You Might Call It "The Audacity of Hope"

Jon Chait and Harold Meyerson both nail down what, to me, is the fundamental political case for Obama -- that to pick Hillary Clinton would be to reconcile ourselves to playing between the 49 yard lines at a time when it looks feasible to open the game up and throw downfield. Harold even comes up with an appropriately nice to the Clintons analogy:

I've turned to a book Michael wrote 23 years ago -- "Exodus and Revolution," and its discussion of why the Jews had to spend 40 years in the desert before they could reach the promised land.

As Walzer noted, both Maimonides and Marx, in very different ways, argued that the Jews who had lived in bondage had to die out, and a new generation that hadn't known the habits of slavery take their place, before the people could cross over into Canaan and freedom.

It's hard to imagine more thankless tasks than organizing for George McGovern in Texas or bearing the torch of progressive politics in late-1970s and early-1980s Arkansas. And of course Bill Clinton really did take the lessons learned from winning in that inhospitable territory and put the Democratic Party back in the White House. From that vantage point, he governed well and proved to a country that had come to doubt it that Democrats could be trusted to run the federal government. But is 2008 the hour of Mark Penn? I don't see it.

Comments

I'm an Obama supporter now that Edwards is out, but this is some Sullivan-lite stuff.

Hillary Clinton's health care plan is better than Obama's. Her economic team isn't led by a UChicago prof famous for his "counterintuitive" rightist thinking. Obama and Clinton both clearly stand on the neoliberal side in trade policy.

Obama's location in domestic policy debates is deeply influenced by the neoconservative / neoliberal stream of thought that emerged from precisely that legacy of the 80s.

I think you're problematically conflating domestic and international policy. It's true that on foreign affairs, Obama is a strong voice for relatively traditional liberal internationalism, while Hillary is still working in a "defensive crouch", as you've called it.

But Obama doesn't seem to me to be supporting either traditional liberal or contemporary radical-liberal thinking on domestic policy - he looks like a Clintonite third way neoconservative / neoliberal.

Posted by DivGuy | January 31, 2008 9:49 AM

Matt, I think Jimmy Carter's in 1976 was going to be the Democratic hope "to open the game up and throw downfield." Let's punt.

Posted by Chris in Cal | January 31, 2008 9:55 AM

> that to pick Hillary Clinton would be to
> reconcile ourselves to playing between the
> 49 yard lines at a time when it looks
> feasible to open the game up and throw downfield

I would tend to agree, but I guess I would prefer to see some hard evidence that Obama intends to throw downfield /in a progressive direction/ rather than just the Rorschach blot.

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | January 31, 2008 9:55 AM

Um, Matt, Texas only quite recently became the rabidly Republican state you apparently think it has always been.

See LBJ; Ann Richards.

Posted by Nathan | January 31, 2008 9:56 AM

Obama has made this case himself and I agree it is the "fundamental political case for Obama." As much as I like Hillary Clinton, I fear we would squander an opportunity to reach for the brass ring if we elect her over Obama (I liked your analogy better than my cliche).

DiveGuy, help me out a little. When you say "Obama's location in domestic policy debates is deeply influenced by the neoconservative / neoliberal stream of thought that emerged from precisely that legacy of the 80s." are you specifically referring to his opposition to healthcare mandates, or did you have more general themes in mind.

Posted by DrexelDem | January 31, 2008 9:58 AM

Obama has made this case himself and I agree it is the "fundamental political case for Obama." As much as I like Hillary Clinton, I fear we would squander an opportunity to reach for the brass ring if we elect her over Obama (I liked your analogy better than my cliche).

DiveGuy, help me out a little. When you say "Obama's location in domestic policy debates is deeply influenced by the neoconservative / neoliberal stream of thought that emerged from precisely that legacy of the 80s." are you specifically referring to his opposition to healthcare mandates, or did you have more general themes in mind.

Posted by DrexelDem | January 31, 2008 9:58 AM

Obama has made this case himself and I agree it is the "fundamental political case for Obama." As much as I like Hillary Clinton, I fear we would squander an opportunity to reach for the brass ring if we elect her over Obama (I liked your analogy better than my cliche).

DiveGuy, help me out a little. When you say "Obama's location in domestic policy debates is deeply influenced by the neoconservative / neoliberal stream of thought that emerged from precisely that legacy of the 80s." are you specifically referring to his opposition to healthcare mandates, or did you have more general themes in mind.

Posted by DrexelDem | January 31, 2008 9:58 AM

I don't see Obama throwing downfield as much as you do. His whole campaign is premised on his ability to overcome partisan divisions. That means he simply HAS to work with the Republicans in Congress if he is elected. They know that, and they're going to take full advantage of it.

Ironically, the GOP will get more done for its agenda in an Obama administration than it would in a McCain administration. The GOP will get nothing done in a Hillary administration--because Hillary won't be afraid to push her agenda forward even if the GOP won't go along.

Hillary will be the one throwing downfield. Obama will be patting the other team on the butt and congratulating them for a 'good game.'

Posted by Keith | January 31, 2008 10:01 AM

I guess I would prefer to see some hard evidence that Obama intends to throw downfield /in a progressive direction/ rather than just the Rorschach blot.

Well, I think what Matt's working off is Obama's foreign policy proposals and team - it's a group of real liberal internationalists, no moderate neocons in the bunch. Hillary's foreign policy team and positioning clearly reflect either actual leanings toward neocon militarism or a belief that actual leanings away from neocon militarism need to be disguised in the political realm. I think there's a pretty good, substantively defended case that Obama really is a new direction, a downfield pass on foreign policy. (One could argue that this merely reflects the sickness in our national debate, that an internationally moderate position on liberal internationalism that includes little in the way of broader anti-imperialism should be a downfield pass, but I guess you elect a president under the national discourse you have, not the national discourse you wish you had.)

My point is that the evidence for such difference on the domestic policy side is negligible. Obama seems to draw from the same line of neoliberal on trade and neoconservative on policy that the Clintons did. His advisers on economics and health care draw from the same population, and Goolsbee in particular is deeply distasteful.

Posted by DivGuy | January 31, 2008 10:03 AM

Re "As Walzer noted, both Maimonides and Marx, in very different ways, argued that the Jews who had lived in bondage had to die out "
---------------
Well, if you're into political metaphors, then note that Roman historian Tacitus had a different version of Exodus:

"[5.3] Most writers, however, agree in stating that once a disease, which horribly disfigured the body, broke out over Egypt; that king Bocchoris, seeking a remedy, consulted the oracle of Hammon, and was bidden to cleanse his realm, and to convey into some foreign land this race detested by the gods.

The people, who had been collected after diligent search, finding themselves left in a desert, sat for the most part in a stupor of grief, till one of the exiles, Moyses by name, warned them not to look for any relief from God or man, forsaken as they were of both, but to trust to themselves, taking for their heaven-sent leader that man who should first help them to be quit of their present misery.

They agreed, and in utter ignorance began to advance at random. Nothing, however, distressed them so much as the scarcity of water, and they had sunk ready to perish in all directions over the plain, when a herd of wild asses was seen to retire from their pasture to a rock shaded by trees.

Moyses followed them, and, guided by the appearance of a grassy spot, discovered an abundant spring of water. This furnished relief. After a continuous journey for six days, on the seventh they possessed themselves of a country, from which they expelled the inhabitants, and in which they founded a city and a temple. "
----------
So either Obama is Moyses and we need to follow him to the well -- or else the Democratic Party has a lot of lepers that we need to purge. Take your pick.

