Comments are 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!!!!
How can the candidate who lies about anything and everything going to be trusted to run the countries economy.
Today we find out her retched campaign is even more in dept than they admitted to 2 months ago.
She has no path to the nomination save adapting Nixon's southern strategy to the rust belt. But Krugs and Digs have no problem with her lying racist crap.
Hillary - pro Iraq war, pro bankruptcy bill, pro bombing Iran, pro land mines, pro flag burning amendment.
And let’s remember her hubby (the co president) started the rendition and that makes him (and her) pro torture by proxy.
Damn, I use to think Digby was a liberal blog. Digby the neocon!
Obama uses a Republican talking point on social security by saying it's in crisis. His health care plan seems like something a Republican would come up with- if anyone tries to push universal health care all the insurance companies have to do is play his Harry and Louise ad. Two of his advisors have been caught stating we shouldn't listen to what he says on the campaign trail. I think he's center right on the economy.
Hillary pro-Iraq war? Obama has previously stated he didn't see the intelligence presented to the Senate and he might have voted otherwise had he seen it. He wasn't in the Senate when he made his Iraq statement. Will he do an LBJ if elected? No one knows. We do know he voted to fund and continue the war.
Damn, I use to think Digby was a liberal blog. Digby the neocon!
fahey | 04.25.08 - 9:38 pm | #
Obama uses a Republican talking point on social security by saying it's in crisis. His health care plan seems like something a Republican would come up with- if anyone tries to push universal health care all the insurance companies have to do is play his Harry and Louise ad. Two of his advisors have been caught stating we shouldn't listen to what he says on the campaign trail. I think he's center right on the economy.
Jmac | 04.25.08 - 9:42 pm | #
Valid points.
On many levels both of these candidates suck. They are both running as Republicans in different respects. Both are vulnerable to Rethuglican attack.
If you are a progressive you have a choice. Vote for a true progressive and go third party or hold your nose and vote for the lesser of two corporatist warmonger evils.
Neither of these candidates suck. I love the Clintons. I don't have a problem compromising on issues. But I do think many of the people supporting Obama might be in for a shock should he be elected (which I personally don't think will happen because he can't get middle America - she can). From his rhetoric, he will triangulate just as much as Clinton and may be further right than Clinton.
Troll, then enjoy the McCain administration, because the probability that Obama can win a general election verges on zero.
He is a terrible wholesale campigner, and has proven it in one big state after another. Twelve million dollars poured into Pennsylvania, the media openly campaigning for him against Hillary, and he loses badly, losing Pittsburgh, Erie, Scranton (3-to-1!), and even the Philly suburbs. He wins... the inner city of Philly and the college kids in Happy Valley. That's the McGovern coalition, and it's not enough.
He might be able to win the nomination, based on undemocratic caucuses in states he couldn't win if he were the only candidate on the ballot, like Montana and North Dakota. But the general election allows everyone to vote, and in general-election-like situations, Obama gets creamed again and again.
And he won't "kill" the Clintons, as much as the far left really hopes he will. The Clintons will be the leaders of the Democratic Party again as soon as Obama gives his tearful and well-crafted concession speech, because who else is there?
Brian - Hillary herself said Obama can win. Why should we believe you over her?
She's just being polite, something that Obama supporters do not understand. He can win in the same way that I can win the Nobel Peace Prize this year- theoretically possible but unlikely in the extreme.
We can defeat John McCain and find Earth, if we just BELIEVE in ourselves!
Digby, you seem to make the mistake of assuming that Obama has a message other than ‘hope and change’. Obama has that message because he is a millimeter deep when it comes to problem solving. Abstractions such as hope and change are simple to espouse, but the real essence for a politician is that no one can even define what such abstractions are, let alone challenge the messengers message. Obama’s message feels good and can be slickly marketed, but other than lifting people’s spirits (which is not an insignificant quality for leadership), abstractions are pretty worthless in terms of defining problems and solving them.
Policy as a response to real conditions has the annoying attribute of being subject to facts. Hence a spun or less than thorough policy is easily rebuked. This has been Obama’s Achilles heel and it is exactly what has been happening to mccain with nearly every word he mouths. mccain’s problem definitions and solutions are founded in fantasy and hence are easily blown away. If it were not for the media covering mccain’s lunacy by ignoring the rebukes to his nonsense he would already be the complete joke of a candidate for POTUS that he is.
