Comments are (temporarily) being moderated. Please stay on topic.
The biggest thing that will help Obama is what's helping McCain: Not having a primary opponent. Especially not one determined to play the role Teddy Kennedy played in 1980.
We came a step closer to that today, with the news that one of Hillary's biggest fundraisers is bailing on her over the cut-off-nose-to-spite-face tone of her campaign:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/20...7865/996/
503438
Digby,
I agree. "Changing the political climate" pales as a goal when you can't pay your mortgage or get medicine for your kid. The Democrats need to run hard on economic issues and need to tie economic issues to ending this expensive war.
And the MSM is finally beginning to see that Obama is too green, too untested, and has nothing going for him in the field of economics. Hillary, and her husband, on the other hand, are perceived as economic wizards, comparatively. So stop trying to figure out what Obama "has to do". Obama has to live some more and gain some more experience and prove himself. Then he can try for the grown-up's job. Okay?
So, Obama must wait. It's Hillary's turn, is it? Good luck with that. Mark Penn still lingers .......
the message really needs to be that the process and reform stuff is the necessary pre-requisite to meaningful action on all the economic and social injustices that have worsened under the rule of the plutocracy.
For all the reasons you've just stated, Hillary Clinton needs to be our nominee.
And all this fearmongering done by the Bush administration to keep folks in line with their war on terra? Well that's a protein rich environment in which we will let our food shortage fears fester.
GD starving hippies! Quit eating my lawn!
I heart Digby.
One quibble:
"put some meat on the bones of the Hope and Change message."
There's meat, it's just hasn't been the focus. Possibly it would be better to let go of the appetizer and serve up the main course.
Additionally, one big thing he could do in this regard would be to get a couple of super-heavyweight economic advisors and flaunt them as people that know their shit, and that he would listen to, and learn from - and then start talking wonky himself.
If only there were a pair of Nobel laureate economists who supported Obama around here somewhere...
Most of my support for Obama comes from some tax policies he advocates -- an economic issue. And his economic adviser, Goolsbee, is really someone progressives should be reading and understanding so that we can own the language of economics in the coming future. He's new, he's intelligent, and he may be the man that helps define how we discuss economics in the future.
Yes, I've been really waiting for Goolsbee's wonk to start entering the campaign as a talking point -- as I don't think McCain would know what to do about it.
It all depends on if the Obama campaign can find the right language to articulate it.
Repeat:
Austan Goolsbee
Furthermore, progressives have a very poor understanding of economics in general. If you think there is much daylight between Hillary and McCain on economics, you're delusional.
I know nothing, but what is the upshot when all those deficit war dollars stop flowing into the economy?
No one talks about this. Am I missing something? I mean, I was told that government spending was a way to boost troubled economies.
This rather piss-poor "economic expansion" has been fueled by war spending, hasn't it?
And when the war ends?
"Hillary, and her husband, on the other hand, are perceived as economic wizards, comparatively. So stop trying to figure out what Obama "has to do". Obama has to live some more and gain some more experience and prove himself."
Since when is Bill running for President?
What is wrong with people? I didn't say one word about it being Hillary's turn. Are you delusional?
I was trying to analyze why the coalition we all thought was coming together after Wisconsin hasn't stuck. I'm going on the assumption that Obama's the nominee and simply saying that I think he needs to change his message.
Jesus H. Christ. I can't stand this willful inability to see anything in this primary except in terms of puerile cheerleading or slash and burn character assassination.
Fuck it.
Two points:
1) Krugman hit a very similar point today in his column. Namely, Obama needs to start pushing policy issues (substance) in addition to style.
2) (And while Perot got 20% of the vote, his reform message was never taken up --- it was his deficit message that penetrated. With the help of other rich powerful jackasses.) Perot would likely have scored more had he not quit the campaign then restarted it. Remember, some polls had him in first place for a while in the late Spring of 1992. Alas, he quit when the Bush family put the pressure on him -- and then, when most of his voters went to Clinton -- he rejoined the campaign when the Bush family pressured him to get back into it. His role was always to try to help the Republican Party -- even if the rest of hte party didn't always welcome his help. Remember that in 2000 he was on Larry King encouraging his "fans" to vote for Bush and not his own Reform Party.
If you think there is much daylight between Hillary and McCain on economics, you're delusional. -Anonymous
I'm not sure you're making your case for my delusion with this statement.
Mr. Obama is many, many things, many of them examplary and extra-ordinary.
He is not superhuman. And it will take an almost superhuman strength to face this campaign without cracking up.
He's had my vote for some time, now he starts getting my prayers, too.
You are echoing Paul Krugman's column today in the NYT. I know some think Krugman is a Clinton apologist, but his column is worth a read in explaining why Obama cannot quite close the deal convincingly. He may do it in NC and Indiana, if he pivots as you suggest.
"...events overtake his theme of post partisan TRANSCENDENCE."
But the events overtaking Obama's campaign are his own character and cultural attitudes. Or what Obama refers to as "distractions."
"How does one explain campaigning throughout 2007 on a platform of TRANSCENDING racial divisions, while in that same year contributing $26,000 to a church whose pastor incites race hatred?"
http://
www.realclearpolitics.com...stractions.html
"Hillary, and her husband, on the other hand, are perceived as economic wizards, comparatively".
Perceived by those who believe she didn't support the passage of NAFTA, legislation that Bill inherited from the GOP and pulled out all stops to get passed. Or that she didn't applaud Bill's "welfare reform" legislation. Perceived by those willing to believe Hillary was "misled" into supporting the Big Lie war that has run this economy into a ditch. Who could have foreseen that risk, in a war waged by oil men? Perceived by those who never mention her support of Bush's bankruptcy bill. Remind me, how did the Wizard of New York justify that vote, JReed?
The message can be fine tuned, but I think it is essential that he keeps stressing hope and change. That is the message that has driven thousands of new young and AA voters to the polls over the primary season. Once the nomination is nailed down, there will be time to address the economic issues.
