Why Teddy Matters

Marc Ambinder lays out his view of why he thinks Ted Kennedy's endorsement will matter. I won't go meta. I'll say it should matter. Note that I'm not a Camelot nostalgic. Indeed, I've written before on the blog of my distaste for JFK hagiography, and I laughed out loud at this.

That said, Ted Kennedy is just a great liberal leader. He's the guy you wish every senator with a safe seat would be. A guy who doesn't just vote the right way, but who's willing to give voice to unseasonable opinions. After Iraq's elections in 2005, the right-wing was crowing. Many Democrats were ducking and covering. Hillary Clinton was repeating George W. Bush's lines. Ted Kennedy was delivering this speech:

We must learn from our mistakes. We must recognize what a large and growing number of Iraqis now believe. The war in Iraq has become a war against the American occupation. We have reached the point that a prolonged American military presence in Iraq is no longer productive for either Iraq or the United States. The U.S. military presence has become part of the problem, not part of the solution. We need a serious course correction, and we need it now. We must make it for the American soldiers who are paying with their lives.We must make it for the American people who cannot afford to spend our resources and national prestige protracting the war in the wrong way. We must make it for the sake of the Iraqi people who yearn for a country that is not a permanent battlefield and for a future free from permanent occupation. The elections in Iraq this weekend provide an opportunity for a fresh and honest approach.

The man's not above criticism by any means. But I do think the theory that Hillary Clinton is the real candidate of commitment to progressive politics is put seriously to the test by Kennedy's judgment. His own commitment is, I think, above reproach. And he's been in a position to see Bill and Hillary Clinton and their gaggle of hangers-on for twenty years now all from a veteran perspective. Maybe he's just been blinded by the right-wing smear machine a something?

Comments

Chappaquiddick!

There, somebody had to say it.

Posted by John | January 28, 2008 10:19 AM

I think it matters because the humane front of the immigration debate in 2006 was Ted Kennedy. I think this endorsement will mean more in the grassroots of the Latino community than it will among voters who are using the Iraq War vote in '02 as a deciding factor. If your a voter that is paying attention close enough to know Ted Kennedy is endorsing, then you know about Iraq. Latino voters know Ted Kennedy.

Posted by joejoejoe | January 28, 2008 10:25 AM

Pundits who look at Bush's Compasionate Conservatism and believe it while ignoring his policies? Stupid!

Pundits who look at Kennedy's endorsement while ignoring Obama's economic team? Brilliant!

Posted by Rob | January 28, 2008 10:30 AM

Is it just too obvious to point out that Massachusetts is a Super Tuesday state? Sen. Obama may not win, but Kennedy's endorsement just bought him a whole news cycle on Boston TV stations and probably +5-10% in the primary.

Posted by Philly | January 28, 2008 10:33 AM

Maybe he's just been blinded by the right-wing smear machine a something?

Deep cover mole, motherfucker, to be deployed only when the conservative movement was most threatened. "Never another FDR! Never HRC!"

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | January 28, 2008 10:34 AM

Rob, seriously, when all is said and done, the policy differences between (or rather, among) Clinton, Obama and Edwards are negligible. Especially when one recalls, as we all should, that a president can only propose legislation, while the Congress actually writes it.

This election is about character and honesty and the ability to generate true enthusiasm among not only Democrats, but independents and some pissed-off Republicans. Edwards and Obama have that. Evita doesn't.

Posted by Traven | January 28, 2008 10:34 AM

Clinton has double-digit leads in most of the big Super Tuesday states, according to the Wall Street Journal (Illinois and Georgia the exceptions). The endorsements may help, but if Obama is going to have a chance, they have to help to a degree endorsements don't traditionally do.

Richardson would also be significant (moreso for Obama than Clinton), and I assume he'll announce his choice before NM votes on Super Tuesday. Look to see which candidate is scheduled to be in NM on Thursday or Friday. That one will get his endorsement, the other will be staying away.

Posted by Ryan Scott | January 28, 2008 10:39 AM

I couldn't agree with Matthew more. The racist Billary and their racist supporters (look at Rob on this comment thread) have done everything possible to slime and lynch Obama, but it hasn't worked. He has come out stronger from the experience. Good for Kennedy to support the modern JFK Barack Obama.

Posted by I Love Barack | January 28, 2008 10:47 AM

I keep wondering why these people are endorsing Obama. Surely the most likely--by a fair bit--positive outcome of this campaign remains an HRC presidency? In the best probable case, they're going to have to deal with her, and there's going to be punishment. Is this the announcement of a balancing block against the Clinton/DLC wing?

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | January 28, 2008 10:51 AM

He's also the man most responsible for the Reagan presidency. The 1980 election was close, and Carter was mightily damaged by the Kennedy's hopeless primary challenge.

Posted by Joe | January 28, 2008 10:54 AM

Ryan Scott - aren't a lot of those polls oldish? Beyond that, there's also likely to be some kind of bounce from South Carolina.

Posted by John | January 28, 2008 10:54 AM

John,

They poll results are in today's WSJ, and they're described as "recent". But yes, it is unlikely they fully take into account the last couple of days.

But it seems to me that "bounce" and "momentum" appear to mean a lot less than they have in elections past.

That said, I noticed at TPM that -- looking at the Florida polls for Democrats -- it appears that Clinton's lead has shrunk by 10% overnight. All the usual caveats, but still. . .

Posted by Ryan Scott | January 28, 2008 11:08 AM

I think that fundamentally, this will open a lot of doors for Obama and buy him a news cycle in Massachusetts, Delaware, Connecticut, Pennsylvania etc. and that by going all in and stumping out west it'll open a lot of union, down-scale, and Latino ears to his message and his history.

This is a win-win for Obama.

Posted by Rhoda | January 28, 2008 11:08 AM

I agree with Matt. Ted Kennedy's endorsement is symbolic: An important leader of the Vietman generation is passing the torch to the person he feels is best equipped to carry the progressive message into the future - without the baggage of the past. As Andrew Sullivan wrote in his prescient article in The Atlantic, Obama didn't create this moment - this moment was right for a candidate like Obama.
Toni Morrison is now endorsing Obama, the list is growing.
Cheney's daughter, the neocon daughter, came out today for Romney.
Endorsements matter.