Obama will easily be blown away if he is the dem candidate because he will not have cover of the media like mccain does. While the media has been plenty happy to cover him will he battles the media's enemy no. 1 - HRC, they will be exactly the opposite if he is the one to go against their new darling village idiot mccain.
.
sittenpretty- you really don't know what you are talking about- and I'm going to your web site to be entertained.
I wasn't going to write anything, but you went one too far- in at least one health industy category Obama has received considerably MORE than any other candidate including all Republicans- and Hillary Clinton.
Know what it is?
The Insurance industry- accident and medical.
They own him.
THAT's why there are no mandates in his plan.
Read something besides his web site occasionally-
(this was in the NYT in December 2007.)
a chart for you
sittenpretty- READ IT.
Jmac,
Obama wants to make SSN stronger by increasing the cap on FICA taxes, hardly a republican policy.
But Hillary wants to start a special commission featuring Alan Greenspan to help with the housing crisis.
What a joke.
None of you are gonna like this, but Chris Matthews said this word for word last night.
I believe that Matthews, unlike his other faceless corporate automatons (and in spite of his HUGE problems with race and gender) is actually a real Democrat.
She's just being polite, something that Obama supporters do not understand.
So you are saying that Hillary lied?
Back in November or so, I wondered whether the wheels would fall off the economy quickly enough for Edwards to move to the head of the Democratic pack before the Edwards campaign ran out of steam.
That didn't happen, but Edwards clearly had the best message for the economic hard times we are headed into.
Come summer and fall, I expect the economy to continue to crater. We'll be talking not about recession, or even depression, but about collapse.
I think Obama can be an effective leader for such dire times but, as a commenter said upthread, he needs to take more cues from John Edwards.
Someone upthread said Obama is closer to the grassroots. That someone has not been reading much of what is coming out of the Rezko trial. Obama came up in a cesspool of corruption that makes your head spin. One would think that it's only a matter of time before it gets noticed by the national media.
oh really
Thanks for a to-the-point and reasoned answer to my post. (And apologies for the late night typo's in mine.)
I'm concerned. (Concern troll alert going up.) I'm liberal from the tip of my toenails to the roots of my hair. I detest the Bush presidency, have done so from "watch this drive" onwards.
I'm also impressed. Once America began seeing through the sham and perversion that the Bush presidency represents, the GOP got into free fall. Rove, as delusional as the rest, was unable to believe what the polls were telling him before 2006.
The GOP record of lying and deceit hasn't done them any favors since, and the Dem position going into 2008 was near invincible.
Potential land slide victories that would land the House, Senate and WH.
And the reason I'm impressed is that at this moment the Dem's -- not the leadership but the people who have voted in the primaries -- choose to back a woman and a black man.
That's impressive. Because it will/would probably take such landslide potential to surmount the bigotry and the racism that stands in the way of the candidacy of a woman or a black man for president.
Unfortunately, we got two, on the face of it, excellent candidates in the same season. And they're cannibalizing their chances for the fall.
Unfortunately, we also got living proof that Hillary the wonk may have experience in government, but she apparently knows very little about how to run a campaign. The manner in which it's been managed is ridiculous.
And with Obama, we are beginning to see some very disturbing character traits that may push this Disneyland train off its tracks before the election. It's a lot of flash, and when you scrape the surface, you find there's not a lot of substance. ("He's impressive" "He's fantastic" "He's inspirational" will go part of the way, but the country (the world) doesn't need a preacher or motivational coach. It needs a wise statesman - and neither of the three candidates have shown they are that.)
Here's the thing. The two Dem's and McCain are all running with a chip on their shoulder and a grudge as large as the Great Lakes. And I'm surprised that this is what we got to choose among during this potential landslide year, where the Dem's could have buried the GOP.
That said, who enjoys a walk-over? This election is going to be gruesome to the finish, and a nail biter. And I have no favorites between Obama and Hillary, but I think that the weeks to come will force one of them "to really find his/her voice" -- if not, the voters will hand the Senate and the House to the Dem's, with big margins, and McCain will get to be president.
Digby,
Thank you for your writing.
I read all the comments and there is lot more heat than light there...real life blinding emotion.
