The Dread Base

The best thing about David Ignatius hit on Barack Obama is that amidst his lengthy whine that Obama hasn't done enough to "anger any of the party's interest groups" he doesn't offer any examples of group-angering action that he wishes Obama would take. After all, once you reach a certain lofty peak of beltwayishness, you're above petty demands to think about policy. Rather, your role is to castigate interest groups, especially liberal ones, as the bane of all existence. After all, where do these people get off forming groups to advocate for their interests?

Maybe Obama should have become a global warming denialist? Advocated that we intensify legal discrimination against gays and lesbians? Steps like those sure would have socked it to the interest groups! I mean, I dunno . . . he's spoken in black churches about African-American homophobia, he's spoken to auto executives about the need for higher fuel efficiency standards, he likes charter schools, he tells Jewish leaders you don't need to "adopt an unwavering pro-Likud approach to Israel", etc. What does Ignatius want? It hardly seems fair to penalize Obama for the fact that the base of his party isn't fanatically devoted to the virtues of torture, thus depriving him of a shot to gain base-bucking points for standing up for hundreds of years worth of conventional wisdom.

Comments

What does Ignatius want?

Teachers' unions. Everybody knows that teachers' unions are responsible for every social in the nation.

Duh.

Posted by Jim | March 3, 2008 11:51 AM

I think there must be a lot of people in DC--and a surprising number in the media--who are comfortable with the old set of deals, which, on the Dem side, were made mostly with DLCers/Clintonites. Once you've invested time and effort, and you have a good position, why (I guess) would you want to reopen negotiations, potentially letting in new competitors? I can't really make sense of institutional DC's weird commitment to HRC's campaign otherwise.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | March 3, 2008 11:53 AM

"I can't really make sense of institutional DC's weird commitment to HRC's campaign otherwise."

Imagine building up access and connections within one group only to see it replaced with another. Very inconvenient for some pundits, many of whom spend their time simply rewriting the same stuff over and over again.

Posted by Helter | March 3, 2008 11:56 AM

I've become convinced through the course of this election that the media is simply a bunch of cherry-pickers. Because of either laziness or incompetence, they seem completely unable to grasp the entire story. And we rely upon them to report it? I've gotten much better information on all the candidates reading blogs. I don't know if that's sad, or if it indicates progress.

Ignatius' column was ludicrous, and it's sad that people are out there reading it as if it were gospel truth.

Posted by Scientific | March 3, 2008 11:58 AM

"The Dread Base"

I'd say the Harry & Louise ads and the associated attacks on universal healthcare should be right up Ignatius' alley.

But, of course, to Matthew and Ignatius, the only "Democratic Base" that counts is the socially liberal base.

The fact that Obama Sister Souljahs the economically liberal base on a regular basis doesn't count.

Posted by Petey | March 3, 2008 11:58 AM

For an eg. on 'Israel primary' between surrogates, see
http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2008/03/hillary-surroga.html

Posted by otto | March 3, 2008 11:59 AM

Anger is overrated.

Posted by Paul Maurice Martin | March 3, 2008 12:01 PM

"The fact that Obama Sister Souljahs the economically liberal base on a regular basis doesn't count."

If he's not running Harry & Louise ads against universal healthcare, he's lying to Ohio Democrats about what he intends to do about NAFTA.

Posted by Petey | March 3, 2008 12:02 PM

Petey successively backs the former DLC candidate and the DLC candidate, in the name of economic redistribution. If Obama's the candidate, I expect he'll see new virtues in McCain and the Republicans.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | March 3, 2008 12:11 PM

Petey, what did/do you think about welfare reform? That was really what finished me with the Clintons, personally. Do you feel it wasn't that big a deal, or that it's over and done with, or that it's Bill's fault, not Hillary's, or....?

Posted by NoahB | March 3, 2008 12:20 PM

"If Obama's the candidate, I expect he'll see new virtues in McCain and the Republicans."

Nope. If Obama's the candidate, I'll see new virtues in Nader.

I'm a social justice Democrat. I'm not willing to go along with the policy sacrifices Obama has made to assemble his deep pocket base.

Posted by Petey | March 3, 2008 12:22 PM

If he's not running Harry & Louise ads against universal healthcare, he's lying to Ohio Democrats about what he intends to do about NAFTA.

Perhaps OT, but: what the the f*ck is up with the "repealing NAFTA" meme? I hadn't even heard about it as an issue before Tim Russert tried to make a "gotcha" of it in last week's debate.

Is "repealing NAFTA" a kind of shorthand now for "adopting protectionism after fifteen years of business-friendly trade policy?" Last time I checked, most of those lost manufacturing and service jobs were going to China and India, not Mexico. Isn't the real issue here vastly larger and more complex than repealing, or not repealing, a single trade agreement?

Please advise.

Posted by James Gary | March 3, 2008 12:24 PM

It's quite fascinating to watch Petey reinvent himself. What's with the desperate need to feel that you're driving the future of American politics? Particularly bizarre is the pretense to be outraged by NAFTA rhetoric and the lack of health insurance mandates, the greatest liberal issues of all time.

Posted by Barbar | March 3, 2008 12:24 PM

Hey Petey, you forgot to mention that Obama talked about removing the cap on FICA taxes, signs that he is a true conservative seeking to demolish support for progressive taxation. (And then you forgot to mention that your hero John Edwards, the greatest progressive in the history of mankind, backed him on it!)

Posted by Barbar | March 3, 2008 12:29 PM

Petey's an anti-antiwar Democrat.