PS To forestall SLC's dishonest caterwauling, let me note that most of the lepers we need to purge from the Democratic Party are not Jewish -- although some of them are (cough cough Haim Saban cough cough)

Posted by Don Williams | January 31, 2008 10:03 AM

he looks like a Clintonite third way...neoliberal

I think every significant Dem politician, with the possible exception of the very old guard, now looks like a neoliberal of some flavor. Bill Clinton moved the party, and the politicians the party produces reflect that.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | January 31, 2008 10:04 AM

It's not that Obama will out-progressive Hillary. That's not even what Obama is claiming.

It's that he'll be able to build a much larger political coalition for roughly the same ideological vision. It's his political vision that is so much more ambitious than Hillary's. Obama promises a transcendence of the nasty, divisive, 50% + 1 politics that in actuality alienates more than half the population.

Whether you believe he is realistic in that promise or not is up to you. I think the crowds and the turnout Obama has been delivering is a convincing down payment on the dream, myself.

Posted by Ban Johnson | January 31, 2008 10:05 AM

I'm glad you recognize that, during Bill Clinton's presidency, triangulation was the only viable option. I think Obama and Hillary Clinton will be equally ambitious in terms of what they try to achieve domestically, but Obama appears to have the edge in terms of his ability to motivate people to get behind his ideas.

Posted by Jim W | January 31, 2008 10:05 AM

It's interesting to me that not only has Obama made this case before, but that his best framing of it (to my mind) was in explicitly biblical (if not especially religious) terms at his MLK Day speech. In fact, in his most recent previous incarnation, Matt even wrote about it.

Posted by Daniel Munz | January 31, 2008 10:06 AM

Good point Matthew, but couldn't you link to a site which doesn't have "subscriber only" after clicking the link? Responding to your analogy, Obama is like Reagan while Hillary Clinton is like McGovern. If Clinton is the candidate, we could lose 49 states just like McGovern did even though he had the support of young anti-war leftists and radicals who were a small minority in America. Reagan however won 40+ states with a landslide victory in both elections and creating a new set of "Reagan Democrats" and a broad coalition of post-partisan Americans on the left, center, and right who supported him because they wanted unity not division.

We have a choice. Either lose 49 states with Clinton or win 40+ states with Obama and creating a new set of Obama Republicans via Obama's changing transformational politics. Isn't the choice obvious?

Posted by TLM | January 31, 2008 10:06 AM

Obama is not going to throw downfield. He rejects the current game and will instead want to sit down with the GOP, perhaps to play some chess or something.

After the election, when Obama sets up the chessboard on the fifty yard line, he'll realize that the game doesn't change just because you distance yourself from your own party.

He will get zero help from the GOP on health insurance, the environment, tax reform, Social Security and whatever else he wants to do in 2009. And since he is setting up the measure of his presidency on bipartisanship, he will be judged a failure, and weak.

This is more similar to Carter and Clinton '93-'94 that people seem to realize. Democrats have been running away from their party for a while now.

Hilary points to a better future because she isn't doing that.

Posted by Joe | January 31, 2008 10:09 AM

DivGuy, I'm sorry, but did I fall asleep for the last twenty years? Obama's being advised by Austan Goolsbee -- a left-of-center behavioralist -- and Hillary is supposed to represent the alternative to cautious centrism?

Posted by Daniel Munz | January 31, 2008 10:11 AM

That's embarrassing... The comment page loaded with an error and I clicked submit three times. Now I'm that guy who triple submits comments!

Posted by DrexelDem | January 31, 2008 10:12 AM

I'm trying to predict how SLC will use that analogy as an excuse to attack the Palestinians.

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

DW-

Tacitus is no unbiased source. He draws from the Greco-Egyptian historians Manetho and, particularly, Apion. They wrote from Alexandria, where Jewish Egyptians were second-class citizens (native Egyptians were third-class, Greco-Egyptians were first-class.) Apion wrote in defense of the massive pogrom carried out against the Jews in the early 50s CE, and put together an apologetic history that took a few stories in ancient Egyptian chronicles about lepers and turned the Jews into lepers. Those stories you draw on from Tacitus are basically second-hand defenses of quasi-genocide.

The ancient Egyptian-Jewish conflict is a fascinating and complex affair (Jews like Philo and Josephus replied with righteous defenses against the pogrom, but also demonized the native Egyptians), but it's not something where I'd blindly cite one side as a useful guide to much of anything.

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

Obama is not going to throw downfield. He rejects the current game and will instead want to sit down with the GOP, perhaps to play some chess or something.

His US and state Senate record clearly suggest otherwise. Hill's the one working on flag-burning legislation.

Posted by Jake | January 31, 2008 10:18 AM

Obama's being advised by Austan Goolsbee -- a left-of-center behavioralist -- and Hillary is supposed to represent the alternative to cautious centrism?

I never said Hillary was much better. Her economic team basically runs from blah to distasteful, too.

But there are not significant differences between the two on domestic issues. Both draw from the same center-right tradition, of which Goolsbee is a particularly strong adherent.

Posted by DivGuy | January 31, 2008 10:19 AM

Obama has been using this narrative for the last several months. In his Selma speech (I think it was Selma?) he spoke of a "Joshua Generation." He continued the metaphor at Ebenezer in his MLK address when he pointedly discussed Joshua's requiring all of the Israelites to shout in unison in order to bring down the walls of Jericho.

Posted by Noyatin | January 31, 2008 10:20 AM

There is another case for Obama and I am surprised no one is making it. The Clintons stand for Secrecy in government and Obama stands for transparency.

The Clintons have refused to release white house records, so we can't judge her record in the white house until 2012. They refuse to release the names of donors to the Clinton Library--large donors may have an agenda with the new Clinton adminstration. One of the largest foreign donors to the library is Saudi Arabia . They went behind closed doors to negotiate health care, and over three million records from those negotiations haven't been released despite the best efforts of journalists.

Compare this with Barack Obama. He helped create Google for Government. All over his website, if you look under issues/ethics or issues/technology, it is about increasing the transparency of government. He has often said the way to successfully negotiate health care is to broadcast the negotiations on C-SPAN.

After the Bush administration with its obsession for secrecy and endless assertions of executive privilege, my vote will go to Obama.

(Not to mention that Hillary Clinton's broadband plan was written by the telecoms--Matt Stoller has written on this--and doesn't include net neutrality. Obama's plan has net neutrality front and center.)

Posted by Hazel | January 31, 2008 10:22 AM

This is just a rehash of the "Joshua generation" line that Obama's given in two major speeches. Might as well call him "Joshua Obama" -- bring down the walls of Jericho, come into the promised land, defeat the Matrix and see the desert of the real ... oops, wrong messiah.

I like Obama, but he is pretty much a gasbag. But Americans, conservative and liberal, love gassy, meaningless speeches that with a narrative of hope and redemption.

Obama is the "American Idol" candidate -- He makes pundits cry.

Posted by Ikram | January 31, 2008 10:23 AM

I was thinking the other day of an analogy with the Clintons as David and Obama as Solomon. David had too much blood on his hands to build the Temple, so it was left to his son.

Meyerson's analogy probably works better, though.

Posted by Consumatopia | January 31, 2008 10:26 AM

Exellent post Hazel, thanks.

Posted by Gary Sugar | January 31, 2008 10:27 AM

I never said Hillary was much better. Her economic team basically runs from blah to distasteful, too.