While specifics would be nice from all the contenders, I think that the American economy and Iraq war stalemate the next president will be forced to deal with will preclude focus on "real" health care reform. HRC and BO are not structural change sort of folk given their tie to big business. The real democratic candidates have been hounded from the campaign. We are left with an interesting choice. Someone above said that they thought the racism would win out over sexism and I would concur. We live in a VERY patriarchal world, unfortunately, that far overshadows racism (IMO)
The economy is going to be a huge issue by fall IMO
Troll, then enjoy the McCain administration, because the probability that Obama can win a general election verges on zero.
Brian J, what the fuck are you going to do about it???
Are you a superdelegate?
I'm not saying I LIKE the fact that Obama is going to be the candidate in the GE. I don't like EITHER ONE OF THESE CANDIDATES. To be perfectly honest I don't like 99.9% of the Democratic Party. They are gutless cowards. But they aren't as bad as the Repubs and I realize our only real hope in this country for the time-being is that a Dem win in November.
Your comment about how Obama can't win is utterly irrelevant. It's la hypothetical academic discussion because Hillary is going to lose.
GET. THAT. THROUGH. YOUR. HEAD.
And--your girl wouldn't beat McCain either. There is ample proof for that.
But again--irrelevant.
But what are we going to do about all of this?
It's time to shut up with the infighthing.
You and other Hillary supporters are going to have to learn to deal with it and focus on the larger goals of ensuring Democratic victory sooner than later.
Grow up
A lot of what gets said here in the comments is said bravely, in hopes of being true. Yet few have any real insight.
None of us can predict who is going to win the next election. None of us can "know" what is in the mind of any particular candidate, or how they will act if elected.
Isn't this obvious?
If Digby believes that Obama must start playing economic hardball in order to sway voters, that's her opinion. She's not trying to read his mind. She's not predicting the outcome.
And I happen to disagree. I think wonkery scares American voters. They want and need platitudes. They will buy the better brand, and this will happen regardless of what's in the package.
None of us can predict who is going to win the next election. None of us can "know" what is in the mind of any particular candidate, or how they will act if elected.
Isn't this obvious?
Well said. And it can't be stressed enough that the general is a looong way off and hasn't even started. Polls, schmolls when it comes to how things will play out when the campaign actually begins as opposed to hypothetical matchups.
However when it comes to the primary. We have a pretty good idea that Obama is probably going to win. It's not impossible for Clinton to win. She could still pull it out but it is highly unlikely.
So my point is, with that in mind, I think we all need to ratchet down the vitriol and realize that regardless of the outcome many of us are going to be disappointed with who the Democratic front runner. But what is new about that? This is the party that has chosen people like Mondale, Dukakis, John Kerry and even--let's face it people--Al Gore who ran an awful campaign.
People, it's gonna suck, but we can still win.
So let's start taking baby steps towards realizing that we are going to transition into the general where the Democratic candidate is going to have some negatives and obstacles to overcome. We're all going to have to make common cause soon enough.
Krugman's column was a joke, right?
"Iraq is certainly likely to take center stage again simply because it's McCain's white whale."
i think you should read moby dick again.
"We are in a hell of a mess and the country knows exactly who is responsible for it."
once again, i'll mention that the majority of democratic senators voted for the war, including everyone's favorite wonk, hillary clinton (there's your policy expertise). in the last seven years, your party stood up ONLY for social security, while doing nothing on torture, aggressive war, arms sales to tyrants, detention without end, etc. the terror war is A BIPARTISAN ENTERPRISE.
further, the economic mess we're in is also A BIPARTISAN ENTERPRISE. the tech bubble and the exurban housing boom were both reprecussions of democratic economics. nafta was bill's idea, and all it did was raise corporate profits while dismantling american industry. democrats may have opposed tax cuts for the rich, but they certainly don't oppose spending $1 trillion a year on the defense budget (in fact, unless they're lying, they want to spend MORE).
the idea seems to be that the modern democratic party is fiscally responsible (this idea leans very heavily on LBJ and FDR, two presidents who died before many 2008 voters were born). of course, as with most partisan lines, the democrats' own behavior is all you need to point to for a contradiction.
finally,
"The Democratic candidate can ride to victory on a tsunami, but he or she still needs to stay with the wave."
this is an astonishingly shallow thought. out of the park, digby. keep up the good work!
I think he was being serious Chino.
He's been fairly consistent in his criticisms of Obama and I think for the most part his criticisms have been pretty valid. Obama ain't that progressive. But neither is Clinton, or, when push comes to shove, Krugman himself.