Posted by fougasseu | January 28, 2008 11:11 AM

I agree with Matt. Ted Kennedy's endorsement is symbolic: An important leader of the Vietman generation is passing the torch to the person he feels is best equipped to carry the progressive message into the future - without the baggage of the past. As Andrew Sullivan wrote in his prescient article in The Atlantic, Obama didn't create this moment - this moment was right for a candidate like Obama.
Toni Morrison is now endorsing Obama, the list is growing.
Cheney's daughter, the neocon daughter, came out today for Romney.
Endorsements matter.

Posted by fougasseu | January 28, 2008 11:11 AM

The racist Billary and their racist supporters (look at Rob on this comment thread) have done everything possible to slime and lynch Obama, but it hasn't worked.

I Love Barack: what in Rob's 10:30 comment constitutes racism, or sliming and lynching? It's a pretty straightforward critique of the eminently criticizable University of Chicago economist Austen Goolsbee.

As Senator Clinton said yesterday on Face the Nation, the notion that you're not allowed to criticize your opponent -- and apparently we're not supposed to criticize Saint Barack -- is a new and dangerous one in American politics.

And, contrary to your assertion, the critiques thankfully have worked, as any number of Hillary Clinton double digit leads in Super Tuesday states will attest.

All that said, I've come to the conclusion that I like Senator Obama very much. It's his fucktard, utterly clueless internet supporters I'm not so crazy about.

Posted by Examine Barack's Economic Team | January 28, 2008 11:14 AM

It's his fucktard, utterly clueless internet supporters I'm not so crazy about.

Charming.

Posted by James Gary | January 28, 2008 11:19 AM

Well, I'd certainly agree that the Kennedy endorsement will be a very big plus for Obama in the primary.

But I just saw something this morning on the front page of one of the CA papers---the SF Chronicle I think---which could be an absolutely gigantic minus if he gets the nomination. It claims that Obama has firmly endorsed drivers' licenses for illegal immigrants, apparently as part of his effort to chip away at Hillary's overwhelming Latino support.

I can't exactly call this "pandering" since it probably makes pretty good sense as policy. But I'd argue it's a colossal blunder, since it would totally kill him nationwide in the general election. As just one example, NY's probably one of the most pro-immigrant states in America, but pushing the issue cost newly-elected Gov. Spitzer something like 30 points (!) in the polls until he finally gave up and backed down. In CA, the liberal Democratic Legislature actually repealed this law just to avoid allowing a ballot measure to be used to annihilate them.

Unless he can use his "brilliant speechifying" to somehow weasel out of his position, I'd think this issue alone could easily cost Obama the must-win state of CA, along with lots of other states where immigration is a fairly big issue...and even lots of states where it isn't!

The reason for Obama's huge blunder is pretty clear. His highest-ranking Latino supporter in CA is a second-tier legislator who's made the "license law" his single-issue priority. The guy's totally sincere and acting in the best interests of his district's residents, who are very heavily illegal; but all the other Latino Democrats just ignore him because they're not politically suicidal. Since Obama and his people clearly don't know anything about Latinos or the politics of immigration, I assume they just followed the advice of their top Latino supporter...

Posted by RKU | January 28, 2008 11:22 AM

While Sen. Ted Kennedy's endorsement might change things a bit on Super Tuesday (and, hence matter), I must cop to cynicism in spite of my fervent support for Obama.

I favorably lean to the meme that Senator Kennedy's endorsement has much less to do with Sen. Barack Obama's policies and/or transformative appeal or Hillary Clinton's policies, campaign tactics and/or governing approach and much more to do with, if not totally, Sen. Kennedy's own ego and desire for relevance.

Let's face it, a Clinton endorsement from Kennedy would have been a ho-hum, another establishment blue state D for Clinton affair, but an Obama endorsement, now there is a big deal.

What I really would love to see is a surprise Gore endorsement of Obama in California this week. Now that would really be a game-changer and keep the Obama moentum really rolling through February 5th. I wonder if Kennedy's endorsement just might pull Gore off the fence too? After all, Gore has a pretty big ego as well and may not want to miss out on this transformative thing.

Posted by Cynic | January 28, 2008 11:23 AM

While Sen. Ted Kennedy's endorsement might change things a bit on Super Tuesday (and, hence matter), I must cop to cynicism in spite of my fervent support for Obama.

I favorably lean to the meme that Senator Kennedy's endorsement has much less to do with Sen. Barack Obama's policies and/or transformative appeal or Hillary Clinton's policies, campaign tactics and/or governing approach and much more to do with, if not totally, Sen. Kennedy's own ego and desire for relevance.

Let's face it, a Clinton endorsement from Kennedy would have been a ho-hum, another establishment blue state D for Clinton affair, but an Obama endorsement, now there is a big deal.

What I really would love to see is a surprise Gore endorsement of Obama in California this week. Now that would really be a game-changer and keep the Obama moentum really rolling through February 5th. I wonder if Kennedy's endorsement just might pull Gore off the fence too? After all, Gore has a pretty big ego as well and may not want to miss out on this transformative thing.

Posted by Cynic | January 28, 2008 11:23 AM

While Sen. Ted Kennedy's endorsement might change things a bit on Super Tuesday (and, hence matter), I must cop to cynicism in spite of my fervent support for Obama.

I favorably lean to the meme that Senator Kennedy's endorsement has much less to do with Sen. Barack Obama's policies and/or transformative appeal or Hillary Clinton's policies, campaign tactics and/or governing approach and much more to do with, if not totally, Sen. Kennedy's own ego and desire for relevance.

Let's face it, a Clinton endorsement from Kennedy would have been a ho-hum, another establishment blue state D for Clinton affair, but an Obama endorsement, now there is a big deal.