Moreover, Obama doesn't have to prove he is the better candidate on the economy, this is a perfect opportunity to go negative on McCain. Start with his several statements of how he does not understand economic issues. Add the recent sound byte from last year about how great the Bush economy has been, add a Scoby-Doo HUUUUH? at the end and you have a perfect 30 second spot that hangs McCain with his own words.
Furthermore, progressives have a very poor understanding of economics in general. If you think there is much daylight between Hillary and McCain on economics, you're delusional.
Whereas conservatives have an excellent understanding, I suppose?
Ha.
Most conservatives understanding of economics begins and ends with basic microeconomics, chapters 1 through 3. They never get to the parts about "Market Failures", "the tragedy of the commons", and "information asymmetry". That, plus they are suckers for simple-minded slogans.
This is why your average conservative thinks that no-bid contracts to political cronies is more efficient than having the government do the work itself, with auditing and oversight.
I hadn't actually read Krugman before I posted this, but having just done so, it does seem to make essentially the same point.
I don't think you could have predicted this though, unless you saw the economy going into freefall a year ago. Some did, but most didn't.
I don't think this is Obama's fault --- or that Clinton is necessarily the better choice because of it. While she may benefit from perceptions about her husband's record on the economy, I don't see that she's made a particularly cogent economic argument either.
The facts on the ground are overtaking the original campaign themes and I think Obama can ally the fears about the white working class by developing a different one. That's all.
I'm with ya all the way, digby. And what you're advising Obama to do, as far as I can tell, is take more cues from John Edwards. That would make my day.
Unfortunately, Obama has no experience on his resume of dealing with major economic issues or budgets, as a state governor would.
And most of his economic advisors are supply-siders from the Milton Friedman crowd , supporting partial privatization of Social Security.
Even his answers about the SS cap (raising taxes) and the cap gain tax made him appear poorly informed and poorly prepared.
Maybe Obama should stick to his Hope and Change message, which fits with his community organizer background.
Economics is not Mr. Obama's strong category.
digby
its nice to see you taking the high road in our primary...
it takes real courage to not join the mob.
how impressive to see that some people on the left can look at the bigger picture without being influenced by the fanatical factions on either side
kudos,
Digby --
I agree completely with your post, and was totally mystified that commenters morphed it into another episode of the ongoing Hillary Obama flame wars.
Hey, all you online flame warriors -- GET OVER YOURSELVES. Both Hillary and Obama have strengths and weaknesses, and one of them will be our nominee -- barring a total collapse, it will probably be Obama. Guess what? Most Democrats are happy with the choice -- they support their candidate, and do not oppose the other.
This election is like 1932, 1968, and 1980 -- with the McBush GOP on the wrong side of history. I only hope Obama can bring some FDR savvy and toughness to his game, because we are going to need it.
digby, Please don't let the fanatics get to you. I'm an Obama supporter and voted for him, but I 100% agree with what you said and further feel that his campaign got way too conventional in Ohio and Texas and Pennsylvania, and THAT'S what prevented him from winning. Demos are part of it. But you can't be transformational when you go conventional. And I continue to believe that tying the economic woes to Iraq is the answer to the question.
And it is interesting that the coalition that formed in Virginia and Maryland and Wisconsin failed to continue to cohere after those states.
Your writing is the best on the interwebs, please keep on keeping on.
The shorter Krugman is that Obama failed to live up to somebody's expectations in PA, so Democrats are confused.
I like Krugman, but today's article is a mess. It could be said that Hillary failed to live up to somebody's expectations in PA. Or is could be that a lot of low information voters got introduced to Obama for the first time- an introduction he handled admirably.
Some of this is long-game/short-game stuff, IMO.
It's all about the math.
From here on out, Obama needs to win 41% of the remaining delegates (pledged and super) to secure the nomination. Hillary needs 61%.
(Note: The percentages don't add up to 100% because Edwards retains 18 delegates).
So any time Hillary doesn't win 60-40, it's a loss for her.
Think about that. What are the chances that Hillary will win ALL the remaining contests 60-40, AND get 61% of the remaining uncommitted superdelegates to back her?
Sure, she can go on to compete in the remaining contests, but it won't change the final outcome. She is not going to be the nominee. She's in Huckabee territory now.
I don't expect that Hillary fans will stop supporting her. But there comes a time (like back when I was supporting Chris Dodd) when you have to realize that it's over. And it is over.
I know nothing, but what is the upshot when all those deficit war dollars stop flowing into the economy?
No one talks about this. Am I missing something? I mean, I was told that government spending was a way to boost troubled economies.
This rather piss-poor "economic expansion" has been fueled by war spending, hasn't it?
Well, it's not that simple.
In your basic Macroeconomic model any government spending provides an economic boost until the macroeconomy adjusts to the new equilibrium. In the basic model, then, the war spending is a boost.
However, not all government spending contributes equally. Spending on internal infrastructure, for example, has ongoing benefits due to productivity boosts that result in economic gains that can be many times greater than the initial expenditure. The three greatest examples of this are the trans-continental railroads, the interstate highway system, and the internet infrastructure. Other expenditures can have long term economic benefits, such as education (GI Bill, Pell Grants, etc). In addition, it makes a difference where the $$$ are spent.
In general, military expenditures are the worst way to jump start an economy -- and it doesn't matter how many times you hear the proverb about how WW2 ended the Great Depression, this is true for all military expenditures. The goods being produced have no additional incremental benefit -- bombs either sit unused or are deployed -- and cause destruction -- somewhere else.
Where military spending had some real benefit in WW2 was in terms of massive job creation -- factories then were much more labor intensive, and the workforce expanded tremendously using women, youngsters, and retirees as needed to help the effort. Today, military expenditures generate a very low jobs/expenditure ratio -- worse than nearly anything else. And a lot of the jobs generated are overseas.
This is part of the reason, by the way, that the Bush economic expansion has resulted in no real job gains and flat real incomes for all but the very rich.