Unfortunately like most people who discuss these two candidates he gets sucked into the emotional tit-for-tat stuff and I find that disappointing.
Krugman hates Obama know matter what Obama does.
Anyone that agrees with him is as stupid as the MSM.
Obama was down 20 points nationally when this race started.
And where is he now.
So please shut up with your right wing talking points.
Troll, I'd like to thank you for displaying the hatred and arrogance at the heart of the Obama campaign.
I live in one of those red states you despise- Louisiana. Obama will get annihilated here because he will get maybe one white vote in six. He'll win Orleans Parish, maybe St. James, and that's about it.
Democrats have been talking up Don Cazayoux's campaign for the special election in LA-6, but if Obama wins the nomination, Cazayoux can go ahead and reserve the U-Haul to take him back to Baton Rouge in November. Ditto the guy in the Mississippi special election.
Obama may well win the nomination, but the contempt for America and its people that he and his supporters display more and more openly is a campaign-killer. And after he's gone, perhaps the Democrats will FINALLY expunge the far left like you, so that they can go back to winning elections and setting good public policy.
Fair enough. I found the column execrable, but I'm admittedly hung up on the issue of self-marginalization at the moment, so any mention of "self-inflicted" anything sets off my "here we go again" dead-ender mope alert system.
But that does not mean that the "media dupe people" theory should stand in for sustained left analysis of how the winning of popular consent actually works in civil society; for when it becomes axiomatic, it degenerates into an all-purpose excuse for the left's many strategies of self-marginalization. --Michael Bérubé
Bemoaning the role math plays in determining our nominee is self-defeating. How that kind of talk makes it onto the pages of the NY Times is baffling.
...but they (dems) certainly don't oppose spending $1 trillion a year on the defense budget.
You are trying to make the point that defense spending is BAD for the economy. It is not, as far as I can tell. Injecting trillions of dollars "from the future" into today's economy is helping make it run. I can't imagine how bad it would be without all that cash.
Now, in the long run, if we don't grow our way out of debt, yes, war spending is bad. In the short term (read- term of an incumbent up for re-election) it's a good thing. So yeah, dems support war spending.
...any mention of "self-inflicted" anything sets off my "here we go again" dead-ender mope alert system.
I think that's what did it for me, too.
Anyone- I don't care if it's the Pope himself- talking trash about democrats is just reinforcing negatives that have been carefully planted and nurtured by the right.
Fair criticism is fine. But when I hear about the democratic "circular firing squad" I know that either the person using the analogy is a right-wing operative, a concern troll, or an otherwise reasonable person who hasn't been paying enough attention lo these 7 years.
In Krugman's case? I think it may be that something strikes him about Obama's likely policies as being so awful that he's lost his senses. He may be right, but he'll have to provide a convincing argument, not the b.s. in his last column.
The problem isn't borrowing from the future, Cougarhutch. It's borrowing to pay for war spending that doesn't really benefit the economy in the end.
When you borrow from the future to pay for infrastructure, or education, that money will be paid back by the increased productivity of the people using those things. No such benefit can come from borrowing to buy B2s or M1A2s.
Brian J.
Not as much good as infrastructure or R&D certainly, but surely, those trillions are flowing back into the economy in the form of wages, raw materials, engineering, you name it. Otherwise, tell me- where does that money go?
Troll, I'd like to thank you for displaying the hatred and arrogance at the heart of the Obama campaign.
Can you read Brian?
I don't support Obama. Don't support either of these candidates. I think there were better choices than both of them but I quit whining when my favorite candidates dropped out of the race. You will probably need to do the same soon or just vote for McCain and be done with it.
I want to see a Democrat win and don't care who it is. My approach is dispassionate and I look at the math and see that Obama--whether I like it or not, and I don't much care for him--is probably going to win.
So I merely suggest it's time for Clinton supporters to start facing reality and work to get someone elected. I also think it's time for Obama supporters to ratchet down the vitriol as well.
Read this sentence slowly: I AM NOT AN OBAMA SUPPORTER.
I am a grudging Democrat supporter. I just want someone to beat McCain. That's it.
More importantly you still don't get it. You keep repeating the same irrelevant argument about how Obama can't win. I am not arguing with you. When it comes to your little point about Obama's negatives, you win, dude. So what? You aren't talking about anything constructive here.
I will readily admit and have done so repeatedly here that he has TONS of negatives. So does Clinton. But it's not really relevant to the most likely outcome of this primary election.