What I really would love to see is a surprise Gore endorsement of Obama in California this week. Now that would really be a game-changer and keep the Obama moentum really rolling through February 5th. I wonder if Kennedy's endorsement just might pull Gore off the fence too? After all, Gore has a pretty big ego as well and may not want to miss out on this transformative thing.

Posted by Cynic | January 28, 2008 11:24 AM

the critiques thankfully have worked

It's always reassuring when lying and playing the race card helps your candidate. You must be very proud.

Posted by calling all toasters | January 28, 2008 11:27 AM

"The 1980 election was close, and Carter was mightily damaged by the Kennedy's hopeless primary challenge."

In which alternate universe? Reagan and the repugs won by a landslide, 49 states,including Mass.

Posted by larry | January 28, 2008 11:28 AM

Larry: in the alternate universe where the election in question took place in 1980, rather than 1984 ;-)

Posted by Milind | January 28, 2008 11:38 AM

Although your broader point is correct: 1980 wasn't all that close either.

Posted by Milind | January 28, 2008 11:39 AM

I imagine "I Love Barack" to be a sneaky Hilary supporter, ala the "Gays for Kerry" flyers GW's team put out in Florida right before the election.

Reagan and the repugs won by a landslide, 49 states,including Mass.

You're thinking of '84.

Posted by Freddie | January 28, 2008 11:40 AM

"The 1980 election was close, and Carter was mightily damaged by the Kennedy's hopeless primary challenge."

In which alternate universe? Reagan and the repugs won by a landslide, 49 states,including Mass.

Reagan won 44 states in 1980 with 50.8% of the vote while in 1984 he won 49 states with 58.8% of the vote.

Posted by MikeKC | January 28, 2008 11:45 AM

What's this about Obama's economic team? The worst knock on Liebman is that he might still believe the things about social security which he did when he was on Pres. Clinton's social security research group, and I have yet to hear a cogent objection to Goolsbee at all.

Posted by washerdreyer | January 28, 2008 11:52 AM

I think this:

http://tinyurl.com/28qdr7

(the link goes to a Sully post)

is a good point to remember. Indies can vote in the Democratic primary in CA but not the Rethug primary.

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | January 28, 2008 11:59 AM

Reagan won 44 states in 1980 with 50.8% of the vote

And there was a third party candidate who took 7%, so it wasn't as close as that makes it sound on the popular vote.

Posted by right | January 28, 2008 12:01 PM

washerdreyer:
You haven't? How about that he teaches/has a degree from U of Chicago(that seems to graduate a lot of right wing economic thinkers(Uncle Milty and McMegan among them). How about that George F'in Will has been fluffing Goolsbee like the TradMed fluffs "Saint" McCain? Want me to go on?

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | January 28, 2008 12:03 PM

The biggest thing that did Carter in was Reagan stabbing him in the back over the hostages. The hostage crisis, right down to the nightly reminders of "Day 110,384 of the hostage crisis" came to unfairly symbolize Carter.

"I think it matters because the humane front of the immigration debate in 2006 was Ted Kennedy. I think this endorsement will mean more in the grassroots of the Latino community than it will among voters who are using the Iraq War vote in '02 as a deciding factor. If your a voter that is paying attention close enough to know Ted Kennedy is endorsing, then you know about Iraq. Latino voters know Ted Kennedy.

Posted by joejoejoe | January 28, 2008 10:25 AM"

Especially if you watch Spanish-language news, a lot of the news coverage domestically is about immigration, legalization, etc.

Posted by Reality Man | January 28, 2008 12:06 PM

Electoral vote 489 49
States carried 44 6+DC
Popular vote 43,903,230 35,480,115
Percentage 50.7% 41.0%

OK, I stand corrected on the details, but it was still a blow out in many respects, and Kennedy had nothing to do with that (remember the failed mission to rescue the Iran hostages? Malaise? The attack rabit?)

It was a major realignment. Reagan did an excellent job politically to make that happen.... so can Obama!!!

Posted by larry | January 28, 2008 12:10 PM

Please just stop.

People who have been paying attention understand there has been a struggle for the somewhat mythical title 'Titular Head of the Democratic Party' between Bill Clinton and Teddy Kennedy since Bill took it away from Teddy on Bill being elected President. When Bill left office Teddy took it back, if Hillary gets elected she and/or Bill reclaim it and Teddy never will get it back. There is not an ounce of difference on policy between Hillary and Barack, everything at this point is playing out on personality and power politics.

Although I would have to echo Gary as to the tone I would thoroughly endorse the message(s) of Examine Barack's Economic Team. One his economic team is a true disaster (Goolsbee, Liebman, Cutler) Obama's Economic Advisors and two the amount of emotional projection replacing actual policy analysis among Obama supporters is reaching dangerous Justin Timberlake fangirl levels. "I heart Obama" is not a political argument, it is like substance simply doesn't exist. At the risk of getting banned and/or flamed forever the current level of discourse is beginning to rival Peggy O'Looner et al at Mission Accomplished with the focus on the 'manly' aspects of Commander Codpiece.

Obama is a person. Obama is a politician. Obama has a record. Each is open for inspection. Obama is running as a 'generational change agent'. It is fair to ask what he is proposing to change. Instead both the campaign and its supporters are asking us to just embrace him for what he is, without actually pointing to specifics. If Obama wants to run as a post-racial post Boomer bipartisan change agent who wants to abandon the push back against Reaction in favor of cooperation with whatever non-frothing elements of the Republican Party he can find then okay. But then he can just put down the label of 'progressive' and just back away.

You want packaged skim milk vote for skim milk, just don't pretend it is unpasteurized goat milk right from the goat. Political analysis that boils down to 'Teddy likes him, I think he is dreamy, therefore I can ignore the fact that his entire economic team is a fricking disaster' is just kind of embarrassing.

What are the implications of Obama choosing his long time advisor Austan Goolsbee of the University of Chicago's GSB as his chief economic advisor for chances for implementation of universal coverage? What does it mean that Obama's second guy on economics is the author of LMS: Liebman-MacGuineas-Samwick Non Partisan Social Security Reform Plan? Does it matter that his third guy David Cutler is on record as explaining that soaring health costs are a good thing for the economy? Yeah the commenter is an avowed Marxist but ya think he might have a point?

