the Obama campaign has kept a lid on them for when they need them to combat any Clinton momentum.

They didn't think they needed them in NH, when they thought they were going to win big. I mean, I'm of the opinion endorsements are overrated, but they can cause perception shifts in the media.

I think a lot of swing-state Dems are very concerned about the down-ticket effect of a Clinton nomination.

Posted by matthewcc | January 13, 2008 10:02 AM

"These aren't exactly the world's most awesomest endorsements, from a leftist perspective."

Sure. But from a more objective perspective, seeing the least progressive Democrats in the Senate endorsing the least progressive Democratic Presidential candidate does reassure one's faith in the power of ideology.

Posted by Petey | January 13, 2008 10:06 AM

"I think a lot of swing-state Dems are very concerned about the down-ticket effect of a Clinton nomination."

There might be something to this idea, as there is no way that HRC leads a sweeping realignment victory that deeply restructures the House and Senate. Obama, in the right circumstances, might be able to pull off a big victory by sweeping the Midwest and picking off a few western states, namely NM, NV, and CO--all off which went for Bush in 2004 (I think). In order to do that, he's going to need a lot of Latino voters.

Posted by Unreal Veal | January 13, 2008 10:09 AM

To elaborate on what I just said, there are two possible narratives the media could pick on that could be prompted by a steady string of endorsements from swing-staters:

1. the new generation of Democratic leadership is trying to beat back a Clinton restoration

- and/or -

2. there is a fear among moderate Democrats in swing states that their positions (or their state allies' positions) would be threatened by heavy Republican turnout if Clinton is the nominee.

Whether those two things are true, as sort of undercurrents of thought they would be very beneficial to Obama.

Posted by matthewcc | January 13, 2008 10:11 AM

Petey,

What do you base your "least progressive" assessment on? Certainly not support for the Iraq war.

Posted by Jake | January 13, 2008 10:12 AM

Petey, from what I've read Obama has the most progressive record in the Senate. Clinton is far more 'centrist', and when Edwards was an actual Senator making actual votes, my understanding is he wasn't scoring high liberal marks either.

Posted by matthewcc | January 13, 2008 10:15 AM

On McCaskill, she's up for re-election in 2012, so I don't think coattails or negative coattails are an issue for her in this endorsement. Frankly, the Dems in Missouri who are worried about the effect of the nominee downticket are going with Edwards.

She's also been a huge disappointment to a lot of us who worked hard to get her elected in 2006. She ran on "standing up to Bush" but since she joined the Senate, she's emphasized bipartisanship more than anything else.

Posted by Clark | January 13, 2008 10:19 AM

What do you base your "least progressive" assessment on?

Edwards's poll numbers and the weight of his own sadness. HRC is a DLC Dem; this isn't a close call.

I tend to buy the "beat back four more years of Clinton at the head of the party," but who knows?

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | January 13, 2008 10:23 AM

oops, I just followed the TPM link and I see Marshall made the exact same points I did, and more eloquently.

Posted by matthewcc | January 13, 2008 10:25 AM

"I tend to buy the "beat back four more years of Clinton at the head of the party," but who knows?"

If my state were voting tomorrow and Edwards weren't on the ballot, I'd probably vote Obama for non-ideological reasons.

But anyone who thinks Obama hasn't consistently positioned himself to the right of the field this nomination race is either stupid or not paying attention.

This ain't complicated, folks, no matter who you're supporting.

Posted by Petey | January 13, 2008 10:28 AM

And when did you flip-flop on candidate preference, SCMT?

Posted by Petey | January 13, 2008 10:31 AM

May be I am from Mars. But, I do not see any way Clinton not being the nominee. The Orient Express (aka White House Train) has left the station. Obama and all his supporters can only waste their energy, time, and money. There is no way.

The Clintons (and their free volunteers - Shaheens, Kerreys, Carvilles, Sharptons, Rahms, etc. - will sacrifice their lives for the victory.

Does Obama have anyone will do that? No.

It is over. Remember the Star Trek TNG theme with the Borg.

Resistance is Futile.

Victory for Clintons is given. Accept it.

Posted by eorse | January 13, 2008 10:32 AM

"But anyone who thinks Obama hasn't consistently positioned himself to the right of the field this nomination race is either stupid or not paying attention."

Agreed. But how far to the right does that place him? Is it heretical not to mandate insurance coverage or to support merit pay for teachers or to suggest the US might chase Bin Laden into Pakistan? Maybe I'm missing it, but I don't see any gaping ideological chasm separating Obama, Edwards, and Clinton, which brings the debate back to electability and promise. Given those considerations, Obama seems like the better bet to me. But I may well be wrong.

Posted by Unreal Veal | January 13, 2008 10:36 AM

But anyone who thinks Obama hasn't consistently positioned himself to the right of the field this nomination race is either stupid or not paying attention.

Ahm, how precisely? By saying he'll try to work with Republicans? Or is it the social security you get hung up on?

Please Petey. Educate those of us who are too stupid to follow your argument.

Posted by Jake | January 13, 2008 10:37 AM

Many democrats want a democratic president to do what Bush did for the republicans: take a razor thin majority in an election and use it to cram the party's agenda down the throats of the opposition. Right now Obama is promising to work with the other side, and to certain democrats this smacks of betrayal and weakness. Other democrats see this as a more realistic approach for the next eight years.

It doesn't surprise me that both Clinton and Obama are picking up endorsements.

Posted by Helter | January 13, 2008 10:37 AM

But anyone who thinks Obama hasn't consistently positioned himself to the right of the field this nomination race is either stupid or not paying attention.

And consequently, he will not need to run to the center for the general election and he will be able to mute allegations of flip-flopping and inconsistency that would most certainly plague Clinton and Edwards, especially on Iraq.

