Believing Your Lying Eyes

by: Matt Stoller

Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 18:58


Matthew Yglesias thinks we're overreaching by imputing intentions to Obama based on his VP pick.

The best guide to how Obama intends to govern isn't who he picks as VP, it's the stuff he's said about how he intends to govern and what he hopes to accomplish. That'd put him to the left of the Clinton-Gore era of the Democratic Party but to the right of the Open Left vision of where the party ought to be, and that'll still be the case no matter who Obama picks.

I don't think that's true for three reasons.  One, Obama has consistently said he's picking a VP candidate based on how that candidate will help him govern.  Two, we have no reason to trust that what Obama says in this campaign is what he intends to do as President.  The FISA example, which I'll go into below, shows that Obama thinks nothing of breaking promises to liberals.  Three, even if he follows through on the promises he hasn't broken, I don't see how his overall policy platform is substantially to the left of the Clinton/Gore administration.  As a brief but significant example, in place of Clinton/Gore's 'peace dividend', or a cut in military spending, Obama has promised to grow the size of the military.

During the primary, to attract liberal support, Obama said that he would filibuster any bill with retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies in it.  He then voted for a bill with retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies in it.  When doing so, he pronounced it a 'good compromise', even though he had earlier run a primary campaign criticizing the false choice between security and liberty.

The truth is we have no idea whether Obama will do anything he has promised policy-wise, but we do know that if he picks Tim Kaine as VP that Tim Kaine will be the Vice President.  Given that the last two Vice Presidents have been very powerful, and that Obama is saying he wants a partner-in-governance, it seems likely that his VP pick is a strong signal of what kind of administration he intends to run.  And given that he lied to liberal activists and then pretended that he didn't on a policy promise, it's probably a safe bet to consider that Obama is going to repeat the pattern.

Update: Some people are saying that I'm contradicting myself by suggesting that we believe Obama when he says that he's picking a VP based on who will help him govern, but disbelieve when he puts out various policy ideas.  Actually, what I'm saying is that if you accept that his word is good on his policy ideas, then you must also accept that his word is good on why he's choosing his VP.  If you think his word is not good on his policy ideas, then we don't really know why he's choosing his VP, all we know is that this person is actually going to be in the White House as his VP.  And who is in the White House matters.

Matt Stoller :: Believing Your Lying Eyes

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Believing Your Lying Eyes | 106 comments
the real problem is this: (0.00 / 0)
who is your alternative magical progressive VP pick?
by the very fact you added magical it means you dont really care to hear an answer (4.00 / 7)
but instead engaged in attacking the messenger. if only this ability to attack were reserved for people who actually did go against their word.
[ Parent ]
by the very fact you added magical it means you dont really care to hear an answer (0.00 / 0)
but instead engaged in attacking the messenger. if only this ability to attack were reserved for people who actually did go against their word.
[ Parent ]
"magical" (0.00 / 0)
In taylormattd's defense, I think "magical" is just a comment on how limited the options are.  A true progressive as VP is obviously what we want, but seems like too much to hope for at this point.  Who's available?  Who'd really work?
[ Parent ]
It doesn't matter- he's already starting from a place of having (4.00 / 3)
decided its not possible. it matters very little whether an argument can be made if its already decided that what you are saying is impossible. It's a little like arguing with folks who say we must move to the right- without them acknowledging a similar requirement for the right to move to the left. Just once I would love to hear someone on the right say they voted for someone on the left as a proof of bona fides rather than we must choose right because that's "reality" but choosing left- well that's just fantasy. I think its less a matter of reality than conditioning to think that it's fantasy.
[ Parent ]
It doesn't matter- he's already starting from a place of having (0.00 / 0)
decided its not possible. it matters very little whether an argument can be made if its already decided that what you are saying is impossible. It's a little like arguing with folks who say we must move to the right- without them acknowledging a similar requirement for the right to move to the left. Just once I would love to hear someone on the right say they voted for someone on the left as a proof of bona fides rather than we must choose right because that's "reality" but choosing left- well that's just fantasy. I think its less a matter of reality than conditioning to think that it's fantasy.
[ Parent ]
That's all fine, but who do like for VP? (0.00 / 0)
Who'd be a good, reinforcing progressive?