Posted by Katherine | March 3, 2008 12:32 PM

"Petey, what did/do you think about welfare reform? That was really what finished me with the Clintons, personally. Do you feel it wasn't that big a deal, or that it's over and done with, or that it's Bill's fault, not Hillary's, or....?"

I'm sympathetic to the '92 era political logic that as long as AFDC existed in it's then current form, it would be impossible to build and sustain popular support for government programs.

I have other issues with some of the economic policy decision of Bill Clinton's administration, but welfare reform seems like a judicious decision to me on the basis of its political toxicity.

All that said, despite the way the Clinton campaign has been messaging, Bill Clinton is not on the ballot. I prefer Senator Clinton's economic priorities to ex-President Clinton's economic priorities. (And I prefer both of their economic priorities to Obama's abysmal economic priorities.)

Posted by Petey | March 3, 2008 12:33 PM

NoahB: "Petey, what did/do you think about welfare reform? That was really what finished me with the Clintons, personally."

This comes up again and again, and is supposed to be some sort of dagger-in-the-heart of the Clinton's. But does Obama support repealing the welfare reform law signed by Clinton? Does he want to return the pre-Clinton welfare policies?

No.

So what is the point?

Posted by Andruw | March 3, 2008 12:33 PM

he's lying to Ohio Democrats

Yeah, or Petey is just regurgitating the latest unfounded lies from the Clinton machine because he's desperate.

There is no proof at all here that Obama is "lying", rather the only "evidence" consists of a memo written by some Canadian government official, the content of which is disputed by the Obama advisor involved.

Posted by novakant | March 3, 2008 12:34 PM

I for one would like to apologize to all the people like David Ignatius for my being a lousy special interest.

I feel terrible that I in my capacity as a hard working small business employee and loyal liberal and frequently Democratic Party volunteer and donor and all around small time ordinary person that I have been insufficiently rebuked by major political candidates.

It was much better I guess when the Republican Congress for the last 12 years was directly rebuking me.

It was wrong and stupid of me and I apologize to lots of very powerful and wealthy but not "special" interests for my having so grievously wronged them by my insufficient rebuking by the leaders of the party I vote for.

Posted by El Cid | March 3, 2008 12:36 PM

"Petey's an anti-antiwar Democrat."

John Edwards was consistently to the left of Obama and Clinton on foreign policy during 2007.

Posted by Petey | March 3, 2008 12:36 PM

Petey's an anti-antiwar Democrat.

This is precisely correct. Petey's problem with Obama is rooted in the fact that he got a large amount of support of the young activists, while many of the old-time Democratic base went for hillary. The difference is that Obama got the African Americans on his side, putting him over the top.

Petey's had rather consistent hostility to candidates who attracted the anti-war voters, like Howard Dean. His reasoning is that the Dems should cave on the war because he thinks it would help them promote more domestic liberal programs. I can sort of see the reasoning, but at the end of the day, when the reasoning turns out to be bad, you don't stick with it-- you accept that this was a bad idea. Petey, instead, is so bitter and angry that a "wine track" candidate like Obama has managed to win that he has to support the beer-track candidate out of spite. Even if that candidate turns out to be McCain.

Posted by Tyro | March 3, 2008 12:38 PM

I haven't seen a lot of him, but my take on Obama was that the change he promised was a change in the way we do politics rather than changing issues. Currently--and it's somthing the republicans started--legislating is conducted like a war, with the goal being to gain or hold ground for your side as opposed to actually doing the people's business. For this situation to be changed will require negotiation between the two sides on policy. To negotiate you have to start with your prefered position. That's where Obama is. Clinton the 1st was the 3rd way politician with some conservative friendly positions.

To summerize: Change in tactics, not change in policy.

Posted by cw | March 3, 2008 12:44 PM

"Petey's had rather consistent hostility to candidates who attracted the anti-war voters, like Howard Dean."

My problem with basing a Democratic candidacy on upscale liberals has nothing to do with foreign policy. It has to do with the effect that has on a candidate's economic policy.

Both Dean and Obama have had a hostility to entitlement programs and standard Democratic economic policy which is a disqualifier for me.

And FWIW, I'd be happy to ally myself with upscale liberals if they were supporting a candidate who was more faithful to Democratic economics than Obama and Dean. But somehow, most upscale liberals tend to find themselves behind the candidate whose economic policies are most skewed towards the upscale. Funny how that works.

Posted by Petey | March 3, 2008 12:45 PM

AndrewW; I really haven't seen welfare reform mentioned that often. I do think that there's a difference between engineering it, and more or less betraying the folks who voted for you, and acquiescing in what is now the status quo. I asked the question not as a gotcha, however, but because I was actually interested in Petey's response.

Basically, I can see an economic leftist preferring Nader to Obama, or John Edwards (circa 2008) to Obama. I don't see why such a person would prefer Clinton to Obama, though. They're policy prescriptions are pretty close across the board -- they're both centrist progressives, really. If your going to condemn Obama on economic social justice grounds, I don't get why you wouldn't condemn Clinton. Does it really all just boil down to mandates? If so, that seems kind of nuts to me....

Posted by NoahB | March 3, 2008 12:46 PM

Obama hasn't done enough to "anger any of the party's interest groups"

Ignatius is ignoring Obama's votes in 2005 in support of Tort "Reform" which protects corporations from liability in lawsuits. I'd say that trial lawyers and consumers and those who are concerned about abusive corporate power constitute major interest groups in the Democratic party.

That kind of stand, and vote in achieving the GOP's goals in weakening checks on corporate power certainly is enough to give me pause as to how much I would support Obama.