Posted by Just Karl | January 13, 2008 10:40 AM

"Agreed. But how far to the right does that place him? Is it heretical not to mandate insurance coverage "

Yes. It is heretical and disgusting to have a Democratic candidate for President running against universal healthcare.

-----

I've spent the last year thinking that I was a single-issue voter and my single issue was telling the Clintons to go the fuck away.

But Obama has certainly spent the past couple of months trying to convince me that my single issue should be rejecting any Democratic Presidential campaign with the cowardice to run against universal healthcare.

-----

If Edwards is out of the race, and I still think he may have a trick or two up his sleeve, I'm then forced to choose between the candidate of nepotism and the candidate of Andrew Sullivan.

An unappealing choice, to be sure, and while today I'm in the camp of the candidate of Andrew Sullivan, I find myself shifting to and fro.

Posted by Petey | January 13, 2008 10:43 AM

Yes. It is heretical and disgusting to have a Democratic candidate for President running against universal healthcare.

I think "running against" is really a gross mischaracterization.

Petey, what kind of odds do you place on Hillary actually being able to put universal care in place? How do those odds compare to Obama's ability to take an important step towards it?

Posted by Jake | January 13, 2008 10:50 AM

Is it fair to say that Obama is running AGAINST universal healthcare because he does not mandate coverage for adults. I am not an expert on healthcare; I get lost in the weeds on the details. But saying that he is an opponent of universal healthcare based on the mandate idea seems misguided.

Posted by Unreal Veal | January 13, 2008 10:51 AM

The question is, then, how dead-certain are we that Obama really does disagree, and really will act on his disagreements with his endorsers on the key issues of the day?

Answer is obvious. Obama doesn't disagree. These politicians aren't idiots. His positioning to the right on base issues (social security, unions, teachers unions/merit pay, health care mandates, trial lawyers) has made this obvious.

Petey, what kind of odds do you place on Hillary actually being able to put universal care in place?

An Obama supporter preaching against the audacity of hope? Astonishing.

Posted by Dan the Man | January 13, 2008 10:54 AM

But anyone who thinks Obama hasn't consistently positioned himself to the right of the field this nomination race is either stupid or not paying attention.

Not consistently; take Clinton's anti-tax mailer in NH. Regardless of the merits of Obama's proposal to raise the cap on Social Security taxes, her rhetoric wasn't focused on that; talking about trillion-dollar tax increases and letting families [in which one person earns over $100K] keep more of their money is inimical to progressive goals.

keep more of their money

Posted by Matt Weiner | January 13, 2008 10:58 AM

"Is it fair to say that Obama is running AGAINST universal healthcare because he does not mandate coverage for adults."

The good Senator from Illinois had plenty of time to come up with any universal healthcare plan he chose, with any mechanism he chose.

Instead, he decided to avoid the topic completely and then attack the UHC plans other Democrats had actually put on the table.

I happen to think that how a President campaigns will determine for they will governs, so I am not a friend of the good Senator from Illinois.

I know that many Obama supporters seem to think that Obama is just lying to win the election, and which point he'll magically transform back to a progressive. And all I can say on that topic is that Petey don't play that.

Posted by Petey | January 13, 2008 10:59 AM

White space courtesy of my cat. Sorry.

Posted by Matt Weiner | January 13, 2008 11:00 AM

Petey, from what I've read Obama has the most progressive record in the Senate. Clinton is far more 'centrist', and when Edwards was an actual Senator making actual votes, my understanding is he wasn't scoring high liberal marks either.

Exactly. In fact, if you look at the lifetime resume of the 3 major Democratic candidates, Obama seems to have the most progressive resume.

All three candidates started their adult lives at exactly the same point and at the same age: With newly minted law degrees.

Clinton followed the most conservative career path into an establishment law firm representing establishment corporate clients. She served on the board of directors of Wal-Mart for God's sake.

Edwards followed a more independent and risky career path as a trial attorney. But it was still a moneyed path.

Obama with his newly minted Harvard Law degree turned down the certain superstar salary and chose to teach and work as a community organizer.

Eventually all 3 made it into the Senate where their voting records are relatively comparable. But in terms of a lifetime resume, Obama definitely seems the least establishment and most progressive.

One thing that I really wish the media and other candidates would question is Hillary's claim to 35 years of experience. Clinton is 60 years old which means her 35 years of experience started in 1972 when she was 25. What in God's name was Clinton doing in 1972 at age 25 that qualifies as relevant Presidential leadership "experience?" According to her bio she was a Yale law student in 1972 and dating Bill Clinton. The Clinton campaign wants to measure Hillary's "experience" starting with law school whereas they want to measure Obama's experience as starting with his election into the Senate. Yeah, right.

Posted by Kent | January 13, 2008 11:07 AM

Dan the Man, I question your notion of "[Obama's] positioning to the right on base issues."

Here's your is of issues on which he's supposedly done so, followed be the facts that show your case is either wrong or unnproven:

social security: Obama wants to raise the payroll tax cap (as does Edwards), and his website says "Obama is strongly opposed to privatizing Social Security." This is hardly right-wing. (see http://www.barackobama.com/issues/socialsecurity/).

unions: How is Obama anti-union? Really, tell me.

teachers unions/merit pay: so merit pay is inherently right-wing? I thought that we on the left were in favor of meritocracy. Obviously, devil is in the details on this one, but what on earth is anti-progressive with the principle of merit pay for teachers?

health care mandates: again, how are these progressive? As many have noted, this is an idea born in the offices of the insurance industry. Neither Clinton's plan nor Obama's would constitute universal healthcare, but both could do so, depending on how consumers react. Obama is hardly running to the right, especially given his repeated insistence that the ideal would be single-payer, but that baseed on where we are now it's going to take several steps to get there.

trial lawyers: again, how is he running against trial lawyers? Is he in favor of tort reform? I don't think so.