More importantly all of your bitching and moaning is a complete waste of time because there is nothing, NOTHING you can do to change the outcome of the primary campaign that seems to be going towards Obama.
And you, Brian J, cannot see into the future and predict with certainty that Obama will lose. We just don't know yet and you don't know.
It seems to me that hatred and arrogance are well represented in both Clinton and Obama campaigns. I haven't exactly seen hatred in your posts, but I have seen plenty of arrogance.
I live in one of those red states you despise- Louisiana. Obama will get annihilated here because he will get maybe one white vote in six. He'll win Orleans Parish, maybe St. James, and that's about it.
How do you know where I live? How do you know my attitude towards Louisiana, Brian??
You know what they say about people who assume things ...
Oh, we do know, Troll. We do know.
Look at the maps of Obama/ Clinton in Missouri, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. Barry wins the big cities and nothing else. Now look at Kerry's maps of those states. Winning more counties than Obama did, he lost the first two and barely won Pennsylvania. Without those three states and without Florida or any other Southern state, Barry cannot get to 270.
ObamaNation is getting more and more unhinged, like you, hurling insults at everyone who doesn't respect the magnificence of the Chicago Kid. I can just picture you foaming at the mouth for telling you that Obama's wandering around nekkid instead of wearing that wonderful outfit he has been telling you about.
As for Louisiana, where is Barry's plan for continuing the state's recovery from Katrina? At least McCain gives a damn (or is smart enough to appear to give a damn). Barry and you think we're too "bitter" to get federal help. But we're still here. And we're still worth 9 electoral votes, as you will find to your sorrow.
Cougarhutch, when you educate people and build new roads, they produce benefits to other people that make it easier for them to get around, make more money, and improve their lives year after year- and the government gets some of that in taxes. For a B2, you pay for it once, but there's no follow-on benefits. The B2 just sits there, providing no benefit to the civilian economy, until it's scrapped and replaced with something else.
Dear Digby,
I sincerely don't mean to snipe or reduce your points to the partisan cheerleading that you decry, but I did shake my head in wonderment that you would write this sentence:
"I was trying to analyze why the coalition we all thought was coming together after Wisconsin hasn't stuck."
which appears to be your main goal, and yet NOWHERE in your post do you honestly address what has really happened to disrupt that coalition since Wisconsin. NOWHERE do you talk about Obama trashing rural white voters, condescending comments about Hillary that piss off women routinely, etc etc. Do you seriously think that he and his campaign bear no responsibility for his now-evident demise, his inability to get the white, working class vote anymore? The chickens are coming home to roost, that really is a big part of what's happening, and it's disingenuous to ignore it.
People talk as if Obama's wavering support among white and lower-income democrats is Hillary's fault, as if he bears no responsibility for his own stupid behavior and words. Ridiculous. People just like and trust him less and less the more he shows who he is.
For fuck's sake Brian
There is no point having a discussion with someone who keeps labeling you as something you are not.
You keep calling me an Obama supporter. You keep framing the conversation that way. I keep telling you I'm not and you keep accusing me of falling into Obama talking points. You don't dare consider the reality that I am coming at this from a different perspective because that would mean you'd have to admit that you are utterly and completely full of shit.
You just keep on making assumptions about who I am and what I believe in based on something you've pulled out of your ass.
Let's see, you're from Louisiana, right? Well then you are probably a racist cracker with a confederate flag airbrushed on your muscle truck.
I'll bet you're not, but that's exactly how stupid your generalizations and assumptions sound.
You want to yell at an Obama supporter pick someone who actually supports the guy.
I don't.
And the other thing you don't seem to get Brian.
If Hillary doesn't win the nomination your arguments about how Hillary has a greater chance to win than Obama are utterly and completely worthless. They are like the arguments right wingers used to have about how the world would have turned out if MacArthur invaded the Soviet Union after WWII. Pointless and masturbatory.
If Hillary wins, we'll get a chance to see how your wonderful arguments play out. Until then this part of the conversation is a complete waste of time.
But ...
Let's suppose for a second that Hillary pulls it out and wins the nomination. We can forget about Obama and how he would have lost the election as you have repeatedly pointed out.