And Ignatius is only talking about legislation - but I would also venture that enlising rabidly homophobic support at some of his campaign rallies certainly has unsettled many members of the gay community.

Posted by Ethel-To-Tilly | March 3, 2008 12:50 PM

The pundit long knives are out for Obama with this Ignatius piece and then Krugman and Fish in the Times this morning.

Posted by Mike P | March 3, 2008 12:53 PM

Petey,
Obama's "deep pocket base"? Huh? Where have you been? It's a base with a a lot of donors, but it's not deep pocketed.

Posted by Mike P | March 3, 2008 12:57 PM

John Edwards was consistently to the left of Obama and Clinton on foreign policy during 2007.

How about 2004? 2002?

I prefer Senator Clinton's economic priorities to ex-President Clinton's economic priorities. (And I prefer both of their economic priorities to Obama's abysmal economic priorities.)

And what, pray-tell, is it about Obama's economic priorities that make them so much more "abysmal" than the Clintons'? Best I can tell they're pretty indistinguishable, aside from his aversion to Hillary's plan to destroy the mortgage market for the next five years.

Posted by right | March 3, 2008 1:21 PM

Petey,

the problem with Edwards' candidacy was that he had ZERO credibility as a champion of the working class.

Even if you believed him that he had "fought for the working class" as a trial lawyer -- a job that made him ridiculously wealthy -- his entire record as a one term U.S. Senator (his only experience?) was an example of a Democrat doing what he can for business and corporate interests.

Even Sen. Feingold, widely regarded as the conscience of the progressive left, said Edwards' campaign was entirely based on him running away from his votes in the Senate.

And i bring up his one and only term as a Senator only to say: no one questioned his "experience" despite holding one term in elected office, mainly because the Clinton spin machine never made an issue of Edwards; knowing, rightly, that he was no threat to the throne.

Otherwise, I liked Edwards' rhetoric, I just wished he was a more plausible vessel.

And his rhetoric was entirely too polarizing to ever be taken seriously. He waged war on the private sector, a sector that made him rich and allowed him to be able to take care of Mrs. Edwards. It just rang too hollow.

Knock Obama all you want, but he is much more progressive than HRC.

Posted by Enough | March 3, 2008 1:34 PM

Petey:

And FWIW, I'd be happy to ally myself with upscale liberals if they were supporting a candidate who was more faithful to Democratic economics than Obama and Dean.

Whatabout lowerscale blacks?! What about lowerscale white men?! How come Obama is on a 11 streak win and will probably come out well after tomorrow? Because of upscale liberals?

You and Krugman are completely wrong. It would be interesting to see if Hillary actually won how "progressive" she would be. Probably a lot like her husband.

My guess is that Petey and Krugman are just bitter because their guy Edwards didn't do well at all.

Posted by Peter K. | March 3, 2008 1:39 PM

Petey:

And FWIW, I'd be happy to ally myself with upscale liberals if they were supporting a candidate who was more faithful to Democratic economics than Obama and Dean.

Whatabout lowerscale blacks?! What about lowerscale white men?! How come Obama is on a 11 streak win and will probably come out well after tomorrow? Because of upscale liberals?

You and Krugman are completely wrong. It would be interesting to see if Hillary actually won how "progressive" she would be. Probably a lot like her husband.

My guess is that Petey and Krugman are just bitter because their guy Edwards didn't do well at all and that they've taken attacks from Obamabots personally.

Posted by Peter K. | March 3, 2008 1:40 PM

Petey and Krugman (and do we know that they are not, in fact, the same person?) vastly overhype the policy differences between Clinton and Obama because they absolutely LOATHE Obama's conciliatory rhetoric and reformist appeal to independents. I wish both would just say they're mad as hell and they're not going to take it anymore and get if off their chest so they can stop demagoguing the vanishingly small domestic policy differences between the Dem candidates.

Posted by Led | March 3, 2008 1:46 PM

the problem with Edwards' candidacy was that he had ZERO credibility as a champion of the working class.

I think Petey, et all, should just be thankful for the existence of the Edwards campaign. B/c given Edwards' track record, we can be far more confident in the positive effect on economic issues of his campaign than a theoretical presidency. We know that he moved both Clinton and Obama to the left on UHC.

Obama's comments on social security do make me nervous, but overall I think his judgment will be more reliable. I really don't think Hillary's selling point is actually a commitment to the working class poor, outside of the dubious example of UHC. Hillary is most strongly allied to the 3rd-way DNC center which pretty much makes sacrificing the economic principles of liberalism its centerpiece.

Posted by mpowell | March 3, 2008 1:56 PM

Last time I checked, most of those lost manufacturing and service jobs were going to China and India, not Mexico. Isn't the real issue here vastly larger and more complex than repealing, or not repealing, a single trade agreement?

A ton of business still goes over to Mexico, don't kid yourself. There are a lot of businesses that do some work in the states and then ship it across the border to be assembled. NAFTA is a symbol, for a lot of people, for the real issue.

Posted by Persia | March 3, 2008 2:00 PM

What does Ignatius want?

Joe Lieberman.

Posted by Marc | March 3, 2008 2:20 PM

Matt, you've managed to reverse the burden of proof in regards to Ignatius' column. Obama says he is a uniter who can create bipartisan coalitions for change. Ignatius says, basically, this sounds great, can you show me an example of when you did something like this previously? His own examination of the record finds little to support Obama's track record in this kind of political feat.

You're not really denying what Ignatius says, you're just saying it's irrelevant, because, after all, why should we expect Obama to negotiate with Republicans to find bipartisan solutions.