So they net out on economics, and Obama beats HRC on social issues, FP, and the absence of deep enmity against him in his own party. Okay then.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | January 31, 2008 10:29 AM

We have a choice. Either lose 49 states with Clinton or win 40+ states with Obama and creating a new set of Obama Republicans via Obama's changing transformational politics. Isn't the choice obvious?

I think every Democrat in the country would rather win than lose; but some of us just aren't convinced that Obama really does have that kind of upside.

I hope all of you are indeed right, that he'll usher in a 40-state 60% of the vote landslide, then swiftly pass all manner of progressive legislation. I hope he'll continue to be treated worshipfully in the press once he (as now looks likely) wins the nomination.

But I also think that you'd have to be a fool to expect all that. I know Obama's supporters are stereotyped as being young, but you do remember the 90's, right? By the time the campaign is over, all of America is going to have heard about how Obama is a muslim, was educated in a madrassa, refuses to say the pledge, etc. while the rebuttals to these lies will be in paragraph 26 on page A19. Meanwhile, the press will swallow whole anything said by the other side as the Gospel according to St. John McCain.

Maybe none of that will matter because the country is now ready for progressive politics. God I hope so, but I want to see some sort of signs that Obama's people realize what they're up against, because I think you're a fool if you expect it to be easy, even for him.

Posted by gustav | January 31, 2008 10:30 AM

There's nothing transcending or post-partisan about Obama's politics, he's just an old school liberal in a flashier package. The old liberal approaches (higher, more steeply progressive taxes; anti-growth policies; more unionism) are lame: throw them down field and they might get picked off. Why is it impossible for Democrats to propose pro-growth policies to expand the economic pie while agitating for bigger slices for the poor, women, blacks, etc.? Where the Venn diagrams overlap, a Dem could find a lot of bipartisan support. That would seem to be the smart tack, not the dishonest class warfare and faux populism trotted out by John Edwards.

A pro-growth, progressive/liberal platform could include:

Top marginal income tax rates at Clinton levels.

Capital gains and dividend taxes at Bush levels.

Significantly reduced corporate taxes, to encourage more foreign companies to set up shop here.

Policies to encourage employee stock ownership.

Proposals to require shareholder approval of executive compensation.

Higher unemployment and job dislocation benefits.

Etc.

Posted by Fred | January 31, 2008 10:31 AM

So they net out on economics, and Obama beats HRC on social issues, FP, and the absence of deep enmity against him in his own party. Okay then.

That's pretty fair, it's basically why I'm supporting Obama, and will be voting for him on Tuesday.

I'm just trying to argue against the Matt's rhetorical construction of an Obama who is not influenced by the center-right movements in the Democratic policy on any issues. As you say, Hillary and Obama basically net out on economics, both in the same "bondage" mentality, to use Meyerson's term.

Posted by DivGuy | January 31, 2008 10:33 AM

"Hope" and generational change are fine things. I have participated in both in politics before. But three things now: (1) I don't know if Obama can anticipate and survive the viciousness of the Republican attack machine that is coming his way; Hilary already has and can (2) Unity is wonderful, but Obama should take a good look at the Senate he is in to see that there is no one on the Republican side who wants to make nice; they have to be soundly defeated repeatedly before "bipartisanship" will mean anything other than "let's all do it my way." Obama shows no sign that he realizes this (3) Obama says he wants to be the vision president.That's fine--but unless he understands how to use federal civil service personnel rules to remove 5 or 6 layers of Reagan/Bush Republicans in the federal agencies (the Malik Manual finally suceeded--see DoJ and Interior and EPA for outstanding examples), and can come up with suitable replacements, any vision will be stymied by their undermining. I see no evidence that he even knows this will be a problem, much less evidence he knows how to take this on. Hilary and her team will know and will have a network of replacement candidates. Without dealing with these problems, any "hope" Obama articulates will be, if not stillborn, soon dead by a thousand cuts.
Charles

Posted by Charles Moore | January 31, 2008 10:36 AM

TLM: "We have a choice. Either lose 49 states with Clinton or win 40+ states with Obama and creating a new set of Obama Republicans via Obama's changing transformational politics. Isn't the choice obvious?"

Tel me this is a joke. If not, I hate to burst your bubble, but the revolution will not be televised, and no candidate from either party is winning 40+ states.

Posted by Andruw | January 31, 2008 10:39 AM

Why is it impossible for Democrats to propose pro-growth policies to expand the economic pie while agitating for bigger slices for the poor, women, blacks, etc.?

Why? Because they're running against opponents who say, "Tax cuts always, always always increase revenue. We need more tax cuts!" in a media environment (or, if you prefer, a nation of short-attention-span voters) that validates that kind of simplistic crap.

Your proposed platform is viably debatable on its merits, but, unfortunately, anything with that many bullet points and big words is simply too complex for 2008 America.

Posted by James Gary | January 31, 2008 10:43 AM

"Tel me this is a joke. If not, I hate to burst your bubble, but the revolution will not be televised, and no candidate from either party is winning 40+ states."

The revolution will be blogged about and webcast.

Posted by Anthony Damiani | January 31, 2008 10:47 AM

His whole campaign is premised on his ability to overcome partisan divisions. That means he simply HAS to work with the Republicans in Congress if he is elected

I don't know. I think you could say as well he's positioning himself to take a bite out of the GOP coalition in the general and therefore to put the Goopsters in Congress in a position where they must work with him, or face political blowback. Which is a quite different and far more appealing scenario, and one that I think is suggested by Matt's post.

Posted by Gee | January 31, 2008 10:48 AM

Top marginal income tax rates at Clinton levels.

Capital gains and dividend taxes at Bush levels.

The empirical evidence that low capital gains taxes increase economic growth is extrememly weak. And as a practical matter, you'd have people paying much higher taxes on income from labor than from capital, which is certainly not equitable.

Posted by Peter H | January 31, 2008 10:48 AM

Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton has to stop.

i really can't understand how anyone can support Hillary over Obama. Whatever deficits Obama has(and there are some), in my eyes you get them with Hillary x10.

its like Dems dont even want to give this a chance. if Obama is the utter gas-bag doomed-to-be-a-failure some people think he will be, it won't take long to find that out, and then in 2012 we can all vote him out. then we can all admit it shoulda been Hillary, who will of course will have been campaigning for 2012 since January 22, 2009.

but let's at least try for something better.

Posted by rob! | January 31, 2008 10:50 AM

I don't know. I think you could say as well he's positioning himself to take a bite out of the GOP coalition in the general and therefore to put the Goopsters in Congress in a position where they must work with him, or face political blowback.

Yup, that's always been my take. He's just trying to get 60+ Senators to go along with him. He's not imagining everyone holding hands and singing kumbayah.

I'm sort of surprised, given Obama's obvious intellectual gifts, that so many Democrats believe he could be that naive.

Posted by Jake | January 31, 2008 10:54 AM

Hillary will never throw it down field b/c the furious Republican rush will sack her before the ball ever gets out of her hand. The D majority is thin, and with her on the 2008 ticket, might disappear.

Obama, on the other hand, will complete the long throw, b/c he'll neutralize the rush by getting enough of the opposing team to cross over to his side.

That to me is the crux here -- both have the same basic goals. The question is -- who can acheive them.

Can Hillary defeat an overwhelmingly antagonist Republican opposition (that might be a majority)?

Can Obama win enough of them to prevent the same from happening to him?