In this scenario, Hillary's gonna have a tough time. Never mind how she wins the nomination and what repercussions ensue for a minute. Consider this in a vacuum: She has high negatives, a recent poll indicated that 60% of respondees thought she was "untrustworthy." The minute she becomes the nominee she is the target of Republican attack ads.
Now consider that many people perceive that she won the nomination due to superdelegates going for her. Critics of Obama love to point out how he isn't getting as much of the white vote. That can be flipped and it can be said that Clinton isn't getting the black vote. Don't you think she's going to have a tough time reversing that trend if black supporters of Obama see that she won this thing via a superdelegate count? I think that might be a mild understatement.
You talk a lot about anger and arrogance on the part of Obama supporters. If they think that your candidate took out Obama to win the nomination do you think that maybe some Obama supporters might go third party or stay home? I think so. We don't know how that dynamic is going to play out but I think it's fair to say that we don't know how it's gonna play out.
In short BOTH Democrats face a challenge. There are no givens of course but I say when you factor in Republican advantages of vote stealing, disenfranchment, ratfucking politics, and a media who LOVES them some McCain you got the makings for an uphill struggle as far as Democrats go.
And that is why I'm saying we need to fucking chill out. Not just your side, but ObamaNation too. Because with every day that passes, Hillary's chances--which are still pretty slim--get better and better.
We have a long way to go and it's only going to get uglier. I would heed you to play whatever small part you can in dialing back the anger.
But I'm sure you'll write this whole thing off as the hateful and arrogant rant of an Obama supporter as you have repeatedly done, thus revealing your woeful lack of reading comprehension skills.
Troll, thank you for conceding the argument to me.
All you've done is make it clear that "liberals" cannot handle the real world. After Obama concedes, maybe we can shuffle hysterics like you to the Green Party or to the Ron Paul rEVOLution, so that people who want to get good public policy passed can do so.
Please explain where I conceded any argument to you, Brian.
Let's assume for a second that I agree that she has a better chance of getting elected than Obama (and I don't see how this can even be proven)
You seem to have at least figured out that I am not an Obama supporter. It did take awhile.
I will vote for Hillary or Obama instead of McCain. Gladly. I see them as less bad than McCain. I want a Democrat to win because I believe that the difference between a Dem and a Rethug is significant enough.
However i have to illusions about either one of them and the "good policies" they will provide.
Hillary Clinton, who has said she will obliterate Iran, who voted for the bankruptcy bill, who voted to authorize force in Iraq, who supported NAFTA, will give us the same watered down GOP lite policy that Obama would give us.
But at this point I am willing to take GOP lite over GOP extreme.
After Obama concedes
This statement makes it clear that it is you who cannot handle the real world, Brian.
While normally I would sit back and laugh at the rehtoric of the comments, I find that in this debate I cannot. First to digby, hows it feel to be a fish on a MSM hook and unwittingly continueing the dietribe that they started. First and formost to all the above people ask yourselves the following question. If you wish a third term of the Clinton machine then vote Hillary. If you would like to give a New person a chance at the job vote for Obama. Here is the gist. A president is only as good as the people he or she will surround themselves with. With Hillary you will get the people that she knows and has worked with. More than likely, allot of the people from her husbands administration. With Obama you will get a person that will set up his own people to help govern. Second point let's not forget that presidents don't dictate policy,it's congress and the prez approves it. He can suggest and even write and lobby for it, but will not arbitrally institute it. Lastly, People do not become unwilling pawns of the MSM or the current party. Do your research on the person and the job discription and qualification then make your decision. Either democratic cantidate is better than the alternitive of endless deficit, war and conservitive court rulings that could have the adverse effect of creating a second civil war in the future.
Well...I read the Krugman colummn after reading Digby's advice. And then I read all the comments.
First, there's always a few people who get upset that Digby won't validate their own personal views on things and stuff. These people shoulld just be grateful Digby runs a visited-enough blog that these peoples' comments even get read. Digby writes more gooder than I ever will and Digby offers a comments section which has allowed me to offer useful links and find useful links. And that's more important than the fact that Digby refuses to validate mmy views on Our American Gun Rights.
Okay. I read this particular Krugman columnn and I agree with the people who call it a mess of Clintonite apologetics mixed with some
calls for more overtly expressed economic policy clarity. When people note that neither C nor O is progressive, I have to note that Krugman is no progressive either. He remains chained to his well-meaning belief in Free Trade, and is still unwilling to understand that Free Trade was merely a tool in the Upper Class Aggression toolbox.