What happens if (not when) the military expenditures go down is unclear. Normally there is a hit to the economy due to the reduction in expenditures, but normally there is a counter-effect in that the reduction in deficit spending causes interest rates to drop. However, today Fed interest rates are near bottom and few businesses are thinking of expansion, so lower interest rates won't help in the short term.
So, there likely would be a negative economic hit -- but likely not as deep or as long as usual because the expenditures weren't that beneficial economically to begin with.
Digby, another Obama guy here, urging you not to "fuck it."
Thinking about the vast set of built-up problems to come is very depressing; we may be past the point where a competent manager can fix things. I hope we at least have someone whose soaring rhetoric supplies cheer.
Oh, I do hope health care is an issue. My beloved Muv, my mother passed away a few months ago...she had insurance but the system is broken, it was so awful to be in Seattle, a wealthy, educated city, and to experience what she had to go through....not good. i was grateful to be there, to address all the issues, but it still proved almost impossible. Everyone was doing their level best, but alas, the system, broken.
It's tragically ironic. I live in Paris. Last Sunday my dog needed a vet. Someone showed up within 45 minutes of my phone call, at my house, with a smile and a solution. Gawd, I would try to smile if it weren't so painfully sad.
health care, yes....
An issue that should be at the top of any list, for any candidate is our denial about debt and all that lives within that fact.
So, there likely would be a negative economic hit -- but likely not as deep or as long as usual because the expenditures weren't that beneficial economically to begin with.
I'm just concerned that shutting off the fire hose of war spending is going to be made even more problematic to the next pres due to the weak economy. I hate to think that this would be a factor in ending the war but you know it probably will.
I've begun dreaming of a brokered convention that drafts Al Gore. Would that be so bad?
It's always just too tempting to open the comment window- and then, it's always more of the same.
Maybe it's time to turn off the comments.
I can imagine Phoenix Woman anxiously waiting to paste her KOS link into the first post she could find- even if it was only remotely related to the topic.
So- how about it- no more comments until the convention? So what if traffic goes down a little.
I know you're not thin-skinned, but your writing deserves better.
This is not dialogue; this is bickering.
When the economy goes south, a lot of voters actually want a big helping of wonk with their inspiration.
Not half as much as they'll want someone to blame.
The GOP is much, much better at scapegoating.
"Ramp up his personal energy"
We need some reporting on this subject. Obama looks burnt out, unprepared for questions, unable to solve problems, and behind the news. Worse, he seems to be stunned by his own unforced errors, which are slowing him down like a sullen, boneheaded turtle. He's supposed to kick like a donkey!
What are we to make of this friable Apollo? I'm beginning to think he's not worth the Democratic brand. We don't stand just for campaign finance reform and ending walking-around money. We want SS and Medicare protection, guaranteed healthcare, and civil liberties. He's actually been attacking Hillary's health care plan. That's outrageous -- and knuckle headed. We will rue the day he gets "disqualified" by the Republicans as too radical without even having stood up for his party's economic accomplishments.
We don't need to watch him receive the mass adulation of large crowds after another recitation of the same stump speech. He mustn't go to San Francisco again. He needs handlers like Karen Hughes ready to stuff his words back into his mouth. Obama's got to be president now, while the shit's hitting the fan, not next January.
More on topic, I'm saying that I believe Obama has a good grasp of the situation that he's in. That said, I think Hillary does too.
I see PA as having been a chance for Obama to increase brand awarness. He knew he wasn't going to win the state- everyone knew it.
I don't see him having big problems deflecting criticism and responding to smear tactics. Yes, the general will be a lot worse, but I think he stands his ground.
If you view his behavior in terms of the long game I think it makes sense. He really is a candidate that independents and even Republicans can vote for- not on the wonk issues, but for that all-important one, character.
I think he's running as Ronald Reagan. In this country, at this time, it's a good idea.
You have an excellent point here. The democrats have to take advantage of a situation that's clobbering people and get a message out there now.
Let's work on the topline message, identify the pains - people are quite clear who is to blame - policy, solutions, etc. can and will follow. Let's not get bogged down and over explain things.
Clear and crisp, hard and fast... Populist sentiments are legitimate and can be very effective.
I wouldn't expect any meat to show up in Obama's talk anytime soon, and if it does I doubt it'll stay there long. His heart just isn't in that sort of thing, and he puts everyone, his supporters included, to sleep when he tries. He clearly thinks campaigning is getting out in front of people and being "inspirational."
Krugman astutely points out that large groups of voters aren't looking to be inspired, and so he's a wash with those sorts when up against a Hillary Clinton. McCain doesn't care about meat-and-potatoes economic policy either, so it's likely the campaign will just veer off into other areas if Obama's the nominee. The two of them will just be spouting off points given to them by their economic advisers.
And, by the way, Obama's core economic advisors, namely (Thomas and Milton) Friedmanite Austan Goolsbee, Social Security privatization advocate Jeffrey Liebman, and health-care crisis denier David Cutler, scare the hell out of me. I don't want those people writing economic policy for this country, and it's worse that they'd be writing it for a Democrat. As bad as McCain would be on so many fronts, it would be easier to win against him if he starts barking up those trees in office.
Digby,
Given how often you are wrongly accused on these comment threads of being a shill for one side or the other, I'm amazed how rarely you lose your temper.
Just remember that for every tribal loudmouth there are countless readers who truly appreciate your refusal to turn a complicated process between two qualified candidates into a battle between good vs. evil.
If I were in either Obama or Hillary's place right now, I'd start acting like the game has already been run and start running against McCain.
Since neither candidate can win without the superdelegates, that's how you win the superdelegates, by showing how good you are at kicking John McCain's ass.
Really, that's the only thing that matters at this point.
Goolsbee, is really someone progressives should be reading and understanding so that we can own the language of economics in the coming future. He's new, he's intelligent, and he may be the man that helps define how we discuss economics in the future.
Interesting that the anon poster mentions Goolsbee, one of three primary economic advisors to the BHO campaign, and one of the MAJOR reasons that
I DO NOT TRUST OBAMA
The other two are two MORE reasons I don't trust the intentions behind that big smile, and all that hope.