I believe the answer is No and Yes, which is why I support Obama.

And at this point, I'm so disillusioned with the 16 years of non-stop partisan fighting and deadlock and mismanagement, and disgusted and appalled by Billary's Rovian tactics against Obama, that I will vote for just about anyone who seems competent, honest, fair, and willing to work with both sides to get something done.

And that's not Billary.

That's Obama, and maybe McCain, and possibly Romney.

And Mayor Bloomberg waits in the wings...

Posted by Steve W | January 31, 2008 10:56 AM

Obama's being advised by Austan Goolsbee -- a left-of-center behavioralist -- and Hillary is supposed to represent the alternative to cautious centrism?

Goolsbee is in no way a "left-of-center behavioralist". He's pure white bread, "centrist" (which for an economist means slightly right).

We have a choice. Either lose 49 states with Clinton or win 40+ states with Obama and creating a new set of Obama Republicans via Obama's changing transformational politics. Isn't the choice obvious?

Ummm, well, if you put it that way it certainly is.

One of the scary things about Obama is his nutty internet supporters, who seem even more naive than the Ron Paul people.

Posted by mq | January 31, 2008 10:58 AM

I don't know if Obama can anticipate and survive the viciousness of the Republican attack machine that is coming his way; Hilary already has and can

If Obama manages to beat both of the Clintons in a Democratic primary, I've got little doubt about his ability to anticipate the tactical moves and survive a campaign against John McCain.

Posted by jbryan | January 31, 2008 10:59 AM

given the vast amount of opinion surveys that have shown consistently high numbers of people desiring change in direction away from republican policies, and the huge number of exiting gingrich counterrevolution republicans exiting congress this year (15 so far), i find it dubious to think obama will coattail more democrats than hillary. it is nice to think it, but there is no proof, and no way to prove, that this will be the case. it's just conjecture that obama is spinning because he can't win the nomination by beating hillary clinton.

so i put this out there for obama supporters to chew on: the only way clinton could possibly lose to mccain, and democrats fail to significantly improve their position in both house is IF OBAMA SUPPORTERS TAKE THEIR MARBLES AND GO HOME WHEN HE LOSES THE NOMINATION. so there. the end run around the primary process by appealing to electability in the general is dubious intellectual blackmail - a desperate effort to pander to anti-clinton sentiment.

Posted by englisht teacher | January 31, 2008 11:01 AM

You know what this thread needs? petey

Posted by John Edwards | January 31, 2008 11:03 AM

The idea that a black guy in America (thus probably has had to deal with racism in the past in his own life) with an African name who worked in Chicago politics and beat a black panther in a primary in Southern Chicago can't deal with shit is just kind of funny. I hate to keep on bringing up this same issue, but he got Illinois police to videotape interrogations as a way to prevent torture in police stations despite opposition from the police, the incoming governor and the Republicans. It passed the state Senate 35-0, yet just a little time earlier everyone told him he was doomed.

This boils down to how Clinton has tried to spin one of her negatives - people don't like her personality - and one of Obama's positives - people actually like him - and try to spin this as her being tough and him being soft. However, she is only good at going after fellow Democrats and taking credit for their successes (such as S-CHIP, which was primarily Teddy Kennedy's baby with an assist of Hatch, the arch-conservative who kept a picture of himself with Teddy on his desk). Generationally, she is a defensive crouch on just about everything in how she tries to sell liberalism to non-liberals. She concedes the battle field to the opposition before even amassing her troops and tries to nibble around the edges instead. The thing is, she actually doesn't have any actual history of going up against the right and winning.

A lot of the time the kid couldn't fight off the bullies in 2nd grade can't do it in high school either. We aren't Iraq where a successful attack from the opposition means that you are out of the game permanently. Surviving in American politics means little more than not dying because no matter how low your reputation sinks, you can still go on Chris Matthews or FoxNews. Just because people outside the liberal base find her off-putting and she isn't afraid to play dirty against fellow Democrats doesn't mean she is a strong fighter for liberalism. She has only generated warmth among the public at large by 1) playing a more docile role (her positives in the '90's went up in Clinton's second term, when she wasn't trying to get involved in policy) and 2) by being the victim (Monica, the crying incident in NH). Does this sound like someone who can actually accomplish anything for us or even win in the first place against McCain?

Posted by Reality Man | January 31, 2008 11:04 AM

The way I see it, it isn't about Obama being more liberal than Clinton. I just think Obama is more likely to take bigger political risks when in office. His support among independents and even some Republicans might give him more political capital to afford to take risks.

Hillary, if she wins (a big "if", if you ask me but hey, I'm an "Obamabot"), will be more risk averse. Shw won't win by any siginifican margin and will not has much political capital to work with. Furhter, Republicans will not suffer any political cost by being perceived as obstructionist by obstructing Hillary.

Posted by MS | January 31, 2008 11:05 AM

The way I see it, it isn't about Obama being more liberal than Clinton. I just think Obama is more likely to take bigger political risks when in office. His support among independents and even some Republicans might give him more political capital to afford to take risks.

Hillary, if she wins (a big "if", if you ask me but hey, I'm an "Obamabot"), will be more risk averse. Shw won't win by any siginifican margin and will not has much political capital to work with. Furhter, Republicans will not suffer any political cost for being perceived as obstructionist by obstructing Hillary.

Posted by MS | January 31, 2008 11:05 AM

DivGuy:

I'm just trying to argue against the Matt's rhetorical construction of an Obama who is not influenced by the center-right movements in the Democratic policy on any issues. As you say, Hillary and Obama basically net out on economics, both in the same "bondage" mentality, to use Meyerson's term.

How so? You list some adivisors, that's it. And you commit the sin of omission by leaving out the best countervailing arguments.

As Obama has said, there are no shortage of (liberal) policy ideas or plans, it's a matter of getting them enacted. It's a matter of scoring a touchdown and getting some points on the board.

One of the ways to do that is to inspire people and increase turnout which Obama has done.

I respect Meyerson but I think he's softpeddaling the history of the Clinton 90s. Hillary is running on the 90s and yeah it seem good compared to a time with 9/11, Iraq etc, but I remember welfare reform, Omnibus crime bill, etc., etc. etc. which a lot of people seem to forget about. I didn't see it as a defensive crouch, it was stealing Republican ideas and taking your base for granted to get/stay elected. This isn't what Obama seems to be about. It isn't his record as a community organizer on the streets of Chicago, as a member of the Illinois Senate or as a Senator from Illinois.

Posted by Peter K. | January 31, 2008 11:07 AM

i find it dubious to think obama will coattail more democrats than hillary. it is nice to think it, but there is no proof, and no way to prove, that this will be the case. it's just conjecture that obama is spinning...

The number of red state politicians backing Obama over HRC is pretty strong evidence, IMHO.

Posted by Jeff S. | January 31, 2008 11:08 AM

do we really want a president who stakes so much of his appeal on charisma. i don't dislike obama, but i don't really like him either because i think appeals to charisma are bad, bad, bad. sure he's got it, but that doesn't mean i want a charismatic leader with a movement behind him to be the president of the united states. we've got that now and we need to change it so again i ask how is he really planning to transcend politics as usual?

