An Obama supporter was quoted today on NRO as saying that without the "minister nonsense" Obama would have been able to close PA to within 3 or 4%, so some people believe he was seriously dented. Bear in mind that since Hillary has her own problems as a candidate, something can hurt Obama without helping Hillary that much.
Here's an interesting (and unusually civilized) discussion on Obama from TNR's blog The Plank, discussing how the erstswhile Obamamessiah, having been shown to be a mere mortal politician, still has something to prove:
25.04.2008
Krugman Misreads Obama
Paul Krugman has a column today saying that Barack Obama's campaign is disconnected from the problems of working people:
Yes, I know that there are lots of policy proposals on the Obama campaign’s Web site. But addressing the real concerns of working Americans isn’t the campaign’s central theme.
Tellingly, the Obama campaign has put far more energy into attacking Mrs. Clinton’s health care proposals than it has into promoting the idea of universal coverage.
In a blog post, he adds that if Obama "runs this way in the general election — if it’s about the candidate’s awesomeness, not about why progressive policies make peoples’ lives better — it’s a formula for defeat."
I think Krugman is missing a huge factor here. Obama and Hillary Clinton agree on 95% of the policy issues. That's why their campaigns -- hers has done it, too -- have focused almost entirely on personal differences between them: who can change Washington, who can answer the phone at 3:00 AM, etc. It's also why their discussion of health care has focused mainly on the differences rather than their point of agreement. (On health care, both sides have demagogued, though Obama has demagogued worse.)
But of course Obama isn't going to campaign this way in the general election. Obama already has a (brief) riff on McCain in his stump speeches, and it centers on policy disagreements over Iraq and the Bush tax cuts. Obama isn't going to run a primary campaign centered around opposition to the Bush economic program because that isn't a good reasn to vote for him over Clinton. It is a good reason to vote for him over McCain.
--Jonathan Chait
Posted: Friday, April 25, 2008 5:31 PM with 20 comment(s)
Comments
You must be logged-in to comment.
Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!
blackton said:
Let me offer an alternative suggestion: maybe his transformational campaign isn’t winning over working-class voters because transformation isn’t what they’re looking for. (read, not what he is looking for) Mrs. Clinton has been able to stay in the race, against heavy odds, (yes, the woman who was considered inevitable 6 months ago somehow survived) largely because her no-nonsense style, her obvious interest in the wonkish details of policy, resonate with many voters in a way that Mr. Obama’s eloquence does not. (yes, enough to put her in second place, with no chance to be nominated)
No wonder, then, that older Democrats continue to favor Mrs. Clinton. (no, maybe older voters identify with the older candidate. blacks can identify with Obama, but the reverse is never true?)
The question Democrats, both inside and outside the Clinton campaign, should be asking themselves is this: now that the chance for victory 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.
(absolutely, we all know how successful President Kerry has been, and before that President Gore, and Dukakis, and...)
Krugman, your candidate has lost. Deal with it.
April 25, 2008 6:51 PM
The Ignorant Populist said:
Krugman has a point. That's a big assumption Jonathan; I think you're projecting a bit.
The Unity of Hope is hardly a clear, progressive emphasis. Rhetorically, he's run straight down the centre and there's no reason to think that's not a general winning strategy. I'd feel much more comfortable if he hired some of Edward's writers.
April 25, 2008 7:24 PM
teplukhin2you said:
If Obama shares 95% of his platform with Hillary, then why, exactly, is he running now? Other than HRC's vulnerability and the fact that Bush Sux, what is the compelling case for Obama _at this stage in his political career_?
A lot of people, and probably Krugman and a majority of older voters, look at Obama and think of him as unformed, a work in progress, a rookie pol with lots of promise whose national career needs some more time to blossom.
If he's another JFK, he's JFK in 1954, not 1960. He's simply too green now. He needs to carve out some area of expertise, make it his own, and actually LEAD people ina direction they're not now inclined to go on a particular issue.
As opposed to mining his glamour for easy votes among young, gullible groupie-voters and yuppies wowed by his Lifestory(ies).
April 25, 2008 7:42 PM
teplukhin2you said:
Obligatory disclaimer: iamnotforhillary iamnotforhillary iamnotforhillary iamnotforhillary iamnotforhillary iamnotforhillary iamnotforhillary iamnotforhillary iamnotforhillary iamnotforhillary.
blackton - Krugman in talking about economic security has more crisply and precisely articulated the essence of the Democrats' message than anyone I've heard in years. It is a powerful case, but to make that case requires a different approach than posting turgid policy papers on a website. It requires real passion and a gift for making simplicity out of complexity and then connecting the general to the specific situation of individual households-- ESPECIALLY working families.