Another adviser with a particular interest in health care is David Cutler, a Harvard economist who was also an adviser to Bill Clinton–surprise, surprise. Cutler wrote an article for the New England Journal of Medicine in 2006 asserting that “The rising cost … of health care has been the source of a lot of saber rattling in the media and the public square, without anyone seriously analyzing the benefits gained.”
Anxious to show the good side of rising costs, Cutler and a group of other economists defend the idea that a powerful and profitable medical industry can serve as an engine of economic growth in the USA

Yep that is the ticket, better living through padding the bottom lines of Hartford and Humana.

This is kind of an odd moment. On the basis of this thread we are expected to embrace Obama as a generational change agent based on endorsement from the dynasty of the 1960s. Obama's message to the extent that he has articulated it is that the 60s and 70s were marked by "excesses", meaning what we don't know, but it seems to be a rejection of the kind of liberal, big government politics identified with Teddy Kennedy to begin with. Kennedy may be willing to look past that in an attempt to score points against the Clintons, I just don't see any reason to go along.

Posted by Bruce Webb | January 28, 2008 12:15 PM

Bruce

So you're endorsing Edwards? I don't see the Clinton's record in the 90s as a full throated embrace of progressive policy-making either.

Posted by Sharon | January 28, 2008 12:30 PM

Unfortunately Clinton is winning the big endorsements in California. Nancy Pelosi and Barbara Boxer are unpledged at this point, and as far as superdelegates go, Clinton has Feinstein and a whole big wad of Congressmen and -women, including my own, Hilda Solis. Clinton has both Villaraigosa and Newsom, the mayors of L.A. and San Francisco. Fabian Nunez, Assembly Speaker is in Clinton's camp, too.

Obama has a lot fewer congressmen, mostly from very liberal areas, like Barbara Lee and George Miller. The Sanchez sisters split, with the more senior (and more conservative) Loretta going with Clinton while Linda is going for Obama. Steve Westley is with Obama, and then a smattering of city officials like the mayor of West Hollywood and LA City Councilman Eric Garcetti, a DNC member (and, hence, a superdelegate). But the big guns in California are all either for Clinton or undeclared.

Posted by Adam Villani | January 28, 2008 12:34 PM

What's this about Obama's economic team? The worst knock on Liebman is that he might still believe the things about social security which he did when he was on Pres. Clinton's social security research group, and I have yet to hear a cogent objection to Goolsbee at all.

Given that Liebman was the lead author of a Social Security privatizing plan datelined Jan 14, 2005 and hosted on his Harvard web-site as we speak "might still believe" is kind of an understatement. Liebman teamed up with a top McCain advisor and Bush's former Chief Economist of his Council of Economic Advisors to create the Liebman-MacGuineas-Samwick Non Partisan Social Security Reform PlanWe have two possible choices here. One Obama picked Liebman despite his being primarily identified with a worker unfriendly Social Security privatization plan or because Liebman is the author of that privatization plan.

As to Goolsbee. Well all I need to know is that he is George Will's favorite 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.

When you understand that Will's definition of 'empirical' is 'explaining all forms of income inequality as simple results of the skill premium' you start to wonder about Obama's understanding of where the real grounds of struggle are.

And Cutler seems to be the source of the 'No mandates, let the market work its magic' stance Obama is taking on health care coverage.

Obama is perfectly free to select an economic team long on centrist pro-market ideas and short on concepts that things like economic equity matters but just don't kid yourself about the implications for economic justice in an Obama Administration

Posted by Bruce Webb | January 28, 2008 12:35 PM

You haven't? How about that he teaches/has a degree from U of Chicago(that seems to graduate a lot of right wing economic thinkers(Uncle Milty and McMegan among them).

Is this a joke, or is this really how you think you should evaluate someone's economic policy views?

Posted by RS | January 28, 2008 12:36 PM

I am bothered by Barack's public comment that Social Security is a big problem that needs a big fix. (Not direct quote.) SS is a problem that can be fixed with some tinkering.

Having earned an AB in economics from UC a long time ago, I would rather trust The Krugman than the Business school types in Hyde Park.

As to Teddy's support (and Caroline's too) for Barack, I note in this morning's paper that Bobby's kids appear to have come out for Hillary. Whereupon she can say "I'll see your two Kennedys and raise a Kennedy.
Look folks: Barack is a good candidate. I'll be delighted to vote for him for President, and work for him too. Hillary is a good candidate. I'll be delighted to vote for her for President, and work for her too. And argue for either. But can't we save or bile for the SOB who ends up running on the Republican side?

Posted by Bary | January 28, 2008 12:55 PM

Sharon I will caucus for Edwards on Feb 19th but I don't kid myself that he is Russ Feingold still less the second coming of Paul Wellstone. The Democratic Party took exactly the wrong lesson from Reaganism, its leadership co-opted the twin messages of 'markets rule' and 'government drools' and triangulated themselves into intellectual mush.

Not every problem demands a governmental solution but lots of them do. The market did not deliver a basic amount of dignity in retirement, that was FDR and Social Security. The market did not prevent the Cuyahoga River catching on fire on several occasions between 1936 and 1969, that was the Clean Water Act. In 1974. I remember going out into my front yard and being gob-smacked by the sight of a snow covered mountain. I had literally never seen Mt. Hamilton. I had heard about the observatory but never dreamed the mountain should be visible from my location if only the damn smog wasn't there. While I doubt that the air in the San Jose area resembles that of a mountain meadow I suspect most people know there is actually a mountain range a few miles east due to the Clean Air Act.