Goolsbee's pretty much mainstream globalizer of the Milton Friedman/University of Chicago school of economics--where he TEACHES (duh...). One of the others, I forget which, thinks Health costs SHOULD be HIGHER, as if it were some kind of discipline upon illness when you cannot afford to be cured.
These are just more of the same. I do NOT care how charismatic Ob ama is, if the advice he's getting is the same sort of advice that's been going around these last 25 or 30 years...
well, you see the problem...
military spending a boost to the economy?
Every dollar of every "emergency" war appropriations has been borrowed. We're at 9 trillion in debt, that's $9,000,000,000. Is that the right amount of zeros?
As the debt goes higher and higher that causes the dollar to get weaker and weaker.
A weaker dollar means gas prices therefore go higher and higher, ditto food prices. Everything we buy is more expensive.
Anonny is right the jobs the war is generating are going overseas. The true unemployment figure is somewhere around 10-14%. True inflation around the same percentage. Sometime soon we won't be able to go to war cause we'll be asking China to sell us the military hardware.
Those are some very good points, plus the fact that, rightly or wrongly, Hillary can run on Bill's good economic record. At this point, a lot of voters may not care that Bill's getting elected to a 3rd term if it helps improve the economic climate.
Obama has to sharpen his economic message. It's been one of the weaker aspects of his campaign to-date, and he may be paying for it. That said, PA is a poor barometer, HRC had a 20-pt lead, and the demographics didn't favor Obama.
Which leads me to another point. Jim Carville once famously said about PA, "It's Philly and Pittsburgh, with Alabama in between". With his being an HRC advisor, and seeing that Obama won Philly, did HRC just win Alabama?
One of the others, I forget which, thinks Health costs SHOULD be HIGHER, as if it were some kind of discipline upon illness when you cannot afford to be cured.
woody (tokin librul) | Homepage | 04.25.08 - 4:43 pm | #
You're thinking of David Cutler.
military spending a boost to the economy?
Yes, government spending boosts the economy. It's a basic thing that I heard over and over again throughout the 70's and 80's.
It may need to be qualified, but I believe it's still true. I've thought right along that this was one of the chimp's main motivations for the war. The third leg of his "trifecta".
The Take-away from Krugman's column:
The question Democrats, both inside and outside the Obama campaign, should be asking themselves is this: now that the magic has dissipated, what is the campaign about? More generally, what are the Democrats for in this election?
That should be an easy question to answer. Democrats can justly portray themselves as the party of economic security, the party that created Social Security and Medicare and defended those programs against Republican attacks — and the party that can bring assured health coverage to all Americans.
They can also portray themselves as the party of prosperity: the contrast between the Clinton economy and the Bush economy is the best free advertisement that Democrats have had since Herbert Hoover.
But the message that Democrats are ready to continue and build on a grand tradition doesn’t mesh well with claims to be bringing a “new politics” and rhetoric that places blame for our current state equally on both parties.
And unless Democrats can get past this self-inflicted state of confusion, there’s a very good chance that they’ll snatch defeat from the jaws of victory this fall.
David Brooks is off today.
Not being a "Democrat," this mighn't apply to me directly--
The question Democrats, both inside and outside the Obama campaign, should be asking themselves is this: now that the magic has dissipated, what is the campaign about? More generally, what are the Democrats for in this election?--but I just want to say that for some of us this has always been the essential question.
And isn't David Brooks off pretty much EVERY day?
Obama has to sharpen his economic message.
In your opinion. However, none of us here have the unique perspective that the candidate has.
What I find tiring is this constant advising of what candidates should do, should say, who they should take on as staff.
All respect, but have you some expertise on this? Have you considered a run yourself?
I could tell you what I would like a candidate to say to make me happy. Even so, I don't believe that what I want (a classless, moneyless society) would go over so well with everyone else!
Cougar you can't keep spending and spending without the bill coming due. That's a basic thing I learned in kindergarten.
But if 9 trillion of debt won't stop americans' delusional thinking, nothing will, I guess.
Cougar you can't keep spending and spending without the bill coming due.
You're absolutely right. My point is simply that it will be harder for the next president to turn off the war tap if the economy is sour.
Not that it shouldn't be done, but that it will be more difficult politically.
"He's going to go head to head with Obama on reform in the fall and I don't know if Obama will actually have the advantage."
Watching both McCain and Obama recently, I think McCain will have a huge advantage. Even though his talking points range from nonsense to dishonesty to outright insanity, he delivers them with a forceful assertiveness that will play well with uncounted millions of Americans. Obama, unless he changes his style, will hem and haw about the intricate nuances of the issues and either bore or repel those same people.
Krugman has more or less gone off the deep end. His column is an astounding mess of outright shilling, inconsistencies, conventional wisdom, and red herrings. It seems to me that he thinks the DLC is progressive. He writes:
"A few months ago the Obama campaign was talking about transcendence. Now it’s talking about math. “Yes we can” has become “No she can’t.”
This wasn’t the way things were supposed to play out."
Yes, and months before that HRC was inevitable and now she's simply a desperate, negative campaigner lying about dodging sniper fire while she hangs out with the NRA and tosses down shots. Why is Obama's failure greater than Clinton's? Starting with every advantage she went from a sure thing to -- if one believes Krugman -- the outsider. Ridiculous. But Krugman really doesn't like Obama (he's made that clear in many columns). I wouldn't be surprised to see his anti-Obama material used by the GOP in the fall.
I think Obama is open to a lot of justifiable criticism -- e.g., I don't think he has shown any ability to adapt to the changing nature of the campaign. On the other hand, thinking that he would win in Texas and Ohio after winning Wisconsin seems extraordinarily out of touch to me.
Look back over the primaries. How many have been close? Very few. How many were utterly predictable? Very many. How many outcomes changed because of events or "momentum?" Any?