Sherrod Brown's taken his name out, maybe Dodd, but I don't know if Dodd really works; he's been in Washington too long, which cuts against the "change" argument, he doesn't really reinforce any of Obama's electorally attractive qualities...

The only person I can think of is Feingold; he's obviously a solid progressive, against the war, and he's taken enough bold stances to be a bit of a "change agent" himself, so he might still work as a reinforcement despite his somewhat lengthy Senate career.  He and Obama have also worked together on ethics and lobbying reform, which is something I hope Obama would take into the White House...

Who do you think should be VP?

[ Parent ]
If I had my pick (4.00 / 2)
Brown
Clark
Edwards

to name just three who aren't wild eyed liberals, but not milk toast centrists either. I could live with any of them. The problem here is that we are once again being given a false choice of "well we had to pick the most in offensive choice to the right" in order to have a chance of winning, when that is inf act a lie.  

[ Parent ]
the only one (4.00 / 2)
on that list that I would consider actually progressive is Brown, and hasn't he ruled himself out?

Despite his populist rhetoric this election cycle, Edwards was an exceedingly conservative Senator and an outspoken co-sponsor of the Iraq War resolution. In fact, he was so in favor of the war, his speeches sounded almost identical to Dick Cheney's at the time. "Nuclear threat". Things like that.

I don't know. Perhaps Clark is progressive. But again, he is a former republican military guy.

So I suppose "the most offensive choice to the right" is all in the eye of the beholder.

[ Parent ]
I said who I could live with (4.00 / 1)
as in they have at least been willing to change or break with the past. In the case of Edwards whatever he was as a Senator he's made up for it in years since that time.

The same can not be said for Kaine.

I could even maybe live with Sebelius, but my concern over her is with she's ready for prime time.

[ Parent ]
If I had my pick (0.00 / 0)
Brown
Clark
Edwards

to name just three who aren't wild eyed liberals, but not milk toast centrists either. I could live with any of them. The problem here is that we are once again being given a false choice of "well we had to pick the most in offensive choice to the right" in order to have a chance of winning, when that is inf act a lie.  

[ Parent ]
Oh (0.00 / 0)
and also possible

the Gov of NM
or the Gov of MT

At least with those choices- its showing he's willing to take some risk even if it's not idealogical. My problem with the pick is how it defines outsider. There is nothing outsider about any of any choices except they aren't in DC yet. the key word being yet because in politics they already are.

[ Parent ]
Oh (0.00 / 0)
and also possible

the Gov of NM
or the Gov of MT

At least with those choices- its showing he's willing to take some risk even if it's not idealogical. My problem with the pick is how it defines outsider. There is nothing outsider about any of any choices except they aren't in DC yet. the key word being yet because in politics they already are.

[ Parent ]
I've got to agree with bruhrabbit (4.00 / 2)
Not only is the "magical" show you're not listening, but Matt has been writing about VP choices for months now.


New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.
[ Parent ]
who are they? (0.00 / 0)
I don't see a single progressive choice anywhere. I suppose the "best" is Sebelius.

Hillary?: Iraq war
Biden?: Iraq war, MBNA, plaigarism scandal, "clean & articulate"
Bayh?: Liebermanesque in his support of the Iraq War
Dodd?: Let's get real.
Edwards?: not any more

I just don't see a single good choice anywhere. Frankly, the most troubling thing to me about Kaine are his statements about abortion when he was running for governor. I'd feel better if I saw quotes about how he feels about Roe v. Wade remaining the law, and/or the types of judges he thinks should be on the Supreme Court, but I haven't.

[ Parent ]
Obama has never claimed to be a progressive (4.00 / 2)
The progressive potential of his campaign was from an electoral perspective -- he could change the map, thereby creating something of a mandate and he would help downticket races, thereby providing bigger margins in Congress.

[ Parent ]
He has identified himself as a progressive (4.00 / 4)
As reported on this site two weeks after fisa

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
[ Parent ]
I find the say anything after each bad decision both before and after (4.00 / 3)
interesting. He never said he was going to be a progressive. He never said he was going to support FISA, and on and on. Forgetting the idealogical scale for a moment- this is very Orwellian. I didn't just say what you heard me say seems to be the new approach of the centrism mantra.
[ Parent ]
Just want to endorse what you said (0.00 / 0)
Obama openly stated he is a progressive.  From my pov - that's not necessarily so wonderful - I'm moderate to conservative as a general rule.  But he did say it, and he also said that that doesn't mean he'll agree with other progressives about everything.