Obama has not shown an aptitude for either of the above. His campaign has nothing like the powerful, simplifying, focused taglines like "those who work hard and play by the rules" or "insurance that no one can take away from you" or "end welfare as we know it" or "abortion: safe, legal and rare."
Why do you think that is? I don't really know, either, but my judgment of Obama's essential character is that he has the curse of the glib and good-looking person who doesn't quite know where he stands with others, ie a Gatsbian tendency to try to fit a bland and inoffensive, glamorous persona of his imagining.
Older people not impressed by glamour prefer Jay Gatz to Jay Gatsby. The problem that liberals not besotted with the man have with him is this sense that his is a campaign in search of a compelling reason for existence-- other than another chapter in the Obama bildungsroman.
April 25, 2008 7:52 PM
teplukhin2you said:
Also strange is the man's apparent lack of interest in bread-and-butter economics issues. Why has he not been out front on any economics-related legislation? What exactly does he believe re free trade-- if he's against it, then why wasn't Goolsbee reined in by the campaign? Or is he doing yet another of his straddles with trademark winks and nudges to his yuppie audience, as Goolsbee suggested?
In a more seasoned candidate, the ability to cater to people who line up on diametrically opposed sides of an issue-- pro-Israel vs an "evenhanded" approach re Isr and the Palestinians; free trade; Black Power and post-racial politics; partisanship vs bipartisanship etc-- would be seen as evidence of political skill. With Obama, it comes across to wiser, older voters as calculating and, increasingly, condescending.
Time for him to shed a little glamour, spend some political capital and start carving out tough stands that will lose him a few votes while winning the respect of many more voters. Even those who disagree with him on the issue in question.
The easy, obvious first step is for him to propose scrapping race-based aff action in school admissions and replacing it with income-based aff action. He's hinted he favors this, and publicly and volubly urging it would cost him next to nothing while persuading many working-class whites that he does understand the core fact of contemporary US society, which is declining CLASS-based, not race-based, mobility. He might also show the rest of us that he's actually got some leadership chops, or cojones.
April 25, 2008 8:11 PM
Crock1701 said:
Tep's argument, in so many words:
All the Democrats agree on what a platform should be => Only one Democrat should run for President => Obama is younger/less experienced than other Democrats => Obama should not be the nominee.
Throw in the fact that he hasn't formed the wonderful slogans the Clinton had in '92 (and Hillary "Ready on Day One" has?) and clearly he's not fit to be President? How many politicians have "led people where they didn't want to go" before becoming President? Can you give examples? Did W? Did Clinton I? (Recall he didn't run as a "New Democrat" in the Primaries but, faced with Tsongas, turned populist.) Did HW Bush, Carter, Nixon, LBJ, JFK, Truman or FDR? I suppose Reagan moved the GOP rightward against Ford in '76, but he seems the exception. While we've had Presidents with more experience, I'm hard pressed to find a President who pushed the country that way before he was elected. The closest I can think is Humphrey taking the Democratic Party to Civil Rights in 1948, but by 1968 he lost.
By the way, I don't think that "inoffensive, glamorous persona" keeps one from speaking in those wonderful sound bites you admire. Tony Blair, he of "Cool Britannia" came up with one of the best: "Tough on Crime, Tough on the causes of Crime" as well as countless others.
April 25, 2008 8:13 PM
The Ignorant Populist said:
Actually this was Blair's finest moment Crock:
"A day like today is not a day for soundbites, really. But I feel the hand of history upon our shoulders...."
April 25, 2008 8:27 PM
eharder2 said:
Even if Obama and Hillary are similar to each other in terms of policy proposals, there remains something to be said regarding the efficacy that each candidate can bring to their implementation.
As for Krugman, I find the guy to be a complete donkey when it comes to intra-party politics. All shoot from the hip wishy washy baseless assertions formulated with the same confidence given to real quantitative analysis. That Obama only has "awesomeness" or some intoxicating vague sort of messiahness to bring to the table is simply a consequence of the media's lazinness in constructing a candidate's story. This angle has been used cynically by people like Krugman to build a straw man that they can subsequently tear down.