In short: maybe you should study the basis of bs anti-Obama talking points before spreading them around.

Cheers.

Posted by marcj | January 13, 2008 11:09 AM

I am watching Chris Matthews on Fox about his show after MTP.

Gloria Borger say Edwards and Obama were ganging up on HRC. Michelle from NPR agree. What free volunteers for HRC?

Now, Go back to that debate.

- HRC tried to USE Edwards to get to Obama. She failed.
- Edwards then went change/status quo.

HRC is clever. She is the best. Clintons are the most powerful couple on this Planet. All low-income/low-education white women and men will vote for Clintons.

It is over for Obama. Over.

Resistance is Futile. Clintons for Forever.

Posted by eorse | January 13, 2008 11:13 AM

Petey--

EDWARDS HAS NOT PROPOSED A UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE PLAN. That doesn't mean his plan isn't good, but it does mean you should stop pretending that Obama's the only one whose plan is not universal. Obama opens up universal access to government healthcare, with subsidies for the poor and mandated coverage for children. In theory it could be universal, but in practice it might not be. Conversely, Edwards's "mandates" are theoretically universal but until he explains how mandates will actually be implemented, they're unlikely to be so in practice (see, e.g., Massachusetts and the 20% who have opted out of "mandates").

And although you seem to consider yourself a hard-eyed realist for backing Edwards, that seems far more a leap of faith, based on Edwards's non-existent record of progressivism in the Senate (or anywhere else), than backing Obama, who's already done more in 3 yrs than Edwards did in 6, not to mention during his time in the IL Senate.

Posted by marcj | January 13, 2008 11:15 AM

I still intend to endorse John Edwards on Feb. 5 even though he is very unlikely to win the nomination.

Bill was never helpful to down ticket Dems and Hillary won't help either; remember 2010 will be a tough haul for Senate Dems, and it's quite likely the party structure and money will focus solely on re-electing HRC in 2012.

Posted by MikeKC | January 13, 2008 11:18 AM

Barack Obama has attacked Social Security, has a self-defeating voluntary health care plan and wants to add 100,000 troops to US military forces, not to mention have the right to attack Pakistan. I thought he would moderate his ideas, but he hasn't. The change stuff is empty. I will not be voting for Obama.

The more Republican "support" for Obama, the less regard I had for him. I will vote for Edwards and then Clinton.

Posted by Jennifer | January 13, 2008 11:22 AM

Social Security

"Obama Refers To "Social Security Crisis""

How is Obama anti-union?

Unions

Obama Camp Calls Unions "Special Interests"

how is he running against trial lawyers?

Trial Lawyers

"Is there a right wing talking point Obama hasn't rushed to embrace? Going after trial lawyers?"

so merit pay is inherently right-wing?

So you're against the Democratic position on merit pay of teachers. Your choice.

health care mandates:

Others have already answered this.

Posted by Dan the Man | January 13, 2008 11:26 AM

Dan,

I apologize--I thought you actually referring to substance. Now I see that you actually have either no interest in or no understanding of policy.

I see that you think that it's much more important that Obama responded to a question about an SS "crisis" without rejecting that frame, than that he then used that frame to propose a change in the tax code that would greatly enhance progressivity.

Likewise, you think that because does not pay rhetorical homage to special interests like unions and trial lawyers (both of which I support, while still recognizing that they are special interests), he is anti-union and anti-trial lawyer, although he has made no substantive policy proposals against either, and although a number of unions have endorsed him.

And yes, insofar as the Democratic Party flatly opposes merit pay, I think it's a horrible position. As I said, devil's in the details, and I don't know how merit pay can be implemented, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't look for ways to do so while still protecting teacher independence. So let me turn it around and actually address substance: houldn't good teachers be rewarded more than bad teachers? Wouldn't this be preferable, both as a matter of equity and as a way of incentivizing bright people to go into teaching?

Others have not responded to the mandate point to my satisfaction, and your failure to even cherry-pick another substance-free quote from kos isn't helping.

Posted by marcj | January 13, 2008 11:43 AM

"[w]ouldn't good teachers be rewarded more than bad teachers? Wouldn't this be preferable, both as a matter of equity and as a way of incentivizing bright people to go into teaching?"

--as you say the Devil is in the details. It is entirely possible--even likely--that this money would go to teachers who most slavishly teach to standardized tests. That would be a shame in that the merit money would reinforce the trend to test ad infinitum.

Posted by Unreal Veal | January 13, 2008 11:51 AM

UV:

Absolutely. So I'm not in favor of merit pay in a vacuum, but I think that it's definitely something to aspire towards, and I think that blanket opposition to merit pay is wrong on both the merits and the politics.

Posted by marcj | January 13, 2008 12:02 PM

Dan, I live in Illinois. Obama has long been known for being a very progressive person but, he is not tied to ideology. He is known to always look for better ways and new ideas.
If the party stays entrenched in certain ideas without being creative enough to search out new information or ideas, we become fossilized like the republicans. One reason their party is dying out right now is that they never moved on to update their thinking from the Reagan years.
Obama is known as a restless thinker who is not going to embrace an idea if he feels there is a better way or thinking.
He is part of the newer breed that has come on to the scene the past few years like his friend, Deval Patrick, or Webb, or Tester, ect.
Obama is know for provacative thinking here and won't be labled or tied down to ideology for the sake of ideology.
And this is where he gets in trouble with the bloggers and the left who do not understand this aspect about him.

Posted by vwcat | January 13, 2008 12:06 PM

Can you spell cognitive dissonance? I can.

Is there anything wrong with being a strong progressive willing to stand up to the corporatists on behalf of workers? Hell no, that is where I am.