For that matter - other progressives don't agree with each other about everything.  FISA was a no win situation - risk losing the base that has lots more reasons than FISA to support you, or give your opponent talking points in an area where you're already weak - and all for a vote you're not going to win!

I can't say I would do differently.

QT

Visit the Obama Project


WindOnWater.net



[ Parent ]
I wasn't aware and stand corrected (0.00 / 0)
However, I don't think he has run as a progressive in any meaningful sense.  
[ Parent ]
yes, yes, yes (0.00 / 0)
I get it.  [Hillary/Edwards/Kucinich/Feigold/Dodd/Insert first choice] is teh one true progressive, and Obama has always been republican-lite.

Anyway, what does that have to do with my comment? Matt was talking about the selection of a non-progressive as VP, and I was asking, in all seriousness, who this magical progressive VP savior was? Because I don't see one anywhere.

[ Parent ]
And now that... (0.00 / 0)
...the notion of Obama "changing the map" has been exposed as an obvious absurdity, on top of Obama's insistence on spitting in the face of progressives at every turn, the rationale for an Obama candidacy has evaporated completely, and the party is left with a real dud of a nominee.  

Just like in 2004.


[ Parent ]
Let's get real? (0.00 / 0)
Do you have a substantive problem with Chris Dodd?
[ Parent ]
I think poster meant it's an unlikely pick. (4.00 / 1)
Not that it's a problematic one.
[ Parent ]
no (0.00 / 0)
other than his vote for the Iraq War, I like him.
[ Parent ]
I am less worried at this point about Obama's actions than (4.00 / 2)
I am in the response of people who should know better to his actions. How long should one wait until one can make assumptions based on Obama's actions? Should we keep pretending each step along the way that a duck isn't a duck? That his actions isn't telling us what he is because his words are saying something different? My concern is accountability. One can support him because he is the lesser of two evils and still be preparing fo rht ereality that unless progressives prepare for it- he will be leading a mostly centrist to conservative Democratic administration.
you gotta be kidding (4.00 / 1)
Obama is a conservative? Boy, if you were a Republican in 2000, you were probably convinced that Bush would be a centrist/liberal just because of his phony talk about "compassionate conservatism".

It's called a general election campaign. Let him get elected and then we'll see how things shake out. I'll be the first to admit if he actually governs as a conservative, but right now I just don't see it.

[ Parent ]
I'll keep this short (4.00 / 9)
I had a longer post in mind, but I thinkt he irony is such that it's better to write a short post. If people in 2000 had bothered to look at the people who were surrounding bush rather than just listening to his rhectoric, they would have known that the compassionate conservativism narrative was just marketing. The same is true here. If you go beyond the rhectoric, and look at whom Obama is choosing (a right of ceneter economist to lead his economic team for example), a possible right of center Democrat to be his VP, his decision on FISA- then yes, you have the same tea leaves to get beyond the rhectoric. The irony of course is that you bring up the very example that proves the point.
[ Parent ]
as I said before: (4.00 / 7)
Obama's not a conservative, but a moderate. The problem is that "moderate" in George Bush's America now means supporting the subversion of the rule of law and the buildup of the military to deal with the "war on terror".

And Obama has done so, voting to legalize Bush's illicit wiretapping program and advocating increasing the size of our conventional military in order to deal with the asymmetric threat of terrorism--which does not require more soldiers or bombers or tanks.

Obama's advisors are not terribly encouraging either. The odiousness of such Obama stalwarts as Cass Sunstein (a potential Obama Supreme Court nominee) has been well-detailed here on this blog.

Obama won't make things worse. But he won't make them better, either. Kind of like Bill Clinton, except that Obama is, if anything, more accommodating to special interests than Clinton ever was.