Reagan and Reaganism took a Democratic Party fresh off twenty years of decisive economic, social and environmental progress and put it into a defensive crouch unwilling to ask for, still less demand, anything more than small ball incremental change. I don't kid my self that Hillary is the Second Coming of FDR or for that matter Edwards either. But as much as I admire Teddy Kennedy he isn't JFK or RFK and his endorsement doesn't transform Obama into either. And I really don't like the way Obama is simultaneously billing himself as a change agent and repudiating the 60s and 70s as being marked by "excesses". We had some dizzying ups in those years and some sickening downs but on balance we were a hell of a lot better off as a country in 1980 than we were in 1959. And very little of it came easy by way of Kumbaya reaching across the aisle. Instead our theme song was We Shall Overcome and it was always clear who the other side was. Obama at times seems to have lost sight of that.

Posted by Bruce Webb | January 28, 2008 1:03 PM

I believe Teddy Kennedy’s endorsement is emblematic of course, but moreover; he’s making the case to a lot of Clinton “wobblers,” that it’s time to turn the page. That you can be a good Democrat, not vote for Hillary, and with a clean conscience. The Clintons after all, can make a lot more money, a lot more change, and do a lot more good in the world, from outside Washington, DC. Hillary Clinton could become a globetrotting philanthropist, and yet capture the White House in 2012, or even 2020, at age 72. Teddy isn’t closing the book on Bill or Hillary by any means. Aren’t you glad? And there are still problems in Arkansas. Point being, Ted would rather see Barack Obama reside at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in 2008, rather than Bill and Hillary Clinton – and, you know, for once, I agree with him: http://theseedsof9-11.com

Posted by Peggy McGilligan | January 28, 2008 1:06 PM

"Is this a joke, or is this really how you think you should evaluate someone's economic policy views?"

RS, I provided a couple of links to Goolsbee's views. By all accounts he is a standard neo-classical pro-market guy whose economic views can be best described as Republican-Lite. He has a public record, you could actually look it up and defend it or you could launch silly attacks implying that other people are not serious without in fact demonstrating that you are serious to start with.

Goolsbee. Liebman. Cutler. I didn't cherry pick them out of some lengthy list of people advising the Obama campaign, these are the top three economic advisors. I have been looking at these guys on and off for a couple of months now and correlating their views with Obama's comments on Reaganism, mandates, and Social Security cap increases and have gotten increasingly troubled. Obama is generally short on specifics but when he does let them out they are alarmingly in line with those of his freely chosen economic team and after awhile you have to wonder if that is an accident. By all evidence Obama chose advisors and chose to take their advice. It is more than legitimate to examine those advisors' records and project that onto potential Obama Administration policy.

So perhaps you could dial back the snark and address some of this on substance.

Posted by Bruce Webb | January 28, 2008 1:18 PM

Just to add to what Bruce Webb says about Obama's economic team, Obama's rhetoric on subprime mortages is also problematic:

As the subprime mortgage debacle drives a recession that threatens financial markets around the world, the Democratic presidential candidates are pushing plans to address the crisis. John Edwards and Hillary Clinton are pledging substantial federal resources to stabilize the mortgage market and intervene on behalf of borrowers. Barack Obama's proposal is tepid by comparison, short on aggressive government involvement and infused with conservative rhetoric about fiscal responsibility. As he has done on domestic issues like healthcare, job creation and energy policy, Obama is staking out a position to the right of not only populist Edwards but Clinton as well...

Only Obama has not called for a moratorium and interest-rate freeze. Though he has been a proponent of mortgage fraud legislation in the Senate, he has remained silent on further financial regulations. And much like his broader economic stimulus package, Obama's foreclosure plan mostly avoids direct government spending in favor of a tax credit for homeowners, which amounts to about $500 on average, beyond which only certain borrowers would be eligible for help from an additional fund.

As the The Nation article points out, Goolsbee wrote a column defending subprime mortgages (never mind their role in propping up the housing bubble), so there's definitely a connection between the lame economic policies and the centrist economic team.

Posted by Peter H | January 28, 2008 1:22 PM

Bruce,

There are 2 responses to your complaint about Obama, neither of which you are going to like very much.

The first is specific to Social Security. Unless they do something egregiously self-destructive, Democrats are going to come out of the next election with the presidency and solid majorities in both houses of Congress. I'm not thrilled about this (I'd prefer gridlock), but it's close to a certainty. They currently control both the House and the Senate.
You need to get out of that defensive hunch that has characterized liberal politics since '94. There is nothing wrong with calling for "bold change" in Social Security, because any change that comes will be dictated by Democrats. And Obama's plan is solidly liberal. Raising the cap will increase taxes for the $90,000 plus crowd, bringing some long overdue progressivity to Social Security. It's true that Republicans called for bold change in 2005, but that was when they believed that they could direct that change. These days they can't, so change is nothing to be afraid of.

The second is that "neo-liberal, pro-market" is more or less an entry requirement for the field of economics. Krugman's publications fall squarely within the neo-lib framework. So do Brad Delong's.
Clinton's economic team is the reason we call these policies "neo-liberal" as opposed to "fiscal conservative", so there is no relief to be had there.
Edwards' team is less orthodox, but he's not going to win. Also, he has sacrificed intellectual heft to find people in tune with his message. Hindery is a smart guy, but he is a TV mogul, not an economist.
This is the "take your lumps" school of argument (I warned you that you wouldn't like it). Progressive ideas are simply not all that highly respected in the economics profession. (For good reason, but then I'm more libertarian than liberal, so I would say that, wouldn't I)

Posted by heedless | January 28, 2008 2:21 PM

Heedless:
There is a problem with your point. Krugman has seen the light. Goolsbee has not. Have you read Krugman's new book? He might have been a NAFTA loving guy before, but not anymore.

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | January 28, 2008 2:30 PM

I'm hesitant to make this argument, because Krugman is a giant of the economics profession, but I'm not convinced there's much substance to his critique of NAFTA. (I haven't read the book, but I've read his blog, so I may be missing a portion of his argument)

Or (a bit less judgmentally) he's had a change of heart on the politics divorced from any change in the econometrics.

As I read it, Krugman's objection isn't to free trade per se , but that we should have held out for stronger environmental and labor protections in the treaty. He makes a bit of noise about more Americans being hurt by NAFTA than helped, but my impression is that this is (to be generous) unsupported by the data, and utterly ludicrous if you include the utility gains to Mexicans in the equation.