April 25, 2008 8:37 PM
dpinkert said:
"On health care, both sides have demagogued, though Obama has demagogued worse." I'm assuming you are criticizing his claim that she would force some folks to buy health insurance they cannot afford.
Question: If a young, healthy person with a modest income does not need comprehensive health insurance -- and could use the difference in cost between a comprehensive policy and a major medical policy to make mortgage payments on an inexpensive house -- would you say that Obama's claim is unfair with respect to that person?
April 25, 2008 8:53 PM
Wandreycer1 said:
Tep - I think he's running because the entire power structure of the Democratic party - Hillary is a the most egregious - is run by a bunch of spineless right wing bootlickers who stand for nothing but sniveling and cowering. In some ways, they have been much worse than the Republicans, cowards every last one of them. You wonder why Iliked Spitzer? I frigging LOVED it. He was IT in the entire godforsaken country for fierce progressives. He blew it with his emotional problems, but I stand by his whole take on being a progressive.
What exactly has Hillary ever fought for except her own hide? Perhaps Hillary really does think a flag burning ammendment was more important than standing up to a radical, destructive regime, but who really knows? Does anyone know what she ever fought for except to silence Bill's bimbos? Seriously, after awhile all I saw was the banality of evil in their cowardice.
Obama at least gave a shit enough to vote against these jackasses on things that were hard to vote against, to frame an argument against them and the entire boomer mentality that led to the toxicity of our present political culture. Remember spine? Not too many people do. Hillary Clinton's right wing butt kissing only gets worse every day, her lies more pronounced, the rationale behind her candidacy only more empty. Obama ran because it is his time - no one else was going to bother being real in any way and good for him.
I like McCain much more than Hillary and will consider voting for him not as a protest, but in earnest - that is if his entire platform makes it out of the silly, embarrassing and in to the real. Hes asking for my centrist vote right now as we speak and I appreciate it.
No one is perfect so please save your nitpicking goal post moving speeches.
April 25, 2008 9:20 PM
roidubouloi said:
tep,
Obama's reason for running now is that someone had to get rid of Hillary for us and he figured he knew how to do it. And he did. And I say thank god he did. I didn't really want to wake up and discovered that I had moved to Argentina. Hillary is a woman of no accomplishment, no demonstrated ability, a lousy senator, and for sure a mediocre politician who would have triangulated to nowhere if she had been elected and would have had a hard time beating McCain. Fortunately, Obama came along and showed us what a lousy politician she is BEFORE she won the Democratic nomination. I am grateful to him.
April 25, 2008 9:32 PM
blackton said:
Tep, you know full well that the reason Obama ran now is because this, more than any other time, is most opportune for him. you might find his message lame but it has gotten him into first place against a formidable political machine that had countless money and instant name recognition. The only perfect candidate is the one who wins. If we can ever get beyond this train wreck of a primary then perhaps he can pivot away from responding to Hillary's wrecking ball. You want him to run the general election campaign now. It ain't going to happen.
Beyond that, by winning the primaries he has earned the right to lose in November. He is who he is. None of anybodies whining here about his campaign will make the slightest difference no matter how right or wrong we may be.
April 25, 2008 9:32 PM
roidubouloi said:
Hey wandreycer,
I wish I had said that. You wrapped it all up quite nicely.
April 25, 2008 9:34 PM
blackton said:
dpinkert , I agree but don't get me started. His demagoguery consisted of one ad that was factually true but was reminiscent of 94 (which incidently killed Hillarycare). Like the Republicans won't ever think of that!
wandrey, ever notice how old most of Hillary's supporters are? and that most of her younger ones are radicalized women? Baby boomers are always right about everything, them young people are just foolish. And they claim Obama condescends.
And you are right, McCain puts Hillary to shame. Obama is the only genuine contrast.
And the only person who would make Tep happy in a Presidential race would be Tep. Don't get me wrong, I think he makes a lot of good points but up to now Obama has done a truly extraordinary job making only one gaffe at a private event (he can't possibly retroactively disassociate himself from Wright by never attending that church). Beyond that, what? Oh he met Bill Ayers once 12 years ago. Or was involved in a charity cause with him (and a lot of other people). Was it any wonder why Pc repeated Rezco for months? Obama, compared to the Clintons, is pretty clean.