The only reason we should expect Obama to do this, or to have done this before, is that bipartisanship for change is a pillar of his campaign pitch! It's why he's winning! If Obama said, in effect, "I embrace all Democratic interest groups that form the base of our party, and you can count on me to implement their agenda when I take office," he would lose.

You can't have it both ways. A base-focused Democratic candidate is not going to win in 2008 or any other year. The base is not big enough, it has too many internal contradictions and too many of its agenda items are wildly unpopular with the majority of voters. So, as in 1992, you run a candidate whose appeal transcends the partisan base. Which is why Obama is campaigning that way -- not as a left-wing partisan, but as a healing uniter. Don't get huffy if political pundits start asking questions about whether his campaign pitch means anything. That's what they should be doing. And he should have an answer, instead of shooting the messenger as you've done.

Posted by John S. | March 3, 2008 2:22 PM

What does Ignatius want?

Obama's been better at angering his party's interest groups than any recent nominee not named McCain.

But ending his enthusiastic support for the Ethanol Fraud or abandoning his anti-NAFTA pandering would be big, big pluses.

Posted by Shinyk | March 3, 2008 2:27 PM

Although its place in the news right now shouldn't have NAFTA take over each comment list, I would agree that it would be helpful to distinguish between (1) "trade"; (2) the actual NAFTA agreement; (3) approaches to "trade" which people argue are like the NAFTA approach.

We should probably also differentiate between what most people mean by "trade" from another process, which is the use of a foreign-based producer and/or competitor and simply dividing up the labor, services, and production aspects by one company into different geographical regions.

It's not "trade" by most people's terminology if Ford moves its production of its own parts to various vertically integrated facilities in various nations, although whatever term is used ("globalization," "outsourcing," "international labor competition") is likely to be equally if not more prominent in discussing some issue with actual trade -- as those who rightly point out the larger role of China than Mexico in the U.S. economy.

Posted by El Cid | March 3, 2008 2:37 PM

A really goofy column by Ignatius. When Obama's main theme is finding common ground and practical solutions, Ignatius faults him for not making enough enemies? As pointed out by posters above, Obama's made plenty of politically incorrect statements in front of the groups most likely to be offended, and he's still on a roll. Like most people with more of a stake in process than outcomes, Ignatius clearly would prefer the failing Karl Rove/Paul Krugman methods of class warfare and the politics of struggle.

The kind of sensible, pragmatic approach that produced the Clinton Administration's three principal domestic achievements--deficit reduction, welfare reform, and NAFTA-- is exactly the sort of approach advocated by Obama. I think in practice he'll be even more judicious about winding down Iraq than Hillary. These are important reasons why lots of us support him.

Posted by Robert Powell | March 3, 2008 2:41 PM

"The kind of sensible, pragmatic approach that produced the Clinton Administration's three principal domestic achievements--deficit reduction, welfare reform, and NAFTA-- is exactly the sort of approach advocated by Obama."

Whaa? What made Clinton's role in welfare reform and NAFTA possible was mainly his views on these policies. Obama isn't a centrist, but a traditional liberal. Why would you expect similar bipartisan accomplishments from him? Judging from the Interwebs, most of his supporters don't even want that; instead they hope Obama's coattails will win a large enough majority in Congress to ram through his neo-Mondale policies.

Posted by Fred | March 3, 2008 2:58 PM

"Whaa? What made Clinton's role in welfare reform and NAFTA possible was mainly his views on these policies."

Should have been "his centrist views on these policies".

Posted by Fred | March 3, 2008 3:01 PM

I guess I should stipulate that neither I nor anyone I know of has any guaranteed evidence to support firm convictions about what Obama will try, much less manage, to get done, but his policy preferences as listed look quite centrist, if a bit vague. His recent address on the role of personal responsibility, along with most of his policy prescriptions, seem perfectly consistent with the Bill Clinton view on the subjects above.

Obama won't repeal welfare reform or renegotiate NAFTA. He won't recklessly evacuate Iraq. Unlike Mondale, he hasn't told us he's going to raise our taxes--he's called for middle class cuts. Really, I doubt if there will be much substantive difference in policy terms between any of the three finalists.

Posted by Robert Powell | March 3, 2008 3:20 PM

mpowell:

Obama's comments on social security do make me nervous, but overall I think his judgment will be more reliable. I really don't think Hillary's selling point is actually a commitment to the working class poor, outside of the dubious example of UHC. Hillary is most strongly allied to the 3rd-way DNC center which pretty much makes sacrificing the economic principles of liberalism its centerpiece.

I disagree with Obama's comments on social security and trial lawyers. I'm agnostic about health care mandates.

Many liberals are backing Obama, like Feingold, Durbin and Kennedy, because they see he'd be better for their goals long term.

Posted by Peter K. | March 3, 2008 3:27 PM

"Unlike Mondale, he hasn't told us he's going to raise our taxes--he's called for middle class cuts. Really, I doubt if there will be much substantive difference in policy terms between any of the three finalists."

Powell, you're too smart to really believe this.

Posted by Fred | March 3, 2008 3:28 PM

"I think Petey, et all, should just be thankful for the existence of the Edwards campaign."

Damn straight.

The existence of the Edwards campaign is precisely why we're going to get universal healthcare if we nominate Clinton.

Posted by Petey | March 3, 2008 3:48 PM

"My guess is that Petey and Krugman are just bitter because their guy Edwards didn't do well at all and that they've taken attacks from Obamabots personally."

I think the Clinton campaign had a lot more to do with knifing Edwards than the Obama campaign. Remember the National Enquirer 'love child' nonsense? That came straight out of Team Clinton.