Posted by english teacher | January 31, 2008 11:10 AM

About the 60 senators. Obama will first of all possibly help but definitely not hinder Democrats running for Senate. Clinton on the other hand is so disliked, her candidacy could cost the Dems one or two seats. Then there's the three or four GOP votes that Dems will need in the Senate. Clinton is again so disliked that GOP senators will always want to stay popular at home by campaigning against her; whereas Obama's popularity and inclusive rhetoric will give GOP senators enough cover to trade their votes on say health care for their pet projects or some pork in their states or whatever.

Posted by Gary Sugar | January 31, 2008 11:11 AM

"Republicans will not suffer any political cost by being perceived as obstructionist by obstructing Hillary.

Posted by MS | January 31, 2008 11:05 AM"

Very true. One of the best Republican tricks was defining partisan as "whatever the Democrats want" and getting the media to go along with that narrative and framing. Obama is the first Democrat who I could see reversing that, making "unity" to be "what I and my coalition want" and "partisan" to be "whatever George Bush Republicans want."

Posted by Reality Man | January 31, 2008 11:11 AM

Obama's location in domestic policy debates is deeply influenced by the neoconservative / neoliberal stream of thought that emerged from precisely that legacy of the 80s.

Perhaps you haven't noticed but the Dems haven't had a true economic liberal nominee since Mondale in 1984.

Posted by Mike | January 31, 2008 11:13 AM

To the commenters who think Obama is going to be able to peel away enough GOP support in the House and Senate to pqass his agenda (near-universal health care, environmental policies, less deficit spending and whatever else you have in mind), can you please explain this apparently insane assumption to me?

The GOP in 1993 gambled that if they could stick together they would win, and it worked. The GOP in 2006, to the surprise of just about everyone, decided they could stick with their super-unpopular president and make Democrats look bad, and it more or less worked.

What is Obama going to do that will make any number of Republican Senators and Representatives decide that they should stop opposing more government intervention in health care, more environmental regulations on business, higher taxes and all the other bugaboos they depend upon?

I really, honestly, don't see it. And I'm reminded of the stories of all the failed legislative ideas in the Clinton WH that began with "we'll find a few moderate House GOP members to co-sponsor this idea."

Posted by Joe | January 31, 2008 11:17 AM

This boils down to how Clinton has tried to spin one of her negatives - people don't like her personality - and one of Obama's positives - people actually like him - and try to spin this as her being tough and him being soft.

Really good point. The rest of that comment is interesting too.

Posted by mq | January 31, 2008 11:21 AM

Of course, Matt, this is precisely the point. Triangulation was the necessary defensive strategy in the 1990s. But I already lived through the 1990s, and am in no mood to repeat it. Dream big, or live small. Look at what Clinton herself says (recent New York magazine). Here's the writer, and then a quote from Clinton.

But if she's correct that the brutally polarizing partisan dynamics of Washington are ineradicable, isn't the logical conclusion that a Clinton restoration would mean another four (or eight) more years of the Clinton wars--a perpetual 1998? The thought of it produced a dull throbbing in my temples, and I told her so. "I can understand the feeling," she said with a laugh. "But in some ways, psychologically and emotionally, that might be less painful and more short-lived that it would be with someone who's never been through it. Because it'll happen."

To expect a certain reaction is a guarantee of acting in a way that elicits it. (And back in the 1990s, she was always the one who wanted to circle the wagons, and push back the hardest--and it was almost always counterproductive.) Moreover, the "tough enough to take it" mantra, ironically, concedes the power of the attack. The bigger politician, the better one, is the one about whom the attack seems irrelevant, beside the point. Of course the right wing machine will train its fire on Obama. But it just won't matter.

Posted by Matt | January 31, 2008 11:21 AM

To the commenters who think Obama is going to be able to peel away enough GOP support in the House and Senate to pqass his agenda (near-universal health care, environmental policies, less deficit spending and whatever else you have in mind), can you please explain this apparently insane assumption to me?

No, you explain how Hillary would not be worse at it.
--She would bring in fewer Senators and Reps on the Democratic side. This is why the Purple state Dems are for Obama.
--She would firm up Republican unity.
--She would not be able to use the'bully pulpit' to bring any pressure on even the Specters and Collinses.

So other than 'hard work' and 'experience', just how would Hillary not be less effective?

Posted by calling all toasters | January 31, 2008 11:24 AM

Joe, unless you can 1) get 60 Senators and a majority of House Reps elected from your party or 2) get enough of the other side to switch, you can't get anything done. Obama has higher positives among independents and Republican voters than Clinton, thus would likely 1) have better coat-tails and 2) be able to make his proposals seem like bipartisan common sense when a similar proposal from Clinton would likely get spinned as far-left commie pinko craziness. Now, nobody can prove that Obama can actually do that because the election is in the future and my time travel machine is in the shop. However, when your popularity crosses party lines and you have charisma in a media-saturated world (think of how Nixon won 1960 among radio listeners yet Kennedy credited television with his win), this can matter. Bush pushed a lot of his shit through because he was seen as the folksy guy you could have a beer with. It was only when reality became overwhelming with the 1-2 Iraq-Katrina punch that people realized he was shit. Connecting with people through the media is perhaps the most powerful mass political tool a politician has at their disposal today. Obama has it. Clinton doesn't. Even though Bill does, he just shows how little of it Hillary has and he won't actually be president.

Posted by Reality Man | January 31, 2008 11:28 AM

Perhaps you haven't noticed but the Dems haven't had a true economic liberal nominee since Mondale in 1984.

Right. I'm prObama, I think I've said that several times. I just don't like seeing Obama described as something he's not.

How so? You list some adivisors, that's it. And you commit the sin of omission by leaving out the best countervailing arguments.

Listing advisers is one of MY's preferred methods of locating Hillary's foreign policy, and it's a good method. Those are the people who will write the bills.

Obama's health care plan is the most centrist of the three, and he has used conservative rhetoric of personal choice vs. government activism to fight for it. His trade policy is the same neoliberalism of the Clinton years. He has no poverty plan, he has no plan to fix welfare "reform" - those things aren't even on his radar. His public policy positions are not meaningfully distinguishable from those of the Clintonite neoliberals / neoconservatives. I note you didn't list any policies to disprove this.

As Obama has said, there are no shortage of (liberal) policy ideas or plans, it's a matter of getting them enacted. It's a matter of scoring a touchdown and getting some points on the board.

Well, then how about he actually endorses some liberal domestic policy ideas that are meaningfully to Hillary's left?

I'm not arguing against Obama. I think he's the best Democrat remaining, and I think he's the most electable Democrat remaining. I think he'll do a better job of getting some solid stuff done.

I'm just saying that he's not meaningfully removed from Clinton on ideology or policy in the domestic arena. The theory that he'll do a better job of getting the same plans passed is a good argument for voting for Obama, but it in no way demonstrates what Yglesias and Meyerson were arguing - that Obama is not beholden to the center-right orthodoxy of the Clintonite Democratic party.

Posted by DivGuy | January 31, 2008 11:28 AM

What Hazel said.

Policy always takes a back seat to character in presidential elections. (And character does not mean who you'd like to have a beer with; it means trust, integrity, and transparency.)

So it boggles the mind that so many Dems are arguing over the minutiae of domestic economic policy (see Krugman, Paul) when there is such a wide difference among the candidates on the overarching issues of honesty, transparency, and character.

If you can't trust the president, it doesn't make a lick of difference what his or her policy preferences are. Just ask Gore and Kerry.

Posted by Tractarian | January 31, 2008 11:30 AM

> Joe, unless you can 1) get 60 Senators and a
> majority of House Reps elected from your party
> or 2) get enough of the other side to switch, you
> can't get anything done.