Despite people telling pollsters they made up their minds in the last days or hours of the campaign, it looks to me like most people made up their minds early on and voted that way. Not caring much for either candidate (entirely understandable to me), could pass for indecision, but it's not the same thing as actively trying to decide who is better and who merely good.
I also think racism is a much more powerful final determinant than is sexism (which may well be more common). During a political campaign Obama isn't going to alter prejudices that lie at the root of people's identities. Misogynists and people who merely think women shouldn't be president aren't likely to vote for Clinton because of her "experience" or her "toughness." But when it comes down to a choice between race and sex, my experience tells me that in most cases racism will win out.
The problem for Obama's campaign is that he simply doesn't know very much about economic issues. He has absolutely no profile on any economic program, and really doesn't have any kind of a plan. McCain is not much better off, but that only means that he and Obama start on an even footing. If Hillary can win the nomination, she starts with a large advantage. But the left doesn't seem to want that.
(I will point out that were it not for the deficit message you're decrying, we might very well be insolvent as a nation today, owing several trillion more dollars and with a smaller and less productive economy. Bill Clinton did what was right for the country at great political- and personal- risk. The Democratic Party would do well to remember that.)
Obama banked that Iraq and political process issues would dominate 2008, and it's too late for him to change the focus of his campaign. Pity for him, pity for the party.
Krugman(s)... column is an astounding mess of outright shilling, inconsistencies, conventional wisdom, and red herrings.
Absolutely. I find it fascinating.
..we might very well be insolvent as a nation today, owing several trillion more dollars and with a smaller and less productive economy.Bill Clinton did what was right for the country at great political- and personal- risk. The Democratic Party would do well to remember that.)
Bush was able to completely reverse everything Clinton did in a matter of months.
My point is - this is about messaging and ideas, not about dollars and cents. Pushing against supply side economics is still a raging struggle cause of the enormous confusion. Even here you have basic economic ideas, like war boosts the economy to deal with. If the media covered the real economic issues, there'd be pitchforks and torches at the white house as we speak.
Oh good gravy, snow-moon. Don't squeal when you haven't been hit.
As for Obama and economics, two big name Dismal Scientists came out for him today, one of them being a guy named Joe Stiglitz. I would post the link, but it's from Daily Kos and snow-moon would object.
Joseph Stiglitz and another Nobel prize winner from 2006 were on Squawk box this morning on CNBC. Both endorsed Obama. Pretty interesting since Stiglitz was Bill Clinton's chairman of his economic advisory committee. The endorsement came around 5:30 am Pacific time. Check it out.
It's pretty bad out there. We all could detail a lot of indicators that are circling the drain. 8.X% of Target credit card holders in default, for instance. Worst housing market since...the depression??? Ya, you heard that right. It's official - we lost a decade. S&P 500, the index that we were all encouraged to put our retirement funds into, is at the point it was 10 years ago. My social security outperformed the S&P. And that's no lie.
He has to do better. He must do better if we are going to win this thing. Digby is right - it is comforting to hear somebody talk like they know what the problem is and how to fix it. Like they understand what the nation is going through. He needs to learn how to do that fast. And he better ditch the Abercrombie & Fitch backdrop, too. It's not resonating I don't think.
Meat on the bones.
Regards.
digby,
Um be it for me (generally a lurker and very infrequent commenter here) to interject on your frustration from some comments digby and how they tend to veer off track,... but having read the comment thread it appeared (at least to me) that the comment that frustrated you was actually made in direct response to the previous one in the thread. I don't like to call out people so I won't, but just check the comment made at 3:14 and then the first comment made directly under it at 3:21. It appears they tend to go together??? Or maybe not?
Anyway, I agree both candidates need to sharpen their messages and attack the republican money management and economic record/brand/theories and therefore McSame at the same time. Two people attacking McSame is certainly better than one. And the person who mentioned Edward's themes (two america's) made a great point.
As an Obama supporter I'm not eager to write off or condemn Krugman because he's a great voice for the liberal cause. Conversely, Hillary supporters should also be leary of demonizing great minds on our team like Rachel Maddow or Olbermann for the same reason.
Digby, great post and spot-on advice. Bravo.
Jack Cafferty, CNN .."The Iraqi government is using your money to pay thousands of dead, injured and missing soldiers & policemen as a way of compensating or caring for their families. This news comes from a report by the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction.
"Iraqis still rely on coalition forces as support. This program to train Iraqi soldiers, and to continue to pay the dead and missing ones, costs the American taxpayers 20 billion dollars. Meanwhile, Congress is taking up the Presidents' request for another $108 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, money we'll have to borrow from the Chinese."
It would be interesting to see Digby reconcile this (excellent) post with her previous (also excellent) post:
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2...gby-i-
have.html
It might appear that no tension exists, that the one post is about what the people want, while the other is about what the media SAYS the people want. But while there may in the end be no tension, it won't be for THAT reason, as one sees by simply considering the sourcing of the current post.
I can see one or two not-obviously-mistaken ways to reconcile, but would be curious to hear Digby's thoughts.
my too sense makes a perceptive and valid observation.
There is no conflict
... between a reform agenda and the economic agenda. Given the existence of the Iron Triangle whose apex is on K Street, the only way that we will have meaningful change in economic policy to move it towards doing the greatest good for the greatest number, is to break the machine, the often bi-partisan machine, that keeps economic policy rigidly fixed on benefiting those who have a lot of money to throw around.
Obama isn't ready for prime-time.
He needs a lot more experience, and he needs to be able to think on his feet. His debate performances are abysmal, even McCain will look good next to him.
Trouble is, Obama has got the presidency memorized, and if he is hit with a question he has memorized an answer to, then everything is OK. But ask the man somnething where he has to stop and think, and it all just stops.
He's not ready. It's commendable that the Dems are willing to use their enormous advantage going into this election - Senate, House and WH - to offer two candidates who would have been without a chance in earlier elections: a woman and a black man. The GOP would never have done that.
Yet it's also thought provoking. The November election could have been a complete walk-over, instead it's going to be closely contested fight, as people will consider the road ahead and find themselves torn between the Dem bid for history, and the GOP candidate who seems to promise everything Bush turned out not to be.