[ Parent ]
I think you fail to understand the spectrum (4.00 / 1)
If one thinks of Obama as a conservative, then one would have thought Bush was an extreme conservative in 2000 based on the positions he took and who he looked to as an example to govern (i.e. Reagan). And one would have been right to view him that way, just as one is right to view Obama as fairly conservative on the totality of the political spectrum. He's probably to the right of Sarkozy in France and Sarkozy is considered right-wing in France!
[ Parent ]
but isn't Sarkozy considered center-right? (0.00 / 0)
I thought Le Pen and his neo-fascists were the "right wing" in France.
[ Parent ]
Le-Pen = Hard Right (4.00 / 4)
Sarkozy was considered right-wing at the time of the election, but has governed more as center-right or even straight center while that one guy was straight centrist (which would be somewhere around Bernie Sanders in this country) and Royel was center-left (or bat-shit crazy apparently in this country, OMG she believes in France's single payer health care system!).  
[ Parent ]
Royel sort of was bat-shit crazy (0.00 / 0)
I am a moderate defender of French statism. It works for them and they like it. But you still gotta draw the line somewhere and Royel wanted, IIRC, to address unemployment in the suburbs, etc., by increasing state control of the economy, which, as far as I'm concerned, and apparently a decent majority of French citizens, was bat-shit crazy.

Then again, maybe I'm defining 'bat-shit crazy' down ;-)

[ Parent ]
adsf (0.00 / 0)
Royal, not Royel

(sorry to be the spelling asshole, esp. since I can't spell)

[ Parent ]
Different system, made some sense (0.00 / 0)
Royal was a horribly flawed candidate, but you're not seeing the wider context.

Banlieue, the French word for suburb, has an entirely different connotation. It's sub-urban, but it's also a poor neighbourhood, generally predominantly non-white and heavily North African in origin, and they have huge levels of unemployment. This is perpetuated by transparently racist hiring practices.

Sarkozy aimed to liven up the job market by reducing job security and benefits and thus encouraging employers to create more but lower-paying jobs, whereas Royal aimed more to crack down on discriminatory hiring practices.

That kind of state control wouldn't work in the US, but in France government bureaucracy is immensely powerful and her policies were workable. They didn't even come close to an overall solution (and Royal was very much a New Labour-style medium above message candidate) but they weren't batshit crazy.

It's just that most white French citizens don't like the dwellers of the banlieues and wouldn't go for that plan.

None of this is to say that French statism works. It self-evidently doesn't work in its current form, especially for the younger generation.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

[ Parent ]
one of the problem with these conversation is that people often don't understand (4.00 / 4)
what is left and what is right. I am not saying that Obama is Bush, but I am saying that governing as a centrist (not a moderate) after Bush is tantamount to governing or planning conservative because Bush was such a regressive adminstration.
[ Parent ]
Yeah people forget (4.00 / 5)
what social legislation used to look like or mean in this country. Like a single-payer health care system (Medicare), a truly progressive tax code (top rate of 77% before Reagan), or a social insurance program (social security), or a jobs program (WPA), etc.
[ Parent ]
well that's an entirely different conversationa bout (4.00 / 1)
the dumbing down of discourse and the manipulation of definitions. I could blame 30 years of GOP progaganda, but that would be a lie mostly because the Democrats, press and the American peopel generally went along swith it. I doubt ironically enough that Social Security or Medicaid could happen in this culture anymore because so many people do so many things against their basic interest, but don't fully appreciate that its against their interest.  
[ Parent ]
well that's an entirely different conversationa bout (0.00 / 0)
the dumbing down of discourse and the manipulation of definitions. I could blame 30 years of GOP progaganda, but that would be a lie mostly because the Democrats, press and the American peopel generally went along swith it. I doubt ironically enough that Social Security or Medicaid could happen in this culture anymore because so many people do so many things against their basic interest, but don't fully appreciate that its against their interest.  
[ Parent ]
I have to disagree ... (4.00 / 1)
... with your interpretation of Obama's comment on a VP who can help him govern.  Governing, in the way that I interpret Obama's statement, is a matter of management and strength--it's the executive finesse that governors supposedly have above all others.  In other words, he's looking for someone who can take one or two major legislative or administrative projects on board--not someone who necessarily represents his position on every major issue (see all of his Team of Rivals rhetoric).
Obama is just ducky (0.00 / 0)
Pfft! (4.00 / 1)
Here's what we can read from Obama's VP pick (if it is Kaine):

He wants to win Virginia

That's pretty much all we can infer from that pick... period!

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

If that's all he wants from a VP (0.00 / 0)
we can infer a lot more...