These are just my impressions, so I reserve the right to be completely and utterly wrong, and no doubt someone will be happy to explain my errors in detail.

Posted by heedless | January 28, 2008 2:51 PM

Bruce Webb & Peter H:
Thank You. It seems a lot of Obama fanboys(and girls) have not read up on the people(especially economics) that he's chosen to surround himself with. It makes me queasy that people don't seem to care that George Will fluffs Goolsbee like crazy and the fanboys don't seem to care.

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | January 28, 2008 2:54 PM

heedless:
I think Krugman has become a fair trader. Free trade really doesn't work. Look at deals like NAFTA. It doesn't contain the provisions you mention. Most countries don't seem to care about enviromental standards*(sadly). Fair trade and free trade are two different things.

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | January 28, 2008 2:59 PM

There is nothing wrong with calling for "bold change" in Social Security, because any change that comes will be dictated by Democrats. And Obama's plan is solidly liberal. Raising the cap will increase taxes for the $90,000 plus crowd, bringing some long overdue progressivity to Social Security.

Um, there most certainly is something "wrong with calling for 'bold change" with respect to Social Security: "bold change" is not needed. When a Democrat calls for "bold change" it gives credibility to the intellectually bankrupt right wing scare mongering that the program is in in trouble. It is not in trouble. Let me repeat for the reading comprehension challenged: Social Security is not in trouble. At worst it will need minor adjustments, in about ten years' time.

Thing is, Senator Obama is obviously a brilliant guy. You don't get to edit the Harvard Law Review and go on to launch a glittering political career without some grade A gray matter. But he's not necessarily an expert on economics any more than Paul Krugman (another brilliant guy) is an expert in biology. So, the type of economic advisers Obama chooses matters, because we can't be certain of his independent ability to accurately and correctly assess economic policy. I'm surprised Kennedy -- the original lion on economic liberalism if there ever was one -- is willing to overlook this glaring, troubling blemish on Obama's otherwise impeccable liberal resume. It probably is personal between Ted and Bill Clinton, and he's probably also falling for the Obamabot spin about the supposedly racist nature of HRC's campaign (and Ted will be 76 this year, after all).

Posted by Examine Barack's Economic Team | January 28, 2008 3:09 PM

I think Krugman has become a fair trader. Free trade really doesn't work. Look at deals like NAFTA.

Joe Klein's Concscience: Krugman hasn't disavowed support for free trade. He has merely raised the possibility that the net gains from trade (hardly any respectable economist rejects that such gains do indeed accrue) might flow to a minority of the population. I think his attitude toward Nafta is something along the lines of "I like free trade, but calling Nafta an example of the thing I like is a stretch."

Posted by Examine Barack's Economic Team | January 28, 2008 3:16 PM

JKC,

I think that's a fair enough assessment of Krugman's position. I just think he's wrong. He's surrendering clear gains in economic efficiency and growth for illusory progress on labor rights and environmentalism.

Labor rights and environmental protection are important, but they are secondary to people's desire to be well fed. We can bribe or coerce them into better behavior, or we can help them get rich, at which point they will demand these things on their own. I prefer the second choice.

Posted by heedless | January 28, 2008 3:21 PM

Heedless,

You have a valid point about "mainsteam" economics moving in a neo-liberal, pro-market direction. On the other hand, I think even from the perspective of orthodox neo-classical economics, one have objections to the policies advocated by Obama's economic advisers. For example, there are a lot of economists (see Nouriel Roubini) who would take issue with Goolsbee's defense of subprime.

Posted by Peter H | January 28, 2008 3:28 PM

I should have said:

"On the other hand, I think even from the perspective of orthodox neo-classical economics, one *may* have objections to the policies advocated by Obama's economic advisers."

Posted by Peter H | January 28, 2008 3:41 PM

Um, there most certainly is something "wrong with calling for 'bold change" with respect to Social Security: "bold change" is not needed.

But the bold change he's calling for is increasing the FICA caps, right? This is the same position most liberals have long supported. He's not calling for privatization (and in fact, he's explicitly disavowed it). So I really don't see the issue. He's pushing a solidly progressive solution.

When a Democrat calls for "bold change" it gives credibility to the intellectually bankrupt right wing scare mongering that the program is in in trouble. It is not in trouble. Let me repeat for the reading comprehension challenged: Social Security is not in trouble. At worst it will need minor adjustments, in about ten years' time.

People believe Social Security is in trouble. They're convinced of it. As far as I see it, a politician can either expend vast amounts of effort, time, and energy convincing everyone that there is no trouble with the program and only minimal changes are needed (when people are starting from a point of disbelief about that notion), or he can take that belief, get people behind the idea that change is needed, and deliver exactly the same changes that would be made under the first scenario but without trying to convince people of something they don't want to believe. The latter seems a lot smarter politically because it mobilizes people's need to see something done with Social Security behind a minimalist progressive solution.

If you don't like his rhetoric on this point, that's fair; I like the rhetoric because it coopts Republican ground and uses the worries they've built up, turns it around, and pushes it to our advantage. Any time you can use an enemy's frame as a poltical *advantage*, that's politically smart.

But there's a big difference between disliking the rhetoric and disliking the solutions. Can you present a real critique of the actual solutions Obama has presented for Social Security? Why is raising the tax cap a bad thing? You need more than to indicate that you feel his rhetoric is conservative here.

Posted by jbryan | January 28, 2008 3:50 PM

jbryan:

But there's a big difference between disliking the rhetoric and disliking the solutions. Can you present a real critique of the actual solutions Obama has presented for Social Security?

I just did. There is no problem funding Social Security. The program is in surplus. Do you know what a surplus is? It means the FICA tax takes takes in tens of billions of dollars more than the program requires each year. The very act of proposing "solutions" to a non-existent problem is irresponsible to the extent such rhetoric can be used for ill by opponents of social democracy.

As far as I see it, a politician can either expend vast amounts of effort, time, and energy convincing everyone that there is no trouble with the program and only minimal changes are needed (when people are starting from a point of disbelief about that notion), or he can take that belief, get people behind the idea that change is needed...