Commendable - but also more than a little stupid. Obama is all preached out - that's why his energy is flagging, he's gone through his brib-sheet a thousand times and is beginning to sound old and worn. That's what happens when you "memorize" a presidency - it has to be part of your blood and constitution. The electorate senses that in Hillary, and it senses it in McCain.
Of the three candidates in play, I would prefer Hillary's experience combined with the fire Obama showed early on, and supported by the free for the taking respect McCain will be met with, and which the Dems will have to earn from the media, military and voters.
You write:
"--- so he probably needs to be more explicit in his economic message now."
Probably doesn't even begin to cover it. Obama hasn't been explicit about anything - that's the impression that's beginning to set.
I agree 100% with SteinL. Thanks for articulating that. When I talk to my republican family and friends who are ready to vote democratic, they all say, Obama talks but doesn't say anything.
Sorry, Kevin. I should just let it go but this made me laugh:
"great minds on our team like Rachel Maddow or Olbermann"
Didn't he just apologize for veiled death threats? And didn't Rachel call me white trash? Or was that Randi. Forget.
They are good entertainers, I give them that much. I thought Maddow's show was pretty humorous until she got unhinged with CDS. But Great Minds? Really?
Regards.
Obama isn't ready for prime-time.
He needs a lot more experience, and he needs to be able to think on his feet. His debate performances are abysmal, even McCain will look good next to him.
---------------
seriously you need to put down the crack pipe
lol
--------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
I agree 100% with SteinL. Thanks for articulating that. When I talk to my republican family and friends who are ready to vote democratic, they all say, Obama talks but doesn't say anything.
jen | 04.25.08 - 7:01 pm | #
-----------------
you just are not listening,or comprhending...sad that
Shorter sittenpretty: "Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated." 
Shorter sittenpretty: "Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated."
Ivory Bill Woodpecker | 04.25.08 - 7:11 pm | #
-----------------------
go meet John Gault,if you prefer,"g"
Obama is a fabulous debater,who does not lose his cool,consumate winner
Jan, Bush couldn't undo the smaller deficits and smaller increases to the debt that occurred in FY 1994-2001, because they'd already happened. That's my point. What if those years had resembled FY 1990-93, and then we had the tax cuts and the war?
Obama's campaign, as exemplified by Sittenpretty here, is drifting into "you fools don't understand my awesomeness" territory. That way lies defeat. Obama needs to shed some ego and learn some basic economics. The same applies to his supporters.
It will almost certainly be necessary in the fall, no matter who wins the Democratic nomination. When the economy goes south, a lot of voters actually want a big helping of wonk with their inspiration. (Maybe it gives them reassurance that the people they are voting for know what they're doing.)
I don't want any more wonk, thank you. I want some real old-fashioned FDR-era socialism, thank you very much. I'd like some good old fashioned liberal economic populism. I'd like to see a great compression.
But the Democrats can't do they any more. They sold their souls to corporate interests long ago.
So instead we get wonk which is really just wank.
Obama's campaign, as exemplified by Sittenpretty here, is drifting into "you fools don't understand my awesomeness" territory. That way lies defeat. Obama needs to shed some ego and learn some basic economics. The same applies to his supporters.
------------------
you want perfection,look in the mirror
Bullshit.
But the Democrats can't do they any more. They sold their souls to corporate interests long ago.
So instead we get wonk which is really just wank.
Troll With the Punches | 04.25.08 - 7:28 pm | #
-----------------
blame the corporate media,everyone is a pinko,who doesnt make a mill a year
Oh, and Digby, your candidate is a lying racist.
blame the corporate media,everyone is a pinko,who doesnt make a mill a year
Not sure exactly what your point here is, but actually everyone who makes a mill a year and up is entitled to socialism.
Crony capitalism disguised as market capitalism is what the rest of us get and on top of that we get soaked and bled dry to subsidize socialism for the rich and the corporations.
WAR
thanks for your vote Hill
http://youtube.com/watch?v=HhWTdDU6zxg
"seriously you need to put down the crack pipe..."
Sittenpretty, are you old enough to vote?
If you are, how long ago were you released from whatever facility held you?
Perhaps it's too soon for you to go out in public without your minder.
Crony capitalism disguised as market capitalism is what the rest of us get and on top of that we get soaked and bled dry to subsidize socialism for the rich and the corporations.
Troll With the Punches | 04.25.08 - 7:36 pm | #
-------------
yup privatise the profits,socialize the risk
thanks for being right on board for the next war, Hill
Perhaps it's too soon for you to go out in public without your minder.
espiritu guardian | 04.25.08 - 7:36 pm | #
------------------
perhaps,your an evil spirit
thanks for being right on board for the next war, Hill
Troll With the Punches | 04.25.08 - 7:38 pm | #
-----------------
guess Hill doesnt get around to reading the NIEs
its all bs
and thanks for the hike in gas Hill,yea,lets have a war with Iran,mebbe we can pay 10 bux a gallon
jezus
SteinL --
You make some good points, but veer off-track occasionally.
"...he needs to be able to think on his feet."
I couldn't agree more, but it may or may not have to do with experience. Some people can and some can't. He has to show us he can.
"His debate performances are abysmal, even McCain will look good next to him."
Again, I agree, but the horrifying thing is that if McCain continues with what I saw last Sunday on This Week, he's going to do quite well in the debates no matter who he faces. His brand of nearly content-free assertiveness will appeal to a lot of voters.
"Trouble is...ask the man something where he has to stop and think, and it all just stops."
Again, I agree. It's amazing what passes for eloquence these days. I don't look at a person who can deliver a speech as articulate or eloquent. If Obama can't turn this around (and I suspect he can't), he's in real trouble. I expected more growth from him. I'm disappointed.
"The November election could have been a complete walk-over, instead it's going to be closely contested fight, as people will consider the road ahead and find themselves torn between the Dem bid for history, and the GOP candidate who seems to promise everything Bush turned out not to be."