John McCain opposes the GI Bill.
[ Parent ]
Military (0.00 / 0)
It would seem that picking someone with good military credentials would be an attractive idea.

This would blunt McCain's big (and only) selling point. In addition, if Obama is really interested in sharing responsibilities he could assign the veep to oversee areas having to do with the military, aside from foreign policy.

There are continuing issues about procurement, new weapons systems, restructuring the four branches, etc. which require expertise. I wouldn't even begin to speculate on who this might be, but in the calculus of winning elections a military person might count for more than winning Virginia.

Policies not Politics

Trial Balloons And Lack Of Message Control (4.00 / 2)
This, to me, is the same issue as the Politico suddenly claiming Ann Veneman was an outlier choice: The Obama team is starting to break down its impressive "wall of silence" and different factions are floating their pet VP candidates to fight the war in the media.

It's either that, or Obama is still in control and is deliberately floating these choices to see what kind of reaction they get. If they're paying attention, they'll see how Kaine would be a terrible choice, and move on.

I agree with Matt that you can't take anything Obama says on face at this point. You should listen to what he says and judge him on his actions, and how they correlate to his words.

As far as the veepstakes goes, I say Dodd or Sebelius at this point. Not Kaine, not Bayh, not Veneman, and certainly not Joe "D-MBNA" Biden.  

disagree (4.00 / 3)
Obama came out against the gay marriage initiative in CA, that's better than either Clinton, Gore or Kerry while they were running. He said he will allow gays to serve openly in the military, and unlike Clinton I don't see what can stop him. He will lessen the Cuban embargo, hopefully he'll just eliminate it altogether.

It would be political suicide to propose a "cut" in military spending during an election against McCain, although Obama has come damn close by talking about how the $10 billion we are spending in Iraq would be better spent back home.

He has talked about decriminalizing marijuana, he is up front about raising taxes big time on the wealthy, and he is talking more about domestic spending than about balancing the budget. He's not perfect, FISA of course being the example, but since when have we ever had a perfect candidate?

Get this guy elected and hold his feet to the fire. And no, don't flip out over his VP choice. I hope it is Sebelius, but I'm not gonna deregister as a Democrat if he picks someone else.

I am very famailar with the gay rights issue and what happened (0.00 / 0)
in Ca and why Obama did what he did. if you want to go through it, so that I can demonstrate how you are wrong, that'sf ine but it comes down to states rights which is exactly the same argument as Clinton. And no, I don't support Clinton. Just cutting through the bs.
[ Parent ]
Regarding military spending (4.00 / 1)
I think we need to cut defense spending too -- we spend more than all other nations combined. But realistically, it's tough to cut military spending when you're going to be investing in the care of servicemen and women, and when you're trying to get Congressmen like Jack Murtha to support your domestic agenda.

So much is written here about defining Obama as progressive, moderate or conservative, or whether we can trust what he says. I'd look at what he's done instead -- his past record in the Senate, the Illinois legislature, and as a  community organizer. That's who the guy is. And it's a solid record that progressives can find lots to be pleased about -- not perfect, but solid.

As for the VP slot, if I were him I'd pick someone I can trust. Period. The last thing I'd want is a VP trying to undermine me to further his/her own ambitions. Kaine looks untrustworthy, based on Raising Kaine's diaries. Same goes for Hillary and Evan Bayh. I don't know about his relationships with Edwards, Richardson, Biden or Dodd, but if it were me, I'd start with trust.  

[ Parent ]
So because he flipped on FISA (4.00 / 1)
that means that his broad statements about how he will govern are all untrustable? I'm not buying it. I think he's been very clear about his post-partisan plans and the vast majority of issues fall under this. I'd say that he's probably center-left with a sprinkling of right. It will depend on the issue. That about describes Sebelius and Kaine.

As for Clinton's peace dividend v. Obama's defense budget proposals -- are you kidding me? Talk about choosing an easy case! Do you really think that Bill Clinton would have cut the defense budget post-9/11 or that Obama would have reacted to the collapse of the Soviet Union by increasing spending? What nonsense.