Strangely, the Radical Right and George W. Bush have managed to get a heck of a lot done with 49+1(+1) Senators, which is less that 60.

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | January 31, 2008 11:31 AM

What if Hillary Clinton were elected president and we increase our margin in the House (which is likely to happen) and we increase our margin in the Senate (also likely to happen) and we reach a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate (who knows at this point)?

Do you think that Hillary Clinton will be a cautious mid-nineties version of Bill Clinton facing Republican majorities in both houses, or a Lyndon Johnson who knows how to work the Senate and sees a historic moment to set a domestic agenda that will change the course of America? (For a moment, forgo the Johnson Vietnam/Iraq analogies because both Democratic candidates seem to understand the public support behind withdrawal.)

Answer: we don't know.

Hillary Clinton was a liberal before Barack Obama was a politician. She is smart, tough and tenacious. When the slime-machine targets her, she will hit back.

Everything good being said about Obama is also true.

But to assume that we can predict the policy detail of either candidate if she or he wins is wrong. To assume that there will be vast differences in their policy proposals is probably wrong, too. To predict which style will better implement policy is impossible.

Neither has an exclusive license to the progressive agenda and both showed a willingness to put on the agenda after John Edwards showed them how. Hillary Clinton's health care plan is bolder and better. Barack Obama's environmental plan looks good. I've seen Obama blow the roof off a building with stirring speeches, while organizing and motivating more voters than anyone thought humanly possible. I've seen Clinton blow away a debate room with her in-depth understanding of the issues facing our country and her long and passionate commitment to justice.

As Democrats, it would be worth looking to the incredible strength of each of these candidates, rather than picking at their weaknesses.

And, for this Edwards supporter, neither is the automatic second-choice.

Posted by TFisher | January 31, 2008 11:35 AM

If you can't trust the president, it doesn't make a lick of difference what his or her policy preferences are.

That's just stupid.

Lyndon Baines Johnson was, by all accounts, an untrustworthy bastard. He also presided over the greatest advances in domestic policy of his age.

People may vote on character, but I know a lot of people with great character who hold to centrist positions. They would not enact leftist policies because they're not leftists.

Posted by DivGuy | January 31, 2008 11:36 AM

RE DivGuy's comment "The ancient Egyptian-Jewish conflict is a fascinating and complex affair (Jews like Philo and Josephus replied with righteous defenses against the pogrom, but also demonized the native Egyptians), but it's not something where I'd blindly cite one side as a useful guide to much of anything."
------------

So you're saying our revered histories are really fragments from Blogging disputes circa 50 AD -- disputes similar to the one above re Obama vs Hillary.

Sweet Jesus.

Posted by Don Williams | January 31, 2008 11:37 AM

Wonks to the left of me...wonks to the right...

Hazel is on the right track. Its not what they say they will do but their perspective on the job function. W and Hillary both come to it with a sense of entitlement, and that's a bad thing.

Posted by rickhavoc | January 31, 2008 11:38 AM

"Strangely, the Radical Right and George W. Bush have managed to get a heck of a lot done with 49+1(+1) Senators, which is less that 60.

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | January 31, 2008 11:31 AM"

Part of that is that Harry Reid is a fucking pussy. Part of that is that there is a difference between blocking bills through the threat of a filibuster and actually getting bills past the 60 vote threshold. Part of it is that a lot of the crap the Republicans passed before 2006 was so esoteric to the average American, often dealing with procedural stuff (an Obama focus). Think of how Tina Fey noted how Democratic scandals tend to have words like "intern" and "blowjob" and "murder," while Republican ones have "revenue stream" and "fiscal year reports." A big part of it is also that between 9/11 and Katrina, Bush was able to bully wimpy Democrats in safe seats *cough*New York*cough*to vote for his stupid ideas *cough*Iraq*cough* and also make it seem like his ideas were bipartisan and sensible while liberal ideas were loony, which put Red State Democratic seats at risk. You reverse that dynamic and put Republican House and Senate seats at risk in places like Ohio, Virginia, etc. by putting someone with appeal outside of fellow liberals.

Posted by Reality Man | January 31, 2008 11:39 AM

> Hillary Clinton was a liberal before
> Barack Obama was a politician. She is smart,
> tough and tenacious. When the slime-machine
> targets her, she will hit back.

Hillary Clintion started out her political life as a country-club Republican and a Goldwater Girl. I would like to see some hard evidence that that isn't the core of her true political beliefs.

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | January 31, 2008 11:39 AM

DivGuy,

You said Barack Obama has no poverty plan.

I refer you to Barack Obama's Poverty Plan.

You can argue that his plan doesn't do enough; That's fair. But he does have one.

Posted by Hazel | January 31, 2008 11:42 AM

Cranky,

Give me a break--No one thinks that the Goldwater Girl will suddenly emerge if Hillary Clinton is elected president.

Posted by TFisher | January 31, 2008 11:44 AM

Even if Obama loses to the Clinton lady I'd like to see her offer him the vice presidential nomination. It would be the boldest choice she could make and it would please the base.

Posted by Linus | January 31, 2008 11:52 AM

Lyndon Baines Johnson was, by all accounts, an untrustworthy bastard. He also presided over the greatest advances in domestic policy of his age.

And he also declined to run for a second full term because he knew he would lose.

The point is that, where policy differences are minute, character makes the difference.

Posted by Tractarian | January 31, 2008 11:58 AM

Give me a break--No one thinks that the Goldwater Girl will suddenly emerge if Hillary Clinton is elected president.

And yet many here think that a black man who has been a community organizer coming out of post-Harold Washington Chicago with a very liberal voting record is somehow going to turn out be a conservative....

Posted by calling all toasters | January 31, 2008 11:59 AM

Hey Matt,

Where's the daily dose of Table??!!! I am going through table withdrawal here. Seriously a ten minute daily segment of you guys, even if you have to call in from the road could easily grow into a staple of my political news diet...

As for hope, I just don't see the numbers for Obama. I think you made this case yourself in one of the table segments.

I have a google spreadsheet with the latest polls on all the Super Tuesday states. None of them go to 100%, and many of them don't have a head to head match up so the totals don't equal 2025. But even assuming Super Delegates magically match primary voter percentages as reflected by polling, Obama comes out behind.

http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pk5JqeZIV9L_SrK2ZsqHiKA

I would put this in an html anchor tag but I don't know if the atlantic blog permits this.

Given that Romney is dropping out after Super Tuesday does it really make sense for Team Obama to push the issues and waste everybody's money while McCain consolidates support?

BTW I'm totally with Linus that I want to see Obama at VP. Also I want Edwards as Labor, and Gore at EPA, and a million dollars, and a pony.

Actually I'd just settle for another Table update.

Posted by smacfarl | January 31, 2008 12:03 PM

And yet many here think that a black man who has been a community organizer coming out of post-Harold Washington Chicago with a very liberal voting record is somehow going to turn out be a conservative....

And don't forget he was also a machine politician. He hasn't gotten out in front on FISA(Dodd did). What about his association with Goolsbee? Does that concern you?

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | January 31, 2008 12:05 PM

Reality Man needs some cough drops.