The problem here is that it isn't just Obama who's going to make it close. Clinton's history and campaign tactics are not going to serve her well if she gets the nomination. The idea that she has been "vetted" is laughable. When the Republicans turn on the slime machine it's going to be really ugly.
"Obama is all preached out - that's why his energy is flagging..."
That may or may not be true. He certainly has to show something new. But Hillary's shtick is tired and often offensive."
"...it has to be part of your blood and constitution. The electorate senses that in Hillary, and it senses it in McCain."
Well, some of the electorate may sense it, but since Clinton is still running behind, and since she started with huge advantages, her showing doesn't really support what is, I think, a meaningless contention. Both Hillary and McCain share one thing -- each will do what it takes to win. Up to a point, that's admirable. Both have taken it well beyond that point.
"Of the three candidates in play, I would prefer Hillary's experience combined with the fire Obama showed early on, and supported by the free for the taking respect McCain will be met with, and which the Dems will have to earn from the media, military and voters."
Sorry, that candidate doesn't exist. Hillary's "experience" is far less impressive than she wants us to believe. Early fire is inferior to late fire, so Obama had better get hot.
McCain's respect is a product of a bankrupt and corrupt MSM. I'd rather have a candidate who had earned respect.
"Obama hasn't been explicit about anything..."
That's simply nonsense. For example, his health care plan is explicit. In fact, except for mandates it is virtually the same as Clinton's. I don't think either plan is going to begin to solve our health care problems, but mandates will be the bludgeon of choice for the Republicans to kill any and all reform. It's worth trying to make changes, but until the American people grow up and support a single-payer system, we're going to continue to slide further into the abyss.
That may or may not be true. He certainly has to show something new. But Hillary's shtick is tired and often offensive
------------
uhm..she is either delusional or a Liar,her dreams of dodging SNIPER fire is just borderline psychotic
oh and as for Nuking Iran,by way of KYL.LIEBERPUTZ
---------------
NIE: Iran ‘Halted’ Nuclear Weapons Program In 2003, Unlikely To Develop A Weapon In This Decade»
A new National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) released today concludes with “high confidence” that “in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program.” From the report’s findings:
We assess with moderate confidence Tehran had not restarted its nuclear weapons program as of mid-2007, but we do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons.
Sorry, that candidate doesn't exist. Hillary's "experience" is far less impressive than she wants us to believe. Early fire is inferior to late fire, so Obama had better get hot.
------------------
some prefer fire
I WANT ICE
he is cool...and ice water runs in his vains
any great athelete prefers this
COOL under pressure
oh really - good points. I think if it were a more ordinary year we would have had a more ordinary nominating process.
This year was different. People are really, really fed up. And it shows. Clinton has done well. With Democrats. And had the year been more ordinary she would be wrapping it up. I make no judgment about this.
So a huge number of people...in every state...are looking for something/anything different and Obama seemed the one who could give it to them.
But now, I think, people are starting to wonder what's in there? And yeah, I get pointed to his website to read his white papers every day. But when is he going to start talking about this stuff? In a way that makes sense to people who have been working for 20 or 30 years and who can see the difference economically between the Clinton years and the Bush years? Obama says there's not much difference but that's really disingenuous. Given the choice of taking a chance on "hope and change" and going with the wonk who may be able to take us back to a time when wages for the average person were increasing and retirement looked like a real possiblity, I'll take the later.
He needs to sharpen his message. He needs white trash voters like me to help him win. I will. But some of my friends may be a bit more skeptical.
Regards.
nm
Regards.
luko | 04.25.08 - 7:59 pm |
------------------
he is NOT supported by CORPORATE america,he is as close to grass roots as we are going to get,so vote you heart,or VOTE YOUR POCKET
"His "change" campaign may seem a bit distant and abstract in the current circumstances."
I'll enthusiastically support Obama if he's the Dem nominee. And I hope he wins. I think there's a chance he might be a great, not just good, president.
But his campaign always seemed distant and abstract to me. Which is to say, short on substance. "We are the change we've been waiting for." Honestly, what the fuck does that mean? The change I'm waiting for is universal health insurance.
the change is he doesnt owe,big pharma,or the insurance companies,his supporters are 2,000,000 online voters
Doesn't take long to find this. From Newsweek:
Obama has accepted more than $213,000 from individuals who work for companies in the oil and gas industry and their spouses.
Two of Obama's bundlers are top executives at oil companies and are listed on his Web site as raising between $50,000 and $100,000 for the presidential hopeful.
Since 1907 corporations have been unable to give directly. They do it this way instead.
Regards.
Since 1907 corporations have been unable to give directly. They do it this way instead.
Regards.
luko | 04.25.08 - 8:14 pm | #
-----------------------
he has raised 200,000,000.00 dollars,that is 1%
Digby, I like your take better than Joan Walsh's at Salon, who has a similar message, or the Huffington Post piece, "Media Jump Ship From Obama to Clinton." Or Krugman who, God bless him, seems to have a hate on for Obama because of health care mandates.
I'd argue your point is part of a larger issue Obama has to make: show voters what an Obama administration would look like in terms of economic leadership and all these other issues. Not just policy statements. But tell us what type of people he would put into these positions. He can play it safe and point to dead people as examples or mention 3-4 names for key positions. On top of your point, that he needs to make real his policy solutions in terms of what people are facing today, not just policy as policy.
However, it gets done, Obama needs to transition from the great rhetoric and the heart in the right place to also include the practical side. I'm willing to trust him, given how he has managed his campaign and his reliance on people like Samantha Power, but the voters, and circumstances, as you note, are pushing Obama to do now what he might have done in July and August.
pssssssssst
Michael Moore producer/director of SICKO has endorsed OBAMA
luko --
"Obama says there's not much difference but that's really disingenuous."