What will Obama use this increased money for? Prosecuting the war in Afghanistan, going after Osama, shoring up our depleted military. Is that left, center, or right? Count me in, regardless.  

you would have made a great juror in the OJ or Rodney King trials (4.00 / 1)
you are good at dissecting invidiual instances- the problem is what those instances say in their totality.
[ Parent ]
Uncalled for... (4.00 / 2)
I don't believe in troll-rating but this comes pretty close to deserving it. Any non-race related trials you care to bring up?
[ Parent ]
Don't they say in their totality (4.00 / 1)
that Obama approaches issues on a case-by-case basis on the merits rather than ideology and is not afraid to change his mind? That's sort of my impression.

That's why pinning down his ideology is so tough: for one he doesn't believe in it and for another one person's center-right is another's center-left. That's all consistent with the post-partisan meme package.

So why would anyone consider him center left at all (rather than DLCer or centrist or center right?) Hell I don't know but I think my answer begins with his top three goals, which he has stated on multiple occasions: universal healthcare, ending the Iraq war, and curbing global warming.

[ Parent ]
I dont care what they say (4.00 / 2)
Like I said, the biggest problem with what you wrote is contextual. Ignoring rhectoric , I try to look at actions he's taking, what few there are. His actions are speaking to me about who he is. Just as his actions in the primary told me he wouldn't be much better than Clinton in terms of his centrism.  If more Americans did that we wouldn't end up where we find ourselves all to often as a country.
[ Parent ]
You're on a double-post spree of late (4.00 / 1)
You must be paying too much attention to Obama's actions and not enough to the keyboard.

I too am an impressively profound deep thinker. Just like you. This ability to think really profoundly and deeply has allowed me the ability to examine Obama by his actions, just like you. The funny thing is that the two of us really deep, profound thinkers have reached different conclusions regarding his actions. Which means we're gonna need a third party to come in and adjudicate the matter, which reminds me of that time I was on the O.J. jury.

[ Parent ]
the irony of course is that its you claiming to know whats in his head (4.00 / 1)
and all I said was look at his actions. or as stoller's title says' believe what you see.  That tells you who he is. Its others who project what they want into what he does and says. I am not asking you to be a profound thinker. i dont think this is particularly profound. that's the source of my frustration. it's civic laziness.

Just pay attention to what they are doing. That's civics 101 taught to me by a white roman catholic republican way back in the 1980s in a small southern town. i am not against conservatives- just what passes for politics now.

Oh, and by the way, I don't have any powers over what this system is doing with my posts. I am clicking once.

[ Parent ]
Every post twice? (0.00 / 0)
Is there a reason why every post you have made in this thread has appeared twice?

sPh

[ Parent ]
the irony of course is that its you claiming to know whats in his head (0.00 / 0)
and all I said was look at his actions. or as stoller's title says' believe what you see.  That tells you who he is. Its others who project what they want into what he does and says. I am not asking you to be a profound thinker. i dont think this is particularly profound. that's the source of my frustration. it's civic laziness.

Just pay attention to what they are doing. That's civics 101 taught to me by a white roman catholic republican way back in the 1980s in a small southern town. i am not against conservatives- just what passes for politics now.

Oh, and by the way, I don't have any powers over what this system is doing with my posts. I am clicking once.

[ Parent ]
I said a variation of this at the beginning of Bush's 8 years: (0.00 / 0)
I asked the person I was speaking to to imagine for a moment that we were a nation of deaf mutes( without even the ability to read sign language) and that would mean that the only way to judge someone is by their actions, and if we found ourselves with that disability and consequently by watching and judging Bush I doubt he would have gotten away with 3/4's of what has gone on

Naturally, that presupposes that most people would have paid attention to high school US history, were moderately well informed because of reading ( current events, non-fiction and without a propensity for infotainment)... and that the Congress would have lived up to it's Constitutional responsibilities as well as the Courts...I can dream huh?

It should be the standard for all politicians....judge them by what they do and not their rhetoric... see if their actions match their rhetoric

[ Parent ]
I dont care what they say (0.00 / 0)
Like I said, the biggest problem with what you wrote is contextual. Ignoring rhectoric , I try to look at actions he's taking, what few there are. His actions are speaking to me about who he is. Just as his actions in the primary told me he wouldn't be much better than Clinton in terms of his centrism.  If more Americans did that we wouldn't end up where we find ourselves all to often as a country.
[ Parent ]
There is no forest (0.00 / 0)
only a bunch of trees, standing around in close proximity. Yeah, that's the ticket.