Some very progressive Senators were bullied into voting for the Iraq resolution. Their names should go on a wall of shame and I was as angry at our Senator Harkin (who has pretty good progressive credentials) as I have ever been when he voted for the stupid thing. Here is the list, right off the Senate roll call:

Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Breaux (D-LA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carnahan (D-MO)
Carper (D-DE)
Cleland (D-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Daschle (D-SD)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Edwards (D-NC)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hollings (D-SC)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Miller (D-GA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Schumer (D-NY)
Torricelli (D-NJ)

I don't defend any of them. But Hillary Clinton did not push this resolution over the top and I don't think you can say this is a list of purely conservative Democrats. (I think Chris Dodd's seat was rather safe, too.)

Posted by TFisher | January 31, 2008 12:06 PM

So you're saying our revered histories are really fragments from Blogging disputes circa 50 AD -- disputes similar to the one above re Obama vs Hillary.

Oh, sure. These debates are centuries old. For further background, I refer you to Boethius's 3rd-Century tract In Re Blogorum.

Posted by James Gary | January 31, 2008 12:09 PM

BTW I'm totally with Linus that I want to see Obama at VP. Also I want Edwards as Labor, and Gore at EPA, and a million dollars, and a pony.

More realistic is that a President Hillary would appoint Obama to the Supreme Court.

Think about it; he'd be an easy confirmation, no one doubts his qualifications, support on both sides of the aisle, a Dem would appoint his senate replacement... and she would get to rid herself of a major political rival. It would make perfect sense for her.

Posted by Tractarian | January 31, 2008 12:12 PM

I like this blog a lot, many smart commenters. But on the electability issue, playing between the 49 yard lines, v. "going long", I'm sorry, you guys are in the biggest self-delusionary bubble since, I dunno, Christopher Street in the late 1970's.
BHO would get wiped out by McCain. He would lose 40 states. David Brooks won't tell you this. No committed Republican or neocon will. Why would they?
Anyone who wants to bet serious money on this matter, I'd be delighted to accomodate--funds will be useful is exile to Canada or France looks desirable. If Obama wins next Tuesday, there will be a lot of war in America's future, McCain has promised it.

Posted by scott | January 31, 2008 12:12 PM

And yet many here think that a black man who has been a community organizer coming out of post-Harold Washington Chicago with a very liberal voting record is somehow going to turn out be a conservative....

Didn't imply that--you shouldn't infer that. This thread was lashing out at Hillary Clinton, so I thought she needed some defending. I think Obama is a great guy and a great candidate with real potential.

My point was simple: let's compare the two candidate's strengths instead of ripping them apart.

Posted by TFisher | January 31, 2008 12:14 PM

Joe Klein's conscience--

Obama was definitely NOT a product of the Machine. After Harold was elected in 1983, virtually the entire black political establishment was liberated from it. And Obama was elected from a district (Hyde Park and surrounding) that was independent for decades before Harold.

And Goolsbbee being one of the advisors on an economic team doesn't worry me nearly as much as if he had, say, Mark Penn as his top political advisor.

Posted by calling all toasters | January 31, 2008 12:16 PM

smacfarl,

A million dollars and a pony aren't enough; you need a boat and an ocean, too:

If I had a boat
I'd go out on the ocean
And if I had a pony
I'd ride him on my boat
And we could all together
Go out on the ocean
Me upon my pony on my boat

--Lyle Lovett

Posted by TFisher | January 31, 2008 12:25 PM

TFisher--

Fair enough. I certainly believe Hillary is a liberal and would gladly argue with anyone that disagrees. My stance is pretty much like Meyerson's: this is a once-in-every-72 years opportunity and we need to be thinking about building as broad-based majority coalition as we can. I appreciate that Hillary is a battler, but in politics that is a mainly a defensive posture.

Posted by calling all toasters | January 31, 2008 12:35 PM

So now we have:

1.) Black minister from Atlanta saying blacks who don't support Obama suffer from a 'slave mentality'.

2.) These two guys saying once these 'slaves' die out, Black Moses can lead us all to 'freedom'?

Sweet.Baby.Jesus.

Posted by willyjsimmons | January 31, 2008 12:36 PM

Tractarian:

And [LBJ] also declined to run for a second full term because he knew he would lose.

The point is that, where policy differences are minute, character makes the difference.

Do you really consider being responsible for the Vietnam War, and advocating its continuation and escalation, to be a "minute policy difference" between LBJ and RFK or Eugene McCarthy? Or are you saying that, if LBJ had had "character" he would have run for the nomination in '68, rather than stepping aside? Or that declining to run a losing campaign showed good character, the kind of good character that got the civil rights bills passed?

Posted by Pesto | January 31, 2008 12:42 PM

before the people could cross over into Canaan and freedom.

I find it a little remarkable that whenever this story is used, for whatever reason, the end is always abrupt ("and they found freedom"). The user never remarks that what happened when the Jews entered Canaan was the genocide of the Canaanites.

Posted by Patrick | January 31, 2008 12:58 PM

Today we find out that Obama's campaign picked up 170,000 new donors, and they racked up 33 million bucks in one month. He's already got 75,000 volunteers working for him, and that number should grow if he "hold serve" on Feb 5 and stays viable for more Obama-friendly states in the remainder of February.

If Obama gets the nom (big If, I know), and wins the GE -- is there a way to continue channeling this energy/activism into supporting his administration? In a campaign, its easier because there are clear activities and benchmarks (i.e. knock on doors, collect donations, spread literature, register voters which lead to turnout and votes), but what if the Obama campaign figured out a way to leverage this to support his administration's initiatives (healthcare, education, etc)?

This could be a new source of power for him to work with in moving the agenda forward. This "citizen" group would be your watchdogs, the ones putting heat on their elected reps, etc. The difference between now and then is that now citizens have access to media creation/dissemination tools (youtube, facebook, etc) to maintain engagement and energy.

It's a big bet to put on the American people -- after all, we do have jobs and families to support -- but so far its worked.

Posted by macarthur31 | January 31, 2008 1:01 PM

Do you really consider being responsible for the Vietnam War, and advocating its continuation and escalation, to be a "minute policy difference" between LBJ and RFK or Eugene McCarthy? Or are you saying that, if LBJ had had "character" he would have run for the nomination in '68, rather than stepping aside? Or that declining to run a losing campaign showed good character, the kind of good character that got the civil rights bills passed?

0 for 3, try again

Posted by Tractarian | January 31, 2008 1:06 PM

Can I ask anyone, but especially DivGuy, to link to either anything Goolsbee has written which they think is objectionable or to a policy he has stated support for which they don't like? I hear his name dropped a lot, but I never hear anything beyond that.

Posted by washerdreyer | January 31, 2008 1:56 PM

....Obama says he wants to be the vision president.That's fine--but unless he understands how to use federal civil service personnel rules to remove 5 or 6 layers of Reagan/Bush Republicans in the federal agencies (the Malik Manual finally suceeded--see DoJ and Interior and EPA for outstanding examples), and can come up with suitable replacements, any vision will be stymied by their undermining. I see no evidence that he even knows this will be a problem, much less evidence he knows how to take this on. Hilary and her team will know and will have a network of replacement candidates. Posted by Charles Moore....10:36 AM

Excellent point and one good argument in Hillary's favor. Seems to me that this type of thing is one of her specialties. Remember the White House Travel Office at the start of Bill's frist administration and Hillary with "we've got to get our people in there"?

I have several friends working in Fed executive government outside of DC, like in the EEOC, and they have told me some real horror stories about the last 7 years.

This is actually where the president has power to change things, far easier than getting Congressional legislation for what he/she wants.