If I were opposing a candidate based on bitterness, I'd be opposing Clinton.

But instead, I'm interested in getting a President who will fight for Democratic core values, which is why I'm supporting Clinton.

General Electric and Marty Peretz are looking for a President who will oppose Democratic core values, which is why they support Obama.

Posted by Petey | March 3, 2008 3:54 PM

Petey, I find it impossible to believe that someone who thinks Clinton represents core Democratic values actually cares much about social justice. You blithely dismiss that abomination of welfare reform as some sort of necessary evil. In addition, WJC's get tough on crime policies led to wholesale imprisonment of minority men and plunging their communities into further poverty. Since HRC doesn't base her "experience" on much more than having been the First Lady, it's entirely appropriate to hang these Republican-lite attacks on core Democratic voters around her neck. In fact, HRC makes it clear that she will continue in that vain with her half-assed proposal to deal with child poverty and her position on retroactive remedies for the iniquitous crack laws.

Apparently to you, and Krugman for that matter, social justice is about healthcare mandates and what words you use to talk about Social Security. Such ivory tower purity in the face of tragic poverty and gilded era inequity is obscene.

Posted by cxs | March 3, 2008 6:24 PM

"Apparently to you, and Krugman for that matter, social justice is about healthcare mandates and what words you use to talk about Social Security."

Pensions and healthcare pretty much describes the entire universe of domestic spending.

That's why General Electric, Marty Peretz, and Barack Obama are opposed to them.

Posted by Petey | March 3, 2008 6:29 PM

And since Obama does support SSN and Health care (just not Petey's version), Petey is left mumbling.

Posted by bjd | March 3, 2008 6:35 PM

"And since Obama does support SSN and Health care (just not Petey's version)"

Obama supports "healthcare". McCain supports "healthcare".

It's just that McCain and Obama both don't support universal healthcare. That's why McCain and Obama would both make lousy nominees for the Democratic Party.

Posted by Petey | March 3, 2008 6:38 PM

And by the way Petey, what General Electric wants is McCain in the White House, something you seem to support.

Posted by bjd | March 3, 2008 6:45 PM

Although it was the result of both some general factors and government / regulation changes, conditions of employment for poor inner-city males got much, much better, mainly because some in-city manufacturing made sense for a time.

As decent paying jobs came in, many of these local crime rates among young minority males went down, and strangely, and really not strangely, conservatives neither credited Clinton for this nor expressed regret that their theories about inner city minority males being genetically or culturally unable to work would have to be abandoned for at least a couple of years.

That doesn't address the comments about policing and imprisonment policies, but those weren't the only effects that Clinton had on minority communities. For a few years some good was done.

Posted by El Cid | March 3, 2008 6:51 PM

"And by the way Petey, what General Electric wants is McCain in the White House, something you seem to support."

No. I support putting the choice of a majority of Democratic primary voters in the White House - Senator Clinton.

I expect General Electric will indeed support McCain in the general election. However, destroying the only defender of entitlement programs left in the race - Senator Clinton - is their highest priority at the moment.

Posted by Petey | March 3, 2008 7:58 PM

I support putting the choice of a majority of Democratic primary
That candidate's name is Obama.

Posted by bjd | March 3, 2008 8:04 PM

"That candidate's name is Obama."

You, sir or madam, are woefully incorrect.

Clinton has a comfortable popular vote margin over Obama among registered Democrats so far in the nomination race. You can look it up.

Posted by Petey | March 3, 2008 8:15 PM

Petey,
No, Petey, you prove it. Start with the state of Georgia, where there are no registered democrats.

Posted by bjd | March 3, 2008 8:31 PM

"No, Petey, you prove it."

Why don't you start out by proving the theory of gravity? Or cold fusion while you're at it?

Pretty much everyone who has run the numbers so far has shown Clinton to have a substantial margin in the popular vote over Obama among registered Democrats.

If you wish to disprove the consensus assessment, I believe the onus in on your to come up with viable revisionist numbers. (Bowers tried that very much to do so today, and even after defining the terms in a hanky-panky fashion far differently than a reasonable observer would, even he still came up with a Clinton win among the popular vote of Democratic voters.)

But no matter how much time you waste trying to twist the numbers into your preferred outcome, you'll still find that Clinton has a comfortable popular vote margin among registered voters who've cast ballots in 2008.

And that's why she's going to be our nominee.

If you wish to form a Bloomberg/Obama ticket - liberal on social policy and conservative on economics - you'll likely find 20% of the electorate clamoring to come on board to your jihad.

Posted by Petey | March 3, 2008 8:42 PM

Uhhh, yeah, if you really want to make the argument that people who aren't registered democrats, like me, most of my family, like most normal human beings in Illinois anyway don't count run with that. The only people I know who are registered democrats are elected party leaders and elected public officials. I'm sure that will make tons of sense and everyone can get behind that. It wouldn't surprise me at all that party hacks threw a Clinton vote. In most states it would also be incredily meaningless.

Posted by Ed Marshall | March 3, 2008 8:56 PM

Petey,
There is no such thing as "a registered Democrat" in the State of Georgia, South Carolina, and many others.
But your argument is great fodder for the RNC, they will gladly remind voters just how little their vote mattered to Clinton in the primaries.

Posted by bjd | March 3, 2008 9:04 PM

"Uhhh, yeah, if you really want to make the argument that people who aren't registered democrats, like me, most of my family, like most normal human beings in Illinois anyway don't count"

I think the Democratic nominee should be the candidate who wins the most Democratic votes.