I haven't heard him say there isn't much difference. The message I've heard is that they are different by degree, rather than by kind. I agree with that. Also, don't forget, the Bush and Clinton economic times share something else -- both were boom economies that busted. The dot com boom was huge, as was the bust. There's no question that prosperity was more widely shared in the Clinton economy, but I'm not sure that really had that much to do with Clinton. Clearly, Bush has no interest in widespread prosperity, except to the extent that he can profit from it. However, policies under Clinton were still tilted toward the wealthiest -- they always have been. The difference in the fund-raising profiles of Obama and Clinton may say something meaningful about who each appeals to and who each might direct their policies toward. Of course, Obama could be the genuine savior of the poor and middle class and he still may not get any help at all from the Senate (unless there are bigger changes there than I expect), so I'm not expecting great progress in a first Obama administration. I'm less hopeful still for a first Clinton term.
"Given the choice of taking a chance on "hope and change" and going with the wonk who may be able to take us back to a time when wages for the average person were increasing and retirement looked like a real possiblity..."
Sorry, luko, we're not going back. The world is very different today from what it was in the nineties. The United States has been digging its own grave for decades. We taught China and India how to play the game and now they want their turn. Unfortunately, they have more than seven times as many people as we have and as their consumption ramps up the stresses are going to be unbelievable. The widespread ignorance and failing educational system are going to be further drags on our future. We've got some tough days ahead.
We are, in virtually every respect, weaker today than we were in the nineties. There is no simple formula for turning things around and if there is one, it certainly won't come from the nineties. I really do believe that Hillary is a candidate of the past. Obama may not be the blockbuster drug we need, but Clinton seems to me to be little more than a tired home remedy.
I think the Democratic Party is getting perilously close to having exhausted its usefulness. Any party that chooses Harry Reid to lead it in the Senate has got huge problems. Needless to say, if the Democrats hold the majority in the Senate this year, they'll send spineless Harry back for more of the same. The candidate best positioned to get what she or he wants from the Senate is probably McCain (sadly, that's written only half in jest).
It sounds you're calling on Obama to be more like Hillary. She is passionate about these issues. Why keep pushing Obama to change when we already have the candidate you described?
Why keep pushing Obama to change when we already have the candidate you described?
Because Obama's probably going to win and Hillary will most likely not win.
There. That was simple.
Dems need to win in November and in some regards Obama actually can and should learn and take from Clinton.
Sorry, luko, we're not going back. The world is very different today from what it was in the nineties. The United States has been digging its own grave for decades. We taught China and India how to play the game and now they want their turn. Unfortunately, they have more than seven times as many people as we have and as their consumption ramps up the stresses are going to be unbelievable. The widespread ignorance and failing educational system are going to be further drags on our future. We've got some tough days ahead.
-----------------
didja know in India(ive lived there in the past) ANYONE can get a FREE college education?
BILLARY=NAFTA
Obama is a light weight. He does not have that "fire in the belly" to become president. You can tell he doesn't have it when he loses. He looks, sounds, and acts dejected and then the whinning begins ad nauseam. I have written this early, often and across the blogosphere. The democrats need a "rough and tumble" nominee ready to "throw down" at the drop of a hat. The nominee must be willing to break bones, throw some elbows and crack some ribs. In other words we don't need a fighter we need a bruiser...Ladies and gentlemen introducing in this corner Hilllllary Clinton. Ding, Ding.
GO HILL GO!
Obama's going to win WHAT?
The nomination?
If he can't win the general election, that doesn't mean squat, does it?
Obama is winning and will win
Apr 22nd, 2008 | Highlights of exit poll data in the Pennsylvania Democratic presidential primary Tuesday:
FINALLY, THE MAIN EVENT
After a six-week lull since the last Democratic primary, Pennsylvania voters were so eager to participate in the hotly contested battle between Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama that 9 percent of those voting Tuesday had changed their party registration since the start of 2008 to be eligible to vote in the Democratic race. The contest was open only to registered Democrats. About half the party-switchers had been registered Republicans, while the rest had been unaffiliated with either party, and even more were voting for the first time in Pennsylvania.
Most of those new Democrats were mobilized to come out for Obama, and they were nearly one-fifth of Obama's supporters. Even the former Republicans favored Obama over Clinton, largely invalidating rumors that Republicans would vote strategically in the Democratic primary in support of Clinton, hoping she would be easier to defeat in November.
Thanks for responding, oh really.
1. Dot com bust. When people start saying on TV that the fundamentals have changed, traditional valuations are meaningless, that we have a new paradigm, that we have a new economy - as were all the talking heads in 1999-2000, it's time to sell stock. Point being, I hear some of the same "new paradigm" stuff coming out of BO and I am reluctant to buy it. Same with 2006-07. When HGTV becomes Real Estate TV, it's time to sell yer house. How do Obama's policies address the economy? Sharpen the message!
2. Agreed, we are not going back. Yes, we are weaker after 7 years of unbelievable debt and disaster. There are global shifts we can't control and we can't put the genie back in the bottle. OK I know graduates of Harvard and Yale will probably be OK. As will heirs and heiresses. The rest of us? I've said before I am beginning to believe in Two Americas. Two middle classes. Obama seems to me to be representing the First America. Technologists, doctors, professors. The wealthy middle. He says nothing to me.
3. As for the Dems being finished, I think there is truth in that statement. A different kind of Democratic coalition might come out of this. But I'm not sure the result will be more progressive.
Anyway. May the best person win. I will vote for either. For all our sakes!
Regards.
Obama's going to win WHAT?
The nomination?
If he can't win the general election, that doesn't mean squat, does it?
Mary
Yes, the nomination.
I'll tell you what doesn't mean squat.
Hoping Hillary will win the nomination.
She will not. Whether you like it or not, Obama is going to win.
So what are you going to do about it when it finally happens? Keep pointing out how Hillary would be better? Vote for McCain?
Both of these candidates would have a hard time against McCain. They will both have higher negatives by the time this thing is over. Neither one of them, in my mind, is the best candidate. I preferred others but I stopped bitching about it months ago.
I just want a Democrat to win. And I want Democrats to cut this shit out. On both sides.
Kumbaya, motherfuckers!!!!