Utter nonsense. There is no groundswell of voters demanding changes in the Social Security system, outside the fantasies of Ayn Rand enthusiasts, and no need "to expend vast amounts of effort, time, and energy" convincing voters that the program is sound. Indeed, Bush's ill-advised proposal had about as much chance of passage as a law against motherhood or apple pie. That's why it's so sad, and so dangerous, to be giving such hitherto unpopular ideas the cover of respectability conferred by the completely uncalled for scare-mongering of a major figure of the left.

So I really don't see the issue. He's pushing a solidly progressive solution.

A solution implies a problem. There is no problem with Social Security. Only a bunch of right wingers looking for a problem that will justify further gutting America's already weak and underfunded safety net.

Posted by Examine Barack's Economic Team | January 28, 2008 4:07 PM

Bruce Webb can talk a lot about why lifting the cap on Social Security taxes is a bad idea, both from an economic and political perspective. I'd recommend his diary on MYDD.

Posted by Peter H | January 28, 2008 4:09 PM

Peter,

You're absolutely correct that a lot of economists disagree with Goolsbee about subprime mortgages and about mortgage securitization in general, but I don't think one's opinion on whether they are useful financial instruments makes a good litmus test for liberalism.

Also, it's spelled "mainstream" with an "R". Do as I say, not as I do.

Posted by heedless | January 28, 2008 4:19 PM

Agree on an extreme squeamishness to Obama's econ team. However, it's about par with my extreme squeamishness to the amount of ex-military serving in Edwards' foreign policy team.

National econ newbie being led by a bunch of centrist econ scholars.

vs.

Foreign policy newbie being led by a bunch of ex-generals.

It's a gamble either way.

http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/12/john_edwards_foreign_policy.php
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37644-2004Jul8.html

Posted by anon | January 28, 2008 4:33 PM

I just did. There is no problem funding Social Security. The program is in surplus. Do you know what a surplus is? It means the FICA tax takes takes in tens of billions of dollars more than the program requires each year. The very act of proposing "solutions" to a non-existent problem is irresponsible to the extent such rhetoric can be used for ill by opponents of social democracy.

Yes, I know what a surplus is, and I'll thank you to not address me as if I'm five years old. My response to you certainly didn't convey the idea that I think you're an insipid illiterate incapable of discussing the issue rationally, so a modicum of the same might be in order on your end.

All that being said, yes, the program is in surplus and the Trustees project that it will remain fully solvent for several decades after which minor adjustments will be necessary. The best of these is increasing the cap which makes FICA one of the most regressive taxes we have in place on a national level. The whole idea behind eliminating even the concept of progressivity in it was this compromise whereby the rich would agree to stay hands' off with the program, but obviously that's been abbrogated. I see no reason at all not to increase the cap, strengthen the program, and bring the entire tax scheme more in line with progressive ideals. This is the very same idea that's been pushed by Krugman and many other solid economists and it seems like it's only become tacky now that Obama has couched his support of it in rhetoric certain quarters find unbecoming. Well, I found the idea good several years ago, and I still think it's good now, and if Obama can use the right's own hot air machine to push through a progressive change then I'm all for it.

Posted by jbryan | January 28, 2008 4:34 PM

heedless & jbryan

One, A cap increase and in particular the cap increase suggested by Obama advisor Liebman is not progressive. It seems progressive but unless it taps returns on capital (which FICA doesn't touch) what it really is is a tax on the upper middle class which leaves the wealthy and ultra wealthy home free. In the context of the entire income structure of this county it is actually regressive. If you want progressivity in the tax system you do it through the income tax not payroll.

Two, a cap increase actually does nothing to address solvency as long as the system is running surpluses, which of course it currently is. As you probably know Social Security surpluses (currently over $200 billion a year) are invested in Special Treasuries, meaning the actual dollars flow through to the General Fund. Increasing FICA now simply flows more dollars through to the General Fund creating additional future interest obligations. All a cap increase does in the near term is disguise the actual size of the General Fund deficit in any given year. If the system runs short in some future year then we can address the revenue gap, until then laundering additional funds through the Trust Fund is actually counterproductive.

Three there is everything wrong calling for "bold change" in Social Security. An examination of Social Security financial projections as they have changed from 1997 to 2007 shows a system that year over year is improving its future outlook. In 1997 the Trust Fund was scheduled for depletion in 2029 and the payroll gap (the amount of immediate tax increase needed to fully fund scheduled benefits) was 2.23%. If that projection had been correct the Cost of Inactivity should logically be larger, the cost of the fix bigger. In fact the opposite was true, in 1998 the date for depletion had been pushed back to 2032 and the payroll gap was down to 2.19%. That process operated more or less steadily through to 2004 with depletion getting steadily pushed out to 2042 and the payroll gap down to 1.89%. Over that seven year period the cost of doing Nothing left us with depletion pushed back at a rate of more than two years a year and a steadily shrinking payroll gap. In retrospect doing Nothing was in fact the perfect plan for Social Security. The story got a little muddled after that, some changes in assumptions brought depletion back to 2040 and the payroll gap up to 2.02% with the 2006 Report, but progress resumed with the 2007 Report showing 2041 and 1.95%. There is a word for a perceived future problem that has been receding at a rate of more than a year a year over the last decade and whose fix keeps shrinking. Needless to say that word is not crisis.

There is exactly zero real world evidence that anything needs to be done to Social Security in the near term. On average each year shows its prognosis improving. If anyone cares to examine the numbers they are laid out in excruciating length at my blog. Short version even with zero growth in 2008 and assuming that things such as employment and real wage run in tandem with Real GDP we only need 2.6% average GDP over the medium term to fully fund Social Security, which is to say well under the average of the last 47 years.

There is an odd meme going around that if a group of people overwhelmingly believe something that you need to do something even if actual analysis shows that nothing needs to be done. Well it was that kind of herd thinking that got us into Iraq.