Montani semper liberi
[ Parent ]
I don't think 500 bn/year is a 'depleted' military (4.00 / 1)

[ Parent ]
I'd be interested in seeing (0.00 / 0)
the breakdown of what his budget is going to go to.

Presumably there will be an Iraq Dividend at some point but it may take a year or two to get there. In the meantime, the military is depleted. The Iraq war has seen to that.  

[ Parent ]
The troop rotation is depleted (4.00 / 5)
But there are 10s of billions of dollars wasted every year in the military. Just one example, one navy sub can cost over 1 billion dollars. Anyone worried about the US being attacked by sea these days?

But besides that there's just waste at every level. Witness the plush plane decked out for generals while the privates fly in jump seats. Or the waste in the national guard when troops waste all their ammunition because otherwise their unit would have to send it back (so you first order twice as much as you need, 'just in case'!). Waste like that is everywhere. And did you forget the blackwater, Haliburton, and KBR no-bid contracts?

No, there's plenty of money in the military, it's just horribly horribly wasted.  

[ Parent ]
Which I certainly agree with (0.00 / 0)
I should have been more precise in my wording. Yes, I'm talking primarily about troop levels but also about pretty much anything material that gets used in Iraq.
[ Parent ]
When you publicly swear to do A then you do the opposite... (4.00 / 3)
...it's going to make it pretty likely that people stop taking you at your word.

Especially when the example is a clear cut no-weasel-word thing like the FISA filibuster promise followed by an aye on cloture/passage.

So when faced a broad and somewhat vague statement, I think it's perfectly reasonable to entertain the idea that Obama will do the opposite.

[ Parent ]
the difference between Clinton and Obama on the military (4.00 / 3)
is this.

Clinton attempted to decrease the size of the military and make it more streamlined and technologically advanced, in order to prepare it for the kinds of unconventional security tasks that faced us after the end of the Cold War: peacekeeping missions and counterterrorism.

Obama, on the other hand, advocates strong military buildup for the kinds of conventional wars of occupation we fought in Vietnam and now in Iraq. It is the Cold War mentality of dominance revived again, thanks to Bush, and Obama has no problem with it at all.


[ Parent ]
BUT.... (0.00 / 0)
I do think you'll see an Obama administration aiming for a good deal of technological advancement militarily and commercially.

Do we know where any of the VP candidates stand on technology infrastructure issues?

QT

Visit the Obama Project


WindOnWater.net



[ Parent ]
How much is that technology needed? (4.00 / 1)
Most forces the US faces on the battlefield are still likely to be equipped with AK-47s and maybe the odd RPG. Established states or rebel groups with particularly good infrastructure may also have SAMs, outdated Russian tanks and maybe a few ancient MiGs or equivalent. IEDs are an issue, but the counter-measures are relatively simple.

The US has the ordnance it needs to take out all of those easily. Greater technology would only really be of much use in surveillance (which is already pretty damn good) and infrastructure.

But a lot of tech money is going to be spent on unnecessary programs, to appease generals living in the past or to provide pork for vulnerable congressmen.

The US military could stand to cut back heavily, and R&D is no exception. Occupation hasn't worked as a doctrine. The US needs a smaller, more efficient force which is designed to work multilaterally. It does not need grandson of Star Wars.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

[ Parent ]
I don't see that at all (0.00 / 0)
I'd need some evidence before I believe that Obama wants to go back to conventional warfare. It's entirely inconsistent with his public pronouncements, in particular the recent lengthly interview he gave to Fareed Z.
[ Parent ]
in his essay in Foreign Affairs (4.00 / 3)
he explicitly promises to increase the size of the military:

We should expand our ground forces by adding 65,000 soldiers to the army and 27,000 marines.

Clinton made modest cuts the weapons budget in his time in office. Obama has voted to fund the war in Iraq during his time in the Senate, despite his earlier opposition.

Obama pays lip service to creating a more streamlined military, trying diplomacy, etc. But he paid lip service to restoring the rule of law and opposing immunity for the telecoms, and look how that turned out.

His actual actions show no sign of desiring to significantly roll back Bush's agenda.