Is there anything wrong with running a campaign to outflank your relatively centrist opponent on the right in the interests of positioning yourself for the General? Hmm, well, let me think, okay I guess not.

Is there something wrong with embarking on the latter strategy all the while running a 'wink, wink, nudge, nudge' effort to convince your authentically progressive supporters that you are really with them against the Man despite uttering centrist language and hiring a thoroughly centrist, anti-progressive economics team? Well I think so. And that is where Obama has positioned himself.

I could discount Obama's talk, politicians talk to get elected and that is how the game is played. I am having a real hard time discounting Obama's walk, he has surrounded himself with a pretty anti-worker economic team. If you are not familiar with the names Goolsbee, Liebman and Cutler you should be. Because one or more is likely to end up with the title 'Secretary of something' and one is almost a dead cert to end up as Senior Economist of the President's Council of Economic Advisors (aka CEA).

Certainly primaries are about politics, but lets not take our eyes entirely off policy. Compromise is not a dirty word. On the other hand ends are more important than means. Obviously a President Obama would be immeasurably a better President than anyone on the other side and as a Democrat I would be immensely proud at this demonstration of how we shuck off the pretty repugnant racist legacy we inherited from the Maddox/Bull Conner folk. But as a progressive I have to say that Obama is not exactly talking in a way that would have him be the second coming of FDR. Which is to say that I'll settle for incrementalism but don't have to like it.

Posted by Bruce Webb | January 13, 2008 12:07 PM

I agree with you about the importance of rewarding good teachers. It's just that the system is so dysfunctional and so hard to evaluate that I wonder how merit pay would ever work in real life. That said, it is not inherently anti-progressive to support merit pay for teachers. I don't get that sentiment at all. But, in terms of substance, I would like to hear Obama speak more coherently about what he would do in this regard. This is the problem with advocating change: people want to know how you will do it. When you support the status quo, this problem is less acute. It's easy to line up behind teacher unions.

By the way, McCain is guilty of empty rhetoric in this regard too. He talks about trying to place ineffective teachers in different jobs, accepts the applause, and then says NOTHING about how he would do it. Frankly, I haven't heard one candidate say anything substantive about education yet. It's discouraging and illustrative of the problem's magnitude.

Posted by Unreal Veal | January 13, 2008 12:12 PM

Pay attention to the actual process. I'm sure these leaders told the Obama camp of their potential support weeks ago, perhaps conditionally. Obama and Axelrod then decided when it would be most useful for them to announce, and bring positive coverage to the campaign. They felt it wasn't necessary during the 5 days of intense hype between IA and NH (especially as they thought NH would be fine), but a great way to get press coverage in the boring days during January. So they asked their supporters to endorse then.

Posted by Tony V | January 13, 2008 12:13 PM

UV:

Again, I agree. I guess my (completely non-profound) point is that as a general rule, we should argue for merit pay. When the Repubs propose crappy ways of getting there--by gutting tenure and feeding pork to testing companies--then we must oppose those plans. But what makes NO sense is to oppose merit pay on principle, as it appears Dan does. Because really, what principle would justify this?

In principle, all other things equal, merit pay is great. Obama's platform suggests that he recognizes the basic elements of a good plan, although as you note it's still pretty vague. At any right, he decries NCLB's test mania, and he opposes its perverse punitive structure:

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/education/

Posted by marcj | January 13, 2008 12:18 PM

The good Senator from Illinois had plenty of time to come up with any universal healthcare plan he chose, with any mechanism he chose.

Exactly. As I've said to Obama supporters on numerous occasions, it's not like there's a law preventing him from pushing from the left on healthcare, and advocating bonafide single payer. Were he to do so, I'd abandon Clinton (sorry, Petey, but, psychologically, I've already made the jump from Edwards) in a heartbeat in favor of Obama. But no, his so-called universal healthcare plan is the weakest of the big three on its merits. Then we get the GOP dog whistling about the ersatz "Social Security crisis." Next we're going to learn he's a secret member of the Club for Growth. Oh, he's progressive alright, as long as by "progressive" we're talking about the policy priorities of six figure liberals driving foreign cars with bumper stickers about Tibet and Darfur. If you're taking the bus to your factory job, then not so much.

I think that's been the problem with the American left in general (not saying it's all or even mostly our fault, mind you, there's that unfortunate little bit about the old Confederacy). By failing to enact Canadian or European-style social democracy, you end up with a whole lot of people in this country who are too stressed about paying for healthcare or shelter, or working 70 hours a week, to have any energy left over to worry about the environment or gay rights. Moreover, economically downtrodden folks are vulnerable to right wing chicanery on social issues. I say it's time to strengthen the safety net. The rest will follow.

Posted by Jasper | January 13, 2008 12:23 PM

marcj. Well I would be a lot more impressed with the following if it didn't actually include a dead link
"social security: Obama wants to raise the payroll tax cap (as does Edwards), and his website says "Obama is strongly opposed to privatizing Social Security." This is hardly right-wing. (see http://www.barackobama.com/issues/socialsecurity/)."

and a lot more impressed if I didn't know that one of Obama's top three economics advisors (Jeffrey Liebman) was the lead author of the very anti-worker privatizing Liebman-MacGuineas-Samwick Non Partisan Social Security Reform Plan

As for 'meritocracy' when exactly did that become a progressive metric of choice? In practice meritocracy generally devolves to sucking up to the people who judge 'merit' which is to say the bosses. Merit pay for teachers means privileging the fleeting opinions of the school board and the superintendent to the actual interests of the kids in your classroom. Anyone who has been in a unionized position understands the frustrations resulting when the union protects the weaker performers and the end result is equal pay for inequal work. On the other hand look around and see what group of workers have the best benefit packages and overall levels of pay? Management. And unionized work forces.