I have long suggested that given its relatively rapid increase in fiscal health that the real path forward is to turn it around and use it as a weapon against the Republicans. The reason that few people believe that Social Security has better odds of being fully solvent going forwards than not is because the Republicans have been following a script. In short they have been outright lying about the fundamental financials of Social Security since at least 1998. Depending on growth numbers in the next few years the whole narrative of crisis will splinter. I did some crude but I think sound modeling of how the crisis narrative could maintain itself at various levels of near term growth. I used 3.3% which was 2006's number, 3.0% (average 1985-2006), and 2.8% (low by postwar standards) and in all cases trying to keep depletion from retreating out farther fail within the next Presidential term.

The Republican Party has used Social Security Crisis for a generation to sell their overall Big Government is the Problem narrative and so prevent advances such as universal coverage. That narrative falls apart once all sides admit solvency. At which point we turn around and cry Bullshit on the lying liars. As it is we are in the same position are we are in Iraq only this time it would be "Well even Obama thought this was a problem". Well it isn't until someone can show me convincing reasons why we should accept the current economic and demographic models.

Posted by Bruce Webb | January 28, 2008 4:37 PM

WaPo: War over the Wonks Here is a breakdown of National Security advisors for all the camps. Certainly Edwards has more General/Admirals than Obama (7-2) but three of them were in Material Command, one was commander of a Naval Hospital, and one was the head of the Kentucky National Guard. All in all they don't seem to be a blood thirsty group hell bent on invading something for the sake of it.

Posted by Bruce Webb | January 28, 2008 4:48 PM

The reason that few people believe that Social Security has better odds of being fully solvent going forwards than not is because the Republicans have been following a script. In short they have been outright lying about the fundamental financials of Social Security since at least 1998.

Yup. And now the Republicans can bolster their anti-welfare state bullshit by quoting a man with a very good shot at being the Democratic party's nominee for the presidency. But hey, he gave an anti-war speech as a non-senator, and he digs Ronald Regan's ability to transform, and he won't force healthcare universality on the nation!

Posted by Examine Barack's Economic Team | January 28, 2008 5:55 PM

Well, economics isn't my specialty, but to the extent that Social Security is hugely popular, and the Republicans are lying on Social Security, and they can be completely nailed on those lies, doesn't that have much broader political implications?

Once all those silly people who've bought into the "Social Security is Bankrupt" nonsense realize they've been had, they'll stop trusting the Republicans on lots of other economic issues as well.

Nailing people for lies erodes the capital asset of their credibility and weakens them everywhere else.

On the other hand, buttressing those lies---as some of Obama's economic advisors allegedly are doing---just lets them off the hook.

It's a little like if the Democrats were constantly saying they *still* think that Saddam had WMDs which we'll eventually find somewhere...

Posted by RKU | January 28, 2008 6:19 PM

Over the decades. Ted Kennedy has consistently stood up for the right things and done so in an effective, rousing manner. He's the John Wayne of progressive politics. Unlike Kerry, or for that matter Gore- he can only help. If he and his niece Caroline actually campaign for Obama- it'll be a net plus.

Posted by Trevor | January 28, 2008 6:30 PM

The media hypes up Obama when they say that Ted's endorsement matters..

Let the people decide who is who in this election, don't let the media or Teddy brain wash you into becoming another mindless Obama zombie.

This is an online poll I found showing quite the opposite of what the media is shoving down everyones' throats.

Will the Kennedy family's endorsement of Senator Obama have any impact on your choice for President?

Positive 19% 964

Negative 28% 1458

It will have no impact 53% 2696

Total Votes: 5118

Posted by Hillary '08 | January 28, 2008 7:46 PM

Er, Bruce, it doesn't have to come to invading other countries for the implication of career military people advising a president on foreign policy to be a suspicious thing. Looking at that list, it looks like there are at least three people from "military advisory groups" that sound like lobbies for the military or defense-related research and development.

Democracy Now alleges that they are:

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/1/3/vote_for_change_atrocity_linked_us

That link also points out the nest of quasi-war/anti-insurgency hawks that make up all of the ranking nominees' advisory boards.

[If progressives and far lefties really wanted to create an opening for third party alternatives, they'd best be campaigning for a Republican to really screw America over in the next four years. Then you'll see a populist movement. On the other hand, having a hapless Dem will also do the trick, given that both mainstream parties would then be deemed inept.]

Posted by anon | January 28, 2008 8:04 PM

Anon fair point. On the other hand having people on tap who know where the bodies are buried on the acquisition/R&D front is not a bad thing.

And for what it is worth 2.6% Real GDP only takes depletion out by decades. A permanent fix through the seventy five year window would take a medium term average of about 3.0% Real GDP with long term 2.8%.

Posted by Bruce Webb | January 28, 2008 8:28 PM

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-rodriguez28jan28,0,1688217.column

University of Washington political scientist Matt Barreto has compiled a list of black big-city mayors who have received broad Latino support over the last several decades. In 1983, Harold Washington pulled 80% of the Latino vote in Chicago. David Dinkins won 73% in New York in 1989. And Denver's Wellington Webb garnered more than 70% in 1991, as did Ron Kirk in Dallas in 1995 and then again in 1997 and 1999.

He could have also added that longtime Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley won a healthy chunk of the Latino vote in 1973 and then the clear majority in his mayoral reelection campaigns of 1977, 1981, 1985 and 1989.

Here in L.A., all three black members of Congress represent heavily Latino districts and ultimately couldn't survive without significant Latino support. Five other black House members represent districts that are more than 25% Latino -- including New York's Charles Rangel and Texan Al Green -- and are also heavily dependent on Latino voters.

So, given all this evidence, why did this notion get repeated so nonchalantly? For one, despite the focus on demographic changes in America, journalists' ignorance of the aspirations of Latino America is pretty remarkable. They just don't know much about the biggest minority in the nation. And two, no Latino organizations function in the way that, say, the Anti-Defamation League does for Jewish Americans. In other words, you can pretty much say whatever you want about Latinos without suffering any political repercussions."

Posted by Karen | January 29, 2008 1:00 AM