Ain't too complicated.

There's a reason we call it the "Democratic Party", not the "Bloomberg / General Electric Party"

Posted by Petey | March 3, 2008 9:08 PM

Petey, you're now arguing that caucus results simply shouldn't be counted at all, right?

Posted by washerdreyer | March 3, 2008 9:08 PM

"Petey, you're now arguing that caucus results simply shouldn't be counted at all, right?"

I'm arguing that the choice of the majority popular vote of Democratic voters should be the Democratic nominee.

That's the way it's always been in both parties since the beginning of the open primary era. And it should be that way this time as well.

Posted by Petey | March 3, 2008 9:13 PM

I think the Democratic nominee should be the candidate who wins the most Democratic votes.

Where Democratic votes are defined as votes of registered Democrats. And a large number of state parties disagree with you, and the national party disagrees with you by recognizing the state parties' choices, but it's nice to know that you think that, and if you want to start a campaign to change the rules for the next primary I might be interested.

Posted by washerdreyer | March 3, 2008 9:15 PM

But your argument is great fodder for the RNC

Well, as that's the point of it, it's a job well done.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | March 3, 2008 9:15 PM

"The existence of the Edwards campaign is precisely why we're going to get universal healthcare if we nominate Clinton.

Posted by Petey | March 3, 2008 3:48 PM"

So the Edwards campaign somehow made Clinton into a competent manager who will actually fight for progressive causes and not cave into the Republicans? Since when? You seem to have a knack for projecting a fantasy onto DLC members. Clinton had her chance to give us her version of UHC - turning health care over to the biggest insurance companies - and failed miserably, helping to fuel the Republican victory in 1994. You always act like Edwards was some true-blue liberal just because you say so without addressing a true-blue liberal standard bearer's criticism: when Feingold noted that Edwards was running away from his Senate record. BTW, Feingold also endorsed Obama.

Really, you seem to hope that Clinton will turn out to be like Bismarck, a hawk who also delivers on a welfare state. When has Clinton ever fought for anything real and won? Hell, she almost was trailing Rick Lazio at one point in what should have been a gimme election.

Posted by Reality Man | March 4, 2008 12:30 AM

Fred says Obama is Mondale in blackface; Petey says he's got the same positions as McCain and GE. Looks like my candidate, all right.

There will be no, zero, substantive difference between any of the three remaining candidates once one of them gets to the White House. None of them will allow the crash-and-burn scenario that would engulf their administration if we appear to be defeated in Iraq, and the options for avoiding this are limited. Ditto on dealing with the economic downturn, the entitlements crisis, and the currently dilapidated state of multilateral institutions.

So, since it's down to style points, Obama is the clear winner. He's much more entertaining.

Posted by Robert Powell | March 4, 2008 2:53 AM

I expect General Electric will indeed support McCain in the general election. However, destroying the only defender of entitlement programs left in the race - Senator Clinton - is their highest priority at the moment.

What nonsense. It's possible that GE does want to destroy Clinton (though I've no reason to believe that, save for evidence-free ramblings in this thread), but not because of entitlement programs. "Universal Health Care" in the form of insurance mandates actually saves businesses lots of money, since, in the long term, they will likely no longer have to provide insurance for their employees.

Ditto the insurance companies who will, in the short term, have very low-risk persons forced into making a high-cost, no-return bet at gunpoint.

No, the big losers in insurance mandates are young, broke people who take good physical care of themselves and eat well. Predictably, those people are trying to sink Clinton.

Posted by Shinyk | March 4, 2008 3:56 AM

"Fred says Obama is Mondale in blackface"

If Obama were willing to stand up for Democratic policy goals the way Mondale was, I'd be supporting him instead of Clinton.

If we want to use Fred's slimy imagery, Obama is Hart in blackface, not Mondale.

Posted by Petey | March 4, 2008 8:14 AM

"No, the big losers in (universal healthcare) are young, broke people who take good physical care of themselves and eat well."

Sure, just as long as they never get sick.

I've had two friends die utterly preventable deaths in their 20's because they couldn't afford healthcare when they first got sick.

But they don't count in Obama's upscale America, do they, Shinyk?

And folks like James Lowe don't count either in Obama's upscale America. He wasn't well-off or young. Shinyk is just fine with screwing over the James Lowes of the world, just as long as it helps Obama get more donations from his deep pocket base.

There's a party made just for you, Shinyk, and it sure ain't the Democrats.

Posted by Petey | March 4, 2008 8:26 AM

In fairness to Fred, "Mondale in blackface" was my slimy imagery characterizing Fred's equation of Barack with Fritz in policy terms. And to the best of my knowledge, Obama hasn't been anywhere near the good ship "Monkey Business".

Does "standing up for Democratic policy goals" include Mondale's reprehensible role in the '64 convention of being the party's hatchet man against the Mississippi Freedom Delegation? Or just being crushed in a general election landslide?

Posted by Robert Powell | March 4, 2008 8:26 AM

"And to the best of my knowledge, Obama hasn't been anywhere near the good ship "Monkey Business"

Quite true.

But Obama and Hart both tried to gain the Democratic nomination by running against the core values of the Democratic Party.

Both Obama and Hart relied on running up big margins among Independent voters in the primaries to overcome their losses among Democratic voters.

Posted by Petey | March 4, 2008 8:30 AM

"No, the big losers in (universal healthcare) are young, broke people who take good physical care of themselves and eat well."

And, of course, broke people, young or otherwise, and going to get healthcare coverage for free under the Edwards/Clinton universal healthcare plan.