Clinton was one of several Free Trade presidents who helped set the stage for America's current decline into post-Soviet Ukrainian-style poverty. And Clinton, with his securing of NAFTA, WTO membership, MFN for China, etc., will be looked back on and laughed at longest and loudest by the historians of whatever rich-countries-of-the-future gather in
a circle to gloat over America's remains.
Unless...we get a President who allows us to survive the next 4 years or 8 years as a time of transition to be used by Real Democrats to find eachother and become a Protectionist Caucus...a mix of people like John Edwards and the Midwestern BitterMeisters. Of whom we have several.
Digby's advice to Obama seems good but Obama would seem artificial and insincere if he took it, because he grew up with his brain in a Free Trade
Propaganda Matrix, and Free Tradism is
all he knows. And without Forced Fairness Neo-Protectionism as a social-economic fortress behind which we can restore Labor Rights, Inter-Class Fairness, and some semblance of a Social Contract; there will be no net gain of Good New Jobs in America ever again. Since Obama seems to believe in Mobilized Hope, and Process-Fairness, and political-system
cleanup; I will live with his remaining wedded to those themes. And
as someone upthread pointed out, you can't fix anything practical as long as every political channel is plugged, blocked, infected, or polluted. So system-process reform is
important. Maybe Obama can make a populist-sounding case for that process reform.
Of course this is all assuming thatt we live in a world where the Federal Government is legitimate and so are its elections, voters matter, and their votes count. And are counted. That is Reality A, and Plan A is caring about who gets nominated and all that other good stuff.
There is also a possible Reality B,
where the Full Scale Cardboard Replica
of a National Government hides the reality of the Deep Government and the Corporate-Sheltered Fascist Elite.
We need a Parallel Plan B, just in case Reality B is the Real Reality. Here is an article describing Reality B and a possible Plan B very nicely.
http://carolynbaker.net/site/con...ntent/view/463/
If Carolyn Baker is correct, than a Democratic President would help smooth
and slow the crash, and allow us time to get ready. Whereas a President McCain would cause so many violent disruptions so fast that even serious survivalists might not get all their plans in place fast enough to escape McCains' plans for them, and for us all.
"You are trying to make the point that defense spending is BAD for the economy. It is not, as far as I can tell."
dear sir or maddam,
you are dumb. as far as i can tell.
subtance:
you argue that the money spent on defense technology re-enters the american economy through wages and such. that you would appeal to reagan's trickle-down theories to defend today's democratic party says everything.
Brian J
I'm excerpting a portion of today's Frank Rich column in the NYT to put in your pipe and smoke.
I know you're not too good at readin' or other forms of book learnin' so I'll give you a shorter analysis:
I am right and you are wrong. About almost everything.
The flaw in Mrs. Clinton’s refrain is her claim that she, unlike her challenger, has already been so fully vetted that her candidacy can offer no more unpleasant surprises. “I have a lot of baggage, and everybody has rummaged through it for years,” she says. Perhaps the delusion that she has a get-out-of-scandal-free card comes from her unexpected endorsement from Richard Mellon Scaife, the nutty Pittsburgh newspaper publisher who once spent a fortune trying to implicate the Clintons in the “murder” of Vince Foster. Or perhaps she thinks Fox News will call off the dogs now that her campaign chairman, Terry McAuliffe, is appearing in network promos endorsing its “fair and balanced” shtick.
But the incessant praise for Mrs. Clinton’s resilience as a candidate by Karl Rove, Pat Buchanan and William Bennett reveals just how eager they are to take her on. The dealings of the Bill Clinton post-presidency, barely alluded to by Mr. Obama in his own halting bouts of negative campaigning, have simply been put on hold while the Democrats slug it out. Close observers of The Wall Street Journal, The New York Post and Fox News can already read Rupert Murdoch’s tea leaves, and not just those from China. “Clinton Foundation Secrets” was the title of The Journal’s lead editorial on Friday profiling a rogues’ gallery of shady donors.
Mrs. Clinton’s supporters would argue that she’s so battle-tested she could fend it all off. She’s unlikely to get the chance. For all the nail-biting suspense being ginned up, the probable denouement remains unchanged. When the primary juggernaut finally ends — following picturesque day trips to Puerto Rico and Guam — the superdelegates will likely succumb to the math of Mr. Obama’s virtually insurmountable pledged-delegate total.
2 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