It is not totally intuitive why merit pay for teachers and cap increases for Social Security are very anti-progressive positions designed to undermine teachers as a group and Social Security as a program but on analysis that is where they take you. That Obama is talking these positions up is in context very disturbing. You don't maintain Solidarity by Division. In different ways division is what both merit pay and cap increases create.

Posted by Bruce Webb | January 13, 2008 12:24 PM

MarcJ: Thanks for the link. We agree in principle: let's hope someone does something to make schools better. I hope (there's that word again) it's Obama.

Posted by Unreal Veal | January 13, 2008 12:25 PM

Bruce,

Like you, I have some concerns about Obama's economic advisers (I'm really not a fan of Austan Goolsbee), but I wouldn't overemphasize their importance. I don't think Obama is going to privatize social security just because one of his advisers supports private accounts; for one thing, he would face an open revolt within the Democratic Party if he tried reviving privatization.

IIRC, Jeffrey Liebman was the lead economist on SS issues in the Clinton Administration from 1998-99 (at a time when privatization was first seriously talked about in Washington), and Clinton ended up coming out against privatization. Opposition to privatization is much more entrenched now than it was in the 1990's.

Posted by Peter H | January 13, 2008 12:37 PM

I've concluded that people like Dan who think Obama is "running to the right" of the other Dem candidates are either paid Hillary hacks, or simply too dim to understand the difference between rhetoric and substance. A third possibility is that they believe the former is more important than the latter when it comes to governing. I don't.

Can anyone cite any examples of substantive (i.e., not rhetorical) differences where Obama is "running to the right" of the other candidates?

(And please don't tell me this is all based on Obama's failure to use the word "mandate" in his health care plan. Imposing fines for not signing up, which Obama has suggested, is effectively a "mandate" but avoids the political toxicity of the term.)

Posted by Tractarian | January 13, 2008 12:38 PM

Perhaps the problem here is generational. In the 80's 'progressive' had a defined meaning. It put you to the right of Noam Chomsky and to the left of Ted Kennedy. It was to be profoundly pro-worker and anti-corporatist, and leery of statism and police powers generally and more open to internationalism and individual liberties. It really had nothing more in common with 19th century historicist concepts of big P Progress than the name, few 80's era progressives thought any of this was automatic, in fact we could see the visible forces of reaction in the form of Reaganism. Our progressivism wasn't a belief in inevitability it was a plan of action, you get progress by pushing back on reaction.

Obama's version of progressivism seems to rely on a post conflict model, that you get results from coupling progress with reaction. Well no, the other guys are actively pulling in the opposite direction, while you are looking forward farther into the 21st century they would be more than happy to take the time machine back to 1898 and McKinley.

Obama may be forward looking, but that doesn't make him a progressive as that term has been understood for the last thirty years.

Posted by Bruce Webb | January 13, 2008 12:41 PM

I've concluded that people like Dan who think Obama is "running to the right" of the other Dem candidates are either paid Hillary hacks, or simply too dim to understand the difference between rhetoric and substance.

Which is what Petey already said: "I know that many Obama supporters seem to think that Obama is just lying to win the election, and which point he'll magically transform back to a progressive." I think we all knew what the Obama maniacs would say. In any case, arguments of the form "my candidate is a liar, that's why you should support him" are not particularly convincing.

Posted by Dan the Man | January 13, 2008 12:47 PM

Why now, you ask? Well in the case of McCaskill, my guess is - she's from Missouri. She's a Democrat who VERY narrowly beat out the Republican there, and Missouri has a large population of people who might take offense at Clinton's MLK quote. Smart people, I mean.

Posted by Phoebe | January 13, 2008 12:49 PM

Dan, here's the working link:

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/socialsecurity/

Sorry the last link was dead, but even sorrier that you have displayed no interest in engaging on substance.

Posted by marcj | January 13, 2008 12:54 PM

Peter H

IIRC, Jeffrey Liebman was the lead economist on SS issues in the Clinton Administration from 1998-99 (at a time when privatization was first seriously talked about in Washington), and Clinton ended up coming out against privatization. Opposition to privatization is much more entrenched now than it was in the 1990's.

Well that would be a lot more reassuring if I didn't know that Liebman published LMS in 2004 and that the link I supplied doesn't go right to his current Harvard web-page. Whatever consensus emerged out of the Clinton Administration it doesn't appear that Liebman ended up sharing it. In Googling on Liebman I came on a comment from this very site from about a year ago 'explaining' that Liebman didn't actually support privatization. Which made me wonder why they call this very explicit privatization plan 'Liebman-MacGuineas-Samwick' and host it with Liebman.

A cap increase really doesn't do a thing for Social Security solvency in the medium term. It actually poses some real term risks to Social Security in the long term both on the political and financial front. It is a bad idea period if you are a supporter of Social Security as currently configured. (Which I am for reasons that are explained at interminable length at my Social Security website). On the other hand it is an essential component of the LMS plan. You have a current advisor, you have a current plan, you have a candidate pushing an element of that current plan. Which doesn't totally prove a causal chain but is close enough to make me want to get some more clarity and specifics on the policies being proposed here. Which I am not seeing. I don't doubt that the issues/social_security link to Obama's site wasn't alive at one time and maybe it is just down now for technical reasons, but it really is not a good omen that it is currently dead.

Posted by Bruce Webb | January 13, 2008 12:56 PM

Bruce:

Your argument against raising the SS cap is both self-defeating and at odds with your dislike for unnecessary compromise. You seem to imply that progressives should oppose progressive policies when they might offend republicans.

But who would actually be affected by the payroll tax cap increase? Well, the roughly (I think) 5-10% of Americans who make more than 100K annually. So right off the bat, you're not exactly dividing the country down the middle. Moreover, many of those who would be affected won't vote for any Dem, and many others--including me--will happily pay more taxes when we know it will help SS's long-term solvency.