Your concern isn't broke young people, Shinyk. Your concern is the wealthy folks who are going to be paying for universal healthcare with their tax dollars.

Like I said, there's a party just for folks like you, and it sure ain't the Democratic Party.

Posted by Petey | March 4, 2008 8:36 AM

Petey, you stupid fuck, healthcare isn't any more affordable under the so-called "Clinton/Edwards" plan than it is under the Obama plan.

Posted by Barbar | March 4, 2008 8:41 AM

Meanwhile in the real world Clinton is criticizing Obama for wanting to raise taxes on the upper middle class, but Sanctimonious Petey is too busy wanking about Real Democrats to bother constructing a halfway coherent narrative.

Posted by Barbar | March 4, 2008 8:51 AM

Like I said, there's a party just for folks like you, and it sure ain't the Democratic Party.

The numbers suggest the reverse may be true. The Edwards '08 brand of firebrand anti-corporate economic populism isn't salable in the Democratic party, much less the general electorate. Presidential elections are not the arena you ought to be focused on. You've got a hell of a more groundwork to be done influencing public opinion before engaging in electoral politics is going to get you anywhere. Or you could just say fuck it and draw 1-2% of the vote every four years with Nader.

Posted by J.B. | March 4, 2008 9:08 AM

"The numbers suggest the reverse may be true."

The numbers show that Clinton is easily beating Obama among Democratic voters in the nomination race.

Shinyk and his anti-universal healthcare brigade may have support outside the Democratic Party, but they're a definite minority within the Democratic Party.

Posted by Petey | March 4, 2008 9:17 AM

The Edwards '08 brand of firebrand anti-corporate economic populism isn't salable in the Democratic party, much less the general electorate.

That's easy to say, but there's somewhat of a contradiction there.

Almost to a person analysts agree that Edwards' policies were directly mimicked by both Clinton & Edwards, so his rhetoric and policies had a huge impact on the race.

Yet it certainly wasn't because of the personhood of John Edwards or his political power or his record in office that his agenda was so rapidly adopted.

It was because of the popularity of that "brand of firebrand anti-corporate economic populism" in and of itself, and not because of the person espousing it.

But, who'm I kidding, right? It's never, ever time to speak honestly about the forces which shape our society and to suggest actual solutions based on a clear analysis of why things happen, because that's angry and fringe-y and un-American and old Left and etc. etc. etc.

Posted by El Cid | March 4, 2008 9:22 AM

The numbers show that Clinton is easily beating Obama among Democratic voters in the nomination race.

Absolute bullshit.

If you want to make your dodgy, small-minded point about registered Democrats, by all means go ahead. But don't pretend that registered Democrats are the only Democratic voters. If you vote in a Democratic primary, you're a Democratic voter . . . full stop.

Posted by southpaw | March 4, 2008 9:23 AM

The numbers show that Clinton is easily beating Obama among Democratic voters in the nomination race.

When in doubt, make up false statistics, eh? It's a stupid metric in any case. No one registers with parties in open primary states, what's the point? My parents have been straight ticket D voters for more than 30 years, but you wouldn't count their votes because they don't pass your purity test. Just another effort to change the rules after the fact. I suppose you want to count Michigan too.

In any case, and I think others have said this before but it bears saying again: Clinton is more economically conservative than Obama. Even if you want to contest that point, it seems clear that Obama and Clinton are closer to each other on economic issues than either is to Edwards. Clinton is not an Edwards '08 proxy here, she is his opponent. And between the two of them, Obama and Clinton mopped the floor with Edwards. Neither of them even really bothered going after him when he was in the race, because it was never necessary.

Almost to a person analysts agree that Edwards' policies were directly mimicked by both Clinton & Edwards, so his rhetoric and policies had a huge impact on the race.

First, I assume you mean Clinton & Obama. Second, you clearly don't really believe that or you wouldn't be talking about Ralph Nader. They both gave him a tip of the hat. They're both rolling out their populist talk while campaigning in Ohio. And really all three of them were pretty close on policy to start with. Beyond that... It's not like 2004 where all the candidates were cowering in fear of the Republicans until Dean showed the way and everyone else picked up on his tone and message. Obama has had his message from the start and he's sticking to it. Clinton, meanwhile, has a new message every several days; a few may have been Edwards-flavored, many have not...

Posted by J.B. | March 4, 2008 9:56 AM

J.B.: Maybe you're mixing me up with someone else, perhaps Petey. I personally haven't brought up Nader.

Your points that Edwards' campaign was comparatively weak actually reinforces the point I made -- that Edwards as a candidate was not so effective as I and he might have wished, but that his policy recommendations and rhetoric were.

(That's something which is fairly common in our political history -- for the message of a losing candidate to have real effects. It's a good contrast between Perot's & Nader's unlikely candidacies, because Perot pushed one issue above all, the deficit, and that had an effect on all candidates of both parties, whereas Nader had no particular policy thrust other than "Democrats are no better than Republicans", unless you count his fraudulent claim that he was really running to build up a Green Party infrastructure for local races around the country.)

And I stick with the points about the Edwards effect on both Clinton and (as you corrected due to hasty mistype) Obama.

Posted by El Cid | March 4, 2008 10:03 AM

"It's a stupid metric in any case."

We'll just have to disagree with whether or not the clear will of registered Democrats is a "stupid metric" in determining who the Democratic nominee is.

Personally, I'm happy to stand with Democrats. You can stand with General Electric and Andrew Sullivan and all the other Republicans who are temporarily supporting Obama in an effort to stop Senator Clinton and universal healthcare.