April 25, 2008 9:47 PM
vanwurs said:
Goodness, Tep,
I find that I actually agree with a big chunk of what you said back there. I don't come at it with the presumptions of inadequacy that you've bring to Barack Obama, but with a clear eyed sense that, good as Obama is, he might be best served by losing this time. In politics (as the Clintons are proving) you need more than a second act. You need a whole bag full. And I'm not sure how many acts Barack has in him at this point. I think he's tired. And it might be best (depending, of course on the outcome in Indiana and North Carolina.) if he let himself lose this thing despite being ahead in points. A true movement can only get stronger over time, and a national politcal figure can only deepen and widen their relationships with the various communities throughout the country (ala Bobby Kennedy between 1964 and 1968), and be more widely and firmly rooted four years from now. He could even adopt something of a referee's stance on the President of his own party. Something like John McCain has done for the last eight years. But with a movement and an organizaton. That can raise millions and millions of dollars anytime it wants. And it has a logo. And a community service division, working to organize positive social change in communities around the country, called "ObamaWorks". Also with a logo. (Kind of cool and retro and NRA looking, too.)
What I can't quite persuade myself, given the alternatives, is that the country would be best served by this. I believe, with Obama, that the "Now" is urgent. We've had two terms of James Bucahanan. We need Lincoln now. And I don't see either of the other two even having that possiblity (good and appropriate as they may have been in other times and other crises) and I believe, and always have, that Barack Obama does. And he is a pretty quick learner. To be where he is and have done what he has, this guy who was a state senator in Illinois a little over three years ago, is not an empty or shallow acheivement. Like Colin Powell said..."He didn't know how to run for President before, did he? And he's done a pretty good job at that."? It took three hundred and fifty years for this to happen, Tep, and the jury is still out as to whether it's possible yet He is already historic, but if he wins a nomination that is denied him behind closed doors, I think he's more like Andrew Jackson than Al Gore. He doesn't go away when this is over. Regardless of how it turns out.
But I think you're right. He needs to explicitly make a case for class based affirmative action. In his acceptance speech at the convention in Denver. If he does it now it looks "political" in that narrow, politics as played by the Clintons, sense that would only make things worse. With Hillary having effectively divided the Democratic party into mutually hostile tribes, now is not the time to turn around and piss on your own guys.
April 25, 2008 10:25 PM
roidubouloi said:
Blackton,
I am proud to say that I am a very much a Baby Boomer for Obama. We've made enough of a mess (or rather failed badly at solving much of anything). Time to give another generation a chance.
April 25, 2008 10:32 PM
vanwurs said:
And Krugman is an ass. The most persistent and clamourous of the people whose politics of the perfect kills the politics of the good. (Hillarycare? Mandates? Didn't we do this once before?) And there's that completely inexplicable personal animosity he seems to have toward Barack..... that poisons everthing he writes.
April 25, 2008 10:46 PM
teplukhin2you said:
He's not "inadequate", he's just _green_. And cocky.
April 25, 2008 11:06 PM
teplukhin2you said:
wandrey - you make a good case; I see your point. If he's a fighter, great. But other than the war, what has he fought for, and won, in Congress?
As I say, he needs to pick an issue or two, really own it or them, show some leadership and rack up some major wins. He's like a brand that's all logo and advertising and no product.
roi - Fair enough, that's a coherent argument.
blackie - "Tep, you know full well that the reason Obama ran now is because this, more than any other time, is most opportune for him."
Ah, the candidate who's above politics, above opportunism, is running because it's... opportune. Just as he embraced a southside Chicago goofball preacher-on-the-make because it was _politically opportune_ for him to do so.
Do you guys see why I refuse to buy into all the airy nonsense about reinventing politics, post-partisanship, a New Way?
He's a politician-- fine. His record's solidly left-wing-- np. But please, please dispense with the BS about being beyond politics.
vanwurs - yeah, stranger things have happened than you and I agreeing. As to Krugman, well, he's not afraid to speak his mind, and it's a good mind. Sometimes he moves the posts but all in all I think he plays it straight. Listen to the man.
April 25, 2008 11:19 PM
pccostello said:
Obama's whole campaign has been about how HE IS THE CHANGE, HE IS THE ONE WHO WILL SAVE US (see Michele for details). Why we would believe this of a man who was a state legislator 3 years ago and whose actual accomplishments are so non-existent that his supporters cite what he did in law school as a qualitfication for the presidency is completely beyond me.
Krugman has this exactly right. Obama's campaign is entirely about himself. Increasingly it appears that he doesn't even like ordinary people very much.
blogs.tnr.com |