Regardless, I've never seen any reason to oppose this plan on the merits; just anti-Obamites like Atrios and Krugman adopting conspiracy theories about how this would somehow energize opposition to SS and bring the whole system crashing down. This strikes me as wildly implausible.

Posted by marcj | January 13, 2008 1:00 PM

Bruce:

Your argument against raising the SS cap is both self-defeating and at odds with your dislike for unnecessary compromise. You seem to imply that progressives should oppose progressive policies when they might offend republicans.

But who would actually be affected by the payroll tax cap increase? Well, the roughly (I think) 5-10% of Americans who make more than 100K annually. So right off the bat, you're not exactly dividing the country down the middle. Moreover, many of those who would be affected won't vote for any Dem, and many others--including me--will happily pay more taxes when we know it will help SS's long-term solvency.

Regardless, I've never seen any reason to oppose this plan on the merits; just anti-Obamites like Atrios and Krugman adopting conspiracy theories about how this would somehow energize opposition to SS and bring the whole system crashing down. This strikes me as wildly implausible.

Oh, and my previous post includes a live link that shows Obama's unambiguous opposition to future privatization.

Posted by marcj | January 13, 2008 1:01 PM

Sorry for the double (now triple) post. Bruce, here's that working link:

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/socialsecurity/

Posted by marcj | January 13, 2008 1:03 PM

marcj

That being said there is nothing a substance on Obama's Social Security page. He doesn't explain how he would raise the cap, whether it would go all the way to the top of wage income or just to the 90% level called for by LMS, nor does it spell out whether it would apply to returns on capital.

I don't know what Obama's version of a cap increase would look like because he isn't telling me. I know exactly what Obama current advisor's version of a cap increase looks like because I went to his website and read his plan. LMS You want fricking substance explain to me why I shouldn't extrapolate from Obama's hiring a guy whose signature is a privatization plan to Obama supporting some version of that plan. And vague language about opposing privatization don't cut it. LMS is in practice a blended plan and in a pinch could be described as not really 'privatization' at all. But it is profoundly anti-worker in its make up.

You want substance, well I have three years of posts on my Social Security website and comments are enabled, moreover I have comments up on just about every Social Security thread in the left econosphere ever put up. There is exactly zero reason to increase the flow of funds into a Social Security system that is currently in surplus which Social Security is and looks to continue to be in the range of $200 billion a year. A cap increase is a solution in search of a problem that actually makes the problem worse. If you really want to engage on this at some serious level you might try grappling with the real numbers on Social Security perhaps starting with my post Interest on interest: a threat to Social Security from January 2006. Dude you are simply picking the wrong guy to accuse of being substance free when it comes to this topic.

Posted by Bruce Webb | January 13, 2008 1:21 PM

Neil Abercrombie (1st cong district, HI) just endorsed Obama yesterday, and he is flying to Nev today to campaign for him. He is a solid liberal from a aolid blue state.

Although HI is very much Obama country due to the local connection. It's also probably true that Abercrombie is not high profile, esp since he cut the ponytail.

Posted by Kolohe | January 13, 2008 1:31 PM

Barack Obama's top economics advisor is Austan Goolsbee.

Google "Austan Goolsbee Social Security privatize" and you get page after page referring to Goolsbee's paper "The Fees of Private Accounts and the Impact of Social Security Privatization on Financial Managers" which made the case that Bush wanted to hand over $1 trillion from senior citizens to Wall Street fund managers. Goolsbee was a Kerry consultant and Kerry made use of this paper in the 2004 election.

So bonus points for Barack Obama and his fine taste in econ advisors, right? Right?

Posted by Barbar | January 13, 2008 1:34 PM

"But who would actually be affected by the payroll tax cap increase? Well, the roughly (I think) 5-10% of Americans who make more than 100K annually"

Under LMS the tax cap stops at the 90% range of wage income and doesn't affect people who earn their income on returns on capital.

A bit more than two-thirds of the 1.5 percent of payroll diverted from the trust fund is replaced by gradually restoring the percentage of earnings that is subject to the OASDI payroll tax to 90 percent (where it was in 1982) and maintaining it at that level thereafter. This increase in the taxable maximum would be phased in between 2008 and 2017. The new long run taxable maximum is equivalent to $171,600 at today’s wage level

That is not progressivity, that is not taxing the wealthy, that is a pretty naked attempt to turn the professional classes against Social Security while leaving the real wealthy and ultra-wealthy laughing their asses off. Do I know that some version of LMS is at the heart of Obama's plan? No. But given Liebman's placement in the campaign how can you tell me it isn't?

Certainly a cap increase sounds progressive in principle, it just doesn't always turn out that way in practice. Which if you had actually engaged on the substance you might understand.

The difference between Krugman, Atrios (Duncan Black) and you? They are professional economists throughly familiar with the economic financials of Social Security and in a position to judge why a cap increase is in practice counter-productive. It really doesn't matter that you find the argument 'implausible'. If you can explain how a cap increase actually functionally helps Social Security solvency over the near to medium term please do so, or if you want to out credential these guys be my guest. Krugman knows what he is talking about given years of track record. You my friend are a screen name. Give me a reason to privilege your opinion. And numbers would be helpful.

Posted by Bruce Webb | January 13, 2008 1:37 PM

Q: What do you base your "least progressive" assessment on?

A: Edwards's poll numbers and the weight of his own sadness.

Cruel, but true. Petey has become a small and bitter fellow.

Obama not progressive? I guess if we equate spewing bile with being progressive.