And FWIW, that "stupid metric" has determined the nominee in every single nomination race of both parties in the open primary era. George Bush couldn't win the Republican nomination in 1980 by carrying independent voters. Gary Hart could win the Democratic nomination in 1984 by carrying independent voters. Bill Bradley couldn't win the Democratic nomination in 2000 by carrying independent voters.

You may think it's stupid, but parties tend to like to nominate the choice of their party members. And in 2008, the clear choice of Democratic Party members who've gotten out to vote is Senator Clinton.

Posted by Petey | March 4, 2008 10:05 AM

It's amazing to hear how visceral the support of a particular candidate gets. The policy differences between Obama and Clinton a minimal, tiny. They are both personable, likeable people (though Clinton has a lot of baggage, but it's hard to know what it actually really is), they both speak well, they both have about the same level of actual experience. Rationally you'd think that the intensity of a person's preference would echo how similar they were. Small differences, low intensity. But no... for someone like Petey or Andrew Sullivan, it's a religious war.

Posted by cw | March 4, 2008 12:03 PM

"The policy differences between Obama and Clinton a minimal, tiny."

If you think universal healthcare is a "minimal, tiny" concept, your analysis makes sense.

But since I think universal healthcare is A Really Big Deal, your analysis seems nonsensical to me.

Posted by Petey | March 4, 2008 12:07 PM

First of all, these are campaign promises. They are designed to attract voters. They are negotiating points. Whatever actually comes out of congress (if anything) is going to be very different. So to get all het up about htem seems weird to me. Secondly, this is from newsweek (the first link on the subject on Google):

"Experts say the health care plans put forth by Democratic presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are very similar – and Obama himself has said his proposal has 95 percent in common with hers. But that other 5 percent is a source of contention."

95% similar campaign promise. Weird thing to get all het up about. It's not rational.

Posted by cw | March 4, 2008 12:38 PM

"Whatever actually comes out of congress (if anything) is going to be very different."

George Bush ran on two main domestic initiatives - his tax cut for the wealthy and his corporate giveaway abortion of a prescription drug benefit.

Both initiatives were tailored to pass Congress, and both initiatives did indeed pass in pretty much the exact form they were campaigned upon.

Similarly, the Edwards/Clinton universal healthcare plan was tailored to pass Congress. And I think it will pass in the '09 - '10 Congress in pretty much the exact form it's been proposed if Clinton is elected.

I don't think it's any coincidence that General Electric and Marty Peretz (and his acolyte Andrew Sullivan) who are so deeply opposed to universal healthcare are so deeply invested in promoting Obama.

If you oppose universal healthcare, your support for Obama is perfectly rational. Otherwise, you're an idiot.

Posted by Petey | March 4, 2008 12:50 PM

Sure, just as long as they never get sick.

On aggregate, they don't. If they do, there's always Medicaid.

Shinyk is just fine with screwing over the James Lowes of the world, just as long as it helps Obama get more donations from his deep pocket base.

1. Anecdotal arguments prove nothing unless you have macro numbers to show they mean something.

2. It doesn't matter to me whether Obama gets another donation or not, since I'm happily voting for McCain, unless he starts talking about nationalizing pre-school and scrapping NAFTA (as both Clinton and Obama have suggested).

Your concern isn't broke young people, Shinyk. Your concern is the wealthy folks who are going to be paying for universal healthcare with their tax dollars.

Wealthy folks who are going to have their taxes raised stand to have them raised more by Obama, whom I, nonetheless, view more favorably than Clinton. Obama, you see, is less tyrannical on issues like this and has never taken ideas from Farenheit 451 and suggested that we implement them, as Clinton did in that "It Takes a Village" book (that nobody but me seems to have read). Also, Clinton has a fairly solid record of censorship and, since 1999, has advocated even more invasions than McCain. So, I guess "wealthy people's taxes" isn't my primary concern, then.

Shinyk and his anti-(forcing people to make losing bets at gunpoint) brigade may have support outside the Democratic Party, but they're a definite minority within the Democratic Party.

If that's truly the case (again, you fail to provide evidence), there might just be something to that 'liberal fascism' thesis, but I don't think that's the case.

But it's nice to know I now constitute a brigade. Perhaps one day I will be vast enough to be considered a one-man army, but I guess that's not today.

Your old thesis that, just below the surface, the majority of both parties is made up of a hill-billy, zombie-populist mob, was quite compelling, if very sad. You seem to be struggling in your search for a new one. When confronted with logic or evidence that conflicts with your arguments (as in your bizarre theory that GE, which owns the left-most news outlet on telivision, is an arm of the Republican party, or that businesses skew Republican because they don't want entitlements that would increase profits by lowering payroll costs), you simply ignore it or change the subject.

You should go back to your old thesis.

Posted by Shinyk | March 4, 2008 1:51 PM

Petey, why are you such an asshole?

Posted by cw | March 4, 2008 5:20 PM

I think Petey's taken a pounding on the merits here, but just one more point.

For the first time in a very long time, the number of people self-identifying as "Independents" is greater than those doing so as either Republicans or Democrats. In other words, Petey's "true Democrats" could convince the rest of their party so throughly that his candidate gets 100% of the Democrat vote, and still loses the election.

Most Americans, including many of those who regularly vote for one of the major parties, believe that BOTH Republicans and Democrats are full of crap, just in different ways.

By what appears to be Petey's definition, True Democrats are essentially socialists with no sympathy whatever for the free enterprise system that most voters identify as providing them with unprecedented prosperity. Good luck with that.

Posted by Robert Powell | March 5, 2008 8:22 AM