Of course, this is what bothers some people about Hillary, too, that she would look for the executive power like George Bush does. But if you want fast change, this is the way to do it, to hit the ground with people savvy about the bureaucracy in there for you and not a bunch of newbies trying to change things and instead getting stymied or even slaughtered by their own forces. Oh, and here's an example of the converse that came to mind: remember all the bitching about the State Dept. by neo-cons and Bushies during the buildup to the Iraq invasion, how they couldn't do things right because it was still infiltrated with Clintonites? :-)

Posted by artappraiser | January 31, 2008 2:12 PM

My point was simple: let's compare the two candidate's strengths instead of ripping them apart. Posted by TFisher | January 31, 2008 12:14 PM

Yeah, heh, so many blog commenting people seem to labor under the idea that virulent attacks on the opponent to their candidate is actually going to accomplish something in persuading fellow blog commenters. They forget that the people who come to political blogs often do so because they are savvy about political war room spinning. All they are doing with their spin is spinning themselves silly, nothing more.

Posted by artappraiser | January 31, 2008 2:22 PM

George Lakoff elegantly describes the differences between Obama and Clinton:

"This nomination campaign is about much more than the candidates. It about a major split within the Democratic party. The candidates are reflecting that split. Here are three of the major "issues" dividing Democrats.

First, triangulation: moving to the right -- adopting right-wing positions -- to get more votes. Bill Clinton did it and Hillary believes in it. It is what she means by "bipartisanship." Obama means the opposite by "bipartisanship." To Obama, it is a recognition that central progressive moral principles are fundamental American principles. For him, bipartisanship means finding people who call themselves "conservatives" or "independents," but who share those central American values with progressives. Obama thus doesn't have to surrender or dilute his principles for the sake of "bipartisanship."

The second is incrementalism: Hillary believes in getting lots of small carefully crafted policies through, one at a time, step by small step, real but almost unnoticed. Obama believes in bold moves and the building of a movement in which the bold moves are demanded by the people and celebrated when they happen. This is the reason why Hillary talks about "I," I," "I" (the crafter of the policy) and Obama talks about "you" and "we" (the people who demand it and who jointly carry it out).

The third is interest group politics: Hillary looks at politics through interests and interest groups, seeking policies that satisfy the interests of such groups. Obama's thinking emphasizes empathy over interest groups. He also sees empathy as central to the very idea of America. The result is a positive politics grounded in empathy and caring that is also patriotic and uplifting."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/george-lakoff/what-counts-as-an-issue_b_84177.html

Posted by vorkosigan1 | January 31, 2008 2:23 PM

Well, Tractarian, as long as you can't be bothered to explain what you mean I guess we can all assume you don't have a point you could actually defend.

Posted by Pesto | January 31, 2008 3:15 PM

*Obama was definitely NOT a product of the Machine. After Harold was elected in 1983, virtually the entire black political establishment was liberated from it. And Obama was elected from a district (Hyde Park and surrounding) that was independent for decades before Harold.

And Goolsbbee being one of the advisors on an economic team doesn't worry me nearly as much as if he had, say, Mark Penn as his top political advisor.*

You're shitting me, right? You're absolutely fucking shitting me if you think this is true.

Do know anything about the difference between Hyde Park and the South Side? Obama was able to win only when he decided to run from here, where he could count on the support of a bunch of affluent white people and the University I attend, which is probably the most conservative in the country.

He got his ass CREAMED by that supposedly liberated black establishment. Barack was essentially allowed this seat by the Machine, and he used it as his base to step from strength to strength.

Let me ask you something, if Obama is this post-Washington black progressive hero, did he endorse Daley's progressive challenger like Toni Preckwinkle (our pinko alderwoman) did? No, he gave a big press conference in support of his excellency Lord Daley, who was embroiled throughout 2005 and 2006 in scandal.

I'll tell you why. It's because his support derives from the acceptance of the Daley machine. He might not be a member of it, but he has benefited from it. Let me repeat. HE WOULD NOT BE SENATOR OR CANDIDATE today had it not been for the Daley family's allowance of his district seat. He failed miserably at running in the actual black districts.

Posted by Greg | January 31, 2008 4:18 PM

Seriously, dude, you realize that he has a professorship at the law school of Robert Bork, Douglas Ginsburg, Richard Posner, and John Fucking Ashcroft? Even Cass Sunstein worked for the Reagan DOJ and supported Michael McConnell's and John Robert's nominations.

Chicago Law does not a true progressive make.

Posted by Greg | January 31, 2008 4:25 PM

>> Obama means the opposite by "bipartisanship." To
>> Obama, it is a recognition that central
>> progressive moral principles are fundamental
>> American principles. For him, bipartisanship
>> means finding people who call themselves
>> "conservatives" or "independents," but who share
>> those central American values with progressives.
>> Obama thus doesn't have to surrender or dilute
>> his principles for the sake of "bipartisanship."

There's that Rorschach Blot again...

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | January 31, 2008 4:32 PM

Seriously, dude, you realize that he has a professorship at the law school of Robert Bork, Douglas Ginsburg, Richard Posner, and John Fucking Ashcroft? Even Cass Sunstein worked for the Reagan DOJ and supported Michael McConnell's and John Robert's nominations.

How many things in this comment are wrong? Obama wasn't a professor at University of Chicago, though he did teach there. Three of your list of horribles graduated from University of Chicago Law School but had little-to-no affiliation with it after graduation. I don't think Bork was ever a U. Chicago professor, but I'm not going to track down his C.V. right now. He spent either all or almost all of his time as an academic at Yale. Douglas Ginsburg's primary academic affiliation was also, of course, not U. Chicago, but Harvard. He visited at U. Chicago and had a part time position there towards the end of his career. I don't think Ashcroft was ever a professor anywhere. If your point is just that the school graduated these people, that's true, but clearly meaningless. Otherwise, it's false.

Posted by washerdreyer | January 31, 2008 5:30 PM

washerdreyer -

Our main claims to fame are Posner and Coase. We also have Posner's son, Easterbrook (whose brother writes the odious TMQ). We have Ken Dam, who served as Paul O'Neill's right hand man and George Schultz's in multiple capacities. We had Schultz.

We *trained* those other luminaries, and Posner and Landes basically founded Law&Economics. And across the Midway we have the College and the GSB.

And, no, I don't think it's meaningless in any way that we've trained the intellectuals of the conservative movement.

Posted by Greg | January 31, 2008 5:51 PM

beat a black panther in a primary in Southern Chicago

Bobby Rush crushed Obama by 30% in the 2000 primary.
Obama has never won a race where he faced stiff competition.
1996 - has all primary opponents disqualified
2000 - trounced by Rush
2004 - Hull implodes, Ryan withdraws, defeats Keyes
He only face token opposition in his 1998, 2000 and 2002 campaigns for his safe state Senate seat.

The good and bad of Barack Obama
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/09/us/politics/09obama.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Posted by realist | January 31, 2008 5:56 PM

Obama has never won a race where he faced stiff competition.

Except for IA and SC 2008, you mean. Or maybe you think the Clintons aren't stiff enough?

Posted by Tractarian | January 31, 2008 6:12 PM

Given the demographics, SC wasn't all that stiff a competition.

Posted by AlanC9 | January 31, 2008 10:31 PM

When are you people going to realize that BOTH candidates suck rocks?

You should be complaining about that, not about which one sucks WORSE than the other!

This election is going to be a joke, just like 2006, 2004, 2002, 2000...

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | February 1, 2008 1:35 AM