Posted by J.B. | January 13, 2008 1:40 PM

That Austan Goolsbee is cool to private accounts as conventionally pictured doesn't offset the fact that Jeffrey Liebman is among the top three Obama advisors. Moreover LMS is structured in a way that you don't get that trillion dollar transfer. And before you get giddy about Goolsbee you might wonder why the guy drew the George Will seal of approval. Democratic Economist

Economics is the only academic discipline that in recent decades has moved in the direction that America and much of the world has moved, to the right. Goolsbee no doubt has lots of dubious ideas -- he is, after all, a Democrat -- about how government can creatively fiddle with the market's allocation of wealth and opportunity. But he seems to be the sort of person -- amiable, empirical and reasonable -- you would want at the elbow of a Democratic president, if such there must be.

In reading the article you will see that George Will's definition of 'empirical' is defense of current income inequality along the lines normally espoused by Univ. of Chicago Economics professors. Which by the way is Goolsbee's day job. Of course Goolsbee seems 'amiable' to George, after all he is the last guy likely to rock the boat of the comfortable.

Because everyone knows that what a future progressive America needs is a right-drifting mini-Miltie economist whispering in the President's ear.

Posted by Bruce Webb | January 13, 2008 1:48 PM

Obama being progressive? I guess if we equate handing out soothing pablum with being progressive.

Show me the money. Walk the talk. Simple dismissal is not making your case.

Progressives that have been around the block a time or two are simply waiting for Obama to make a case. Lots of us are not totally keen on Hillary, you can't deny that she is the establishment candidate. And unless Edward's breaks out in a big way in South Carolina he doesn't look to take us the distance. But the suggestion that the proper response to fourteen years of Gingrich/Bush scorched earth tactics is to make nice is much like Rodney King begging people to "just get along". Well some of the root causes of the political divide go a little deeper than personality clashes, there are century and even millennial long divisions between the forces of progress and the forces of reaction. There is nothing inherently long with incremental progress, it is just that history shows that even small amounts of progress have come by demanding it, reactionaries by their very nature are not in a giving mood. Ever.

Posted by Bruce Webb | January 13, 2008 2:02 PM

Well, I'm certainly no great expert on economics in general or Social Security in particular, but I'm also tend to be very "suspicious" of Obama's choice of both rhetoric and top advisors.

My greater concern would be the ease with which an Obama presidency might be "captured" by the foreign policy neocons, just like they captured Bush, even though he explicitly ran as the *anti-neocon* Republican candidate. Some of the leading neocon columnists have been writing very friendly things about Obama, presumably to lay the groundwork for exactly this possibility.

There's a real risk in electing someone with a very thin record of political and policy experience. You just don't have a clue what you'll exactly end up actually getting.

Posted by RKU | January 13, 2008 2:11 PM

So, Obama is not an economic progressive because he wants to lift the cap on SS taxes, but Hillary IS an economic progressive even though her experience includes NAFTA and Welfare reform. That makes no sense, but it's certainly typical of Hillary getting to have things both ways.

Posted by Just Karl | January 13, 2008 2:21 PM

Look, saying that meritocracy is destined to devolve to corruption is simply asinine. Like any system, it depends on how you implement it. Scaremongering about meritocracy is about as useful as demanding ideological purity at all costs. Both are an excellent way to waste a Sunday afternoon, and to lose an election handily. What coherent alternative is there to meritocracy? More of the same in education - a raft of mediocre/uninspired/positively bad teachers that have no incentive to change, because no one is pushing them? And what about the negative effect of being surrounded by incompetence/nepotism/lack of consequences for underperforming? Or should we just accept that schools and teachers cannot be improved - because human nature is such that people generally do not do "extra" work for no reward. Merit pay, and sacking the inept, makes great sense on its merits, and might actually benefit the children who are sick of mediocre and lazy teachers. No, I am not saying that all teachers are lazy - but there must be a way to weed out the inept, and to promote high-quality, committed teaching. If you don't like merit-based awards and punishments, suggest something real in their place. Asking for good teachers and better schools is not right-wing, and doesn't have to be liberal either - it is plain commonsense!

Posted by nickzi | January 13, 2008 2:28 PM

In any case, arguments of the form "my candidate is a liar, that's why you should support him" are not particularly convincing.

Nice strawman there, Dan. But thanks for proving my point that the anti-Obama crowd can't tell the difference between rhetoric and substance.

Posted by Tractarian | January 13, 2008 2:39 PM

There's a real risk in electing someone with a very thin record of political and policy experience. You just don't have a clue what you'll exactly end up actually getting.

Yeah, we're better off electing someone with a very substantial record of failing to enact health care reform and enabling the worst foreign policy disaster in the nation's history.

Ah, well, better the evil you know than the evil you don't know, right?

Posted by Tractarian | January 13, 2008 2:44 PM

Bruce--

Nice job trying to pitch your blog, but I don't care.

I tried to engage you civilly--Dan is the one I accused of having no interest in substance, not you. You said you were concerned Obama wants to privatize SS, so I showed you that plank of his platform is unequivocal opposition to privatization.

And I didn't argue that raising the cap was a near- or mid-term fix; I said it helped with long-term solvency. You neither admit nor refute that, but instead respond, in classic internet-post non sequitur style, "If you can explain how a cap increase actually functionally helps Social Security solvency over the near to medium term please do so." So you mis-read me; whether you did so intentionally or not is irrelevant--you're attacking a straw man.

I greatly respect Krugman's credentials as an economist, but your (and his) argument on Obama's cap plan is not economic, it's political. And it's wildly implausible, for reasons I stated above. And if you're anything more than a name on the internet, you've yet to show me. Simple invocations of authority are a particularly weak form of argument.

Anyway, I'm done with you, you can have the last word; if it's anywhere near as pointless and as the rest of what you've posted, I feel quite certain that you will continue to fail to convince readers or draw them to your blog.

Posted by marcj | January 13, 2008 4:37 PM

marcj.

People who understand Social Security oppose cap increases for a reason. Obama is talking cap increases. It is going to take a lot more than a single sentence about privatization to convince me. As noted there are any number of ways of arguing that Liebman's LMS Social Security plan is not privatization at all. Which doesn't remove the fact that it is profoundly anti-worker.

I didn't force Obama to hire this guy or Goolsbee either. When Obama starts talking specifics I'll talk specifics. As it is all I kind judge him on really is his hiring decisions. And from any kind of economic progressive perspective they suck.

I gave you a link to my economic argument against a cap increase, fine you chose not to read it. Three second version:

A cap increase by itself when the system is in current surplus does nothing but increase future interest obligations and time shift forward repayment of the Trust Fund. It does nothing else and can end up resulting in a bailout to capital on their obligation to repay their debt. If you really want to tax the wealthy and help Social Security you need to take those extra 6 points and stick them on the top marginal rate and then use that to pay down the debt. Nothing is gained simply by laundering even more money through Social Security, particularly if the cap increase is structured in such a way that it gives the wealthy and ultrawealthy a free pass. Whether you or Obama understand it or not a cap increase is a simple bait and switch proposition. And its Obama's job to understand that.

Posted by Bruce Webb | January 13, 2008 5:07 PM

Barack Obama is wrong on raising Social Security taxes, wrong rejecting health care insurance requirements, wrong on adding 100,000 soldiers to total forces. That is 3 critical wrongs, and enough for me to vote elsewhere.

Bruce Webb is correct on Social Security, and his blog which I had never read before explains why Obama is wrong. Krugman is correct.

Posted by Jennifer | January 13, 2008 5:47 PM

"Petey has become a small and bitter fellow."

So I say I'd likely vote for your candidate over Senator Clinton despite my misgivings, and I'm small and bitter? What would I be like if I were large and generous?

Best I can tell, half of the Obama supporters share the Ben Nelson / David Brooks / Andrew Sullivan antipathy for the left, and half of the Obama supporters simply don't care about ideology.

I have no idea which half you fit into, J.B.

Posted by Petey | January 13, 2008 6:17 PM

Petey, Jennifer, Bruce Webb, and anyone else I've missed.

I can't speak for other Obama supporters, but what cemented my vote was his record on Illinois police brutality.

He took an issue where (at the beginning) all of his colleagues, and the police union, and the governor, and just about everyone else was opposed to him, and he convinced them all to support his position. In the end, the bill passed 35 - 0, and even the police came around to support it.

I will admit that I am a complete sucker for Obama's brand of (potentially substanceless) uplifting, "We shall overcome"-style rhetoric, and I try to weight my support accordingly. But an example like this, where Obama brought not only the politicians, but also the entrenched interests to support him gives substance to his claim that we don't need to fight these isses on the old 51st parrallel. With the right position, the right messenger, and a willingness to engage the other side, we can change people's minds.

I'm the first to admit that this can sound like empty rhetoric (or worse, pre-emptive surrender), but I would remind you that Obama convinced the Illinois police union to support ani-brutality legislation . If, like me, you have lived or have relatives in Chicago, you will understand how impressive a feat this is.

Posted by heedless | January 13, 2008 9:20 PM

Heedless, Shout Out Brother.

Because no progressives of a certain age discount MLK. Some of us are old enough to remember. Including a certain Rodham who was converted from a Goldwater Gal mostly based on MLK. Well the implication that Obama was alone on the Selma bridge, that his efforts against Chicago police brutality somehow uniquely qualifies him in the face of generations of protest is itself a lot dismissive. Some of us remember the Battle of Chicago in 1968 at the Democratic Convention and for that matter the four killed at Kent State and the seven (I believe) at Jackson State. The notion that Obama had more on the line is laughable.

Posted by Bruce Webb | January 13, 2008 10:04 PM

Good grief...no president can do anything to SS...that is a job that Congress does.

Vote progressive congress members...problem solved.

Also Bruce, if you'd care to look, Obama knows a lot of these Harvard folks from school. They are highly respected in their fields and I'm glad he's got them on his side.

Obama is a free thinker. He will gather opinions from all sides and evaluate it all with his own considerable intelligence.

He also is running to be the President of the United States of America, something our politicians have forgotten for a very long time.

Not everyone is far left progressive. Not everyone is far right conservative. And there's a whole ton of us in the middle.

BTW...all the fools simpering over mandated health care...please explain to me how you enforce that. That was Obama's main objection to them. It doesn't work in Mass. and it certainly won't work with 300,000,000 people involved.

People don't go without insurance because they don't want it. They go without because they can't afford it. His whole focus is on reducing the cost you and I will have to pay, all the while setting the stage for truly universal care.

Mandates will not get passed in Congress because people don't like being forced to do things...especially when they will be forced to work through the current insurance industry. Plus they are unenforceable.

His plan's coverage and accessibility blows the others out of the water. His goal is to make it feasible for folks to buy it.

Great outside the box thinking from a man not afraid to buck the system.

And it will get through any Congress with the electorate mood of today. Imagine that...a great plan that will work...novel idea.

Posted by G Davis | January 14, 2008 3:44 AM

Josh's observation that these endorsements are coming because they know she will not come back is pure William Kristol.

Posted by bob h | January 14, 2008 8:05 AM

"Also Bruce, if you'd care to look, Obama knows a lot of these Harvard folks from school."

Buy a calender. Obama graduated Harvard Law in 1991, these guys served in the Clinton Administration (1992-2000), the odds that they overlapped at Harvard are pretty minimal and would be meaningless besides. What's your argument? We each had beer at some burger joint in Cambridge at more or less the same time?

Davis hope is not a plan.

Posted by Bruce Webb | January 15, 2008 4:58 AM