It's not so much that Bill Clinton was more liberal because he was so much more courageous than Obama; they are very similar in their desire to compromise and make only very modest, tiny reforms.

It's just that the "center" has moved so far to the right in eight years of Bush, that anyone who is a "centrist" will be dealing with a much more radical starting point than Clinton was, and so will be advancing a much more radical agenda.


[ Parent ]
the VP has now become (4.00 / 1)
a springboard to the presidency, so any VP candidates are looked upon as potential presidential candidates.

And Kaine doesn't fit that bill, nor Sebelius. Nor anyone else on the list, for that matter.

The problem is the field is weak. Thanks to eight years of Bush and the cowardice of the Democrats, no one has emerged as a rising star of the party who might be president eight or twelve years down the road. Except Obama himself, and he decided to take his shot at the big brass ring now, since the current political mood is well-suited to his combination of soaring, hopeful rhetoric and moderate, conventional positions.

So Obama's VP, whomever it may be, may well not be running for president in his/her own right once Obama is done.

Warner n/t (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Obama's comments are vague and nondescript (4.00 / 1)
I agree with Stoller that whoever picks as VP is a decent clue to where Obama's politics are.  But his politics right now are geared toward one thing: getting elected.  that's the only relevant political issue for every politician in the country running for office right now.  When Obama becomes President, everything changes, especially if Obama wins by a healthy margin along with big pick ups in the senate and house. Our focus should be on moving the Overton window as far left as possible until January 2009 and beyond.  Getting candidates like Darcy Burner and Jeff Merkely elected is the best way to hold Obama accountable because we know they will be effective champions of our voice, just as Donna Edwards already has been.  

Obama is a transformative political campaigner that will govern like a transactional politician.  Make peace with that and anything is possible.  

Bayh (0.00 / 0)
Bayh would be awesome. Fits right in with Obama's ideas on health care.
Yes because going from (0.00 / 0)
an unregulated, moral and practical travesty of a system spiralling further down the toilet by the nanosecond but defended by the deepest of pockets to something almost diametrically opposite would somehow be an unredeemable failure and act of right-wing treachery because a rather tiny percentage of citizens will be given the choice to opt out.
[ Parent ]
Messages in Trial Balloons (4.00 / 1)
Rather than assume these leaks are unplanned - something entirely out of character for the Obama campaign so far - why not assume they are deliberate?

There are only two reasons one would do this deliberately - sending out a trial balloon to help vet a candidate or to try and get some political gain from seeming to be considering a choice for a particular group or region.  

Matt puzzled over the fact that Webb was included on the list even though he said he was not interested. If you view the list as a "leak" then this makes no sense or shows desperation as Matt argues.

Maybe it just means they are playing all the angles in Virginia and want people to take seriously the idea that Obama will contest the state and the region.

It does not mean he will govern as a conservative democrat nor that Kaine is even really being seriously considered. He may or he may not do either, but this is not good evidence for it either way.

Obama will be to the left of Clinton... (4.00 / 3)
...on trade. And gay marriage. And probably enegry policy. But that has a lot more to do with changing times than with Obama's own liberal slant.  

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra
this argument is not logically sound (0.00 / 0)
 we have no reason to trust that what Obama says in this campaign is what he intends to do as President.

Well, all right. So we can't trust anything Obama says. But then, why would we trust his choice for VP? If Obama is utterly untrustworthy, as you seem to claim, doesn't it make more sense to analyze his moves in the campaign as being merely in the service of getting elected? If he said he'd filibuster FISA/immunity in the primary to win the primary, doesn't that imply he voted for FISA/immunity in the context of the general campaign in order to win the general? But that wouldn't tell us anything about how he'd govern.

By your own logic, we can't read anything into Obama's choice of Kaine for VP (if he even chooses him!).

Now, technically your one and your two are contradictory. (0.00 / 0)
I don't think that's true for three reasons.  One, Obama has consistently said he's picking a VP candidate based on how that candidate will help him govern.  Two, we have no reason to trust that what Obama says in this campaign is what he intends to do as President.

If we can't trust anything Obama says for the last three and next three months (and to a large extent, you're right, we can't, though that's hardly unusual), then we also aren't obligated to believe him when he says he wants someone who can help him govern.  Maybe he really does just want to lock up Virginia, which of course he would never ever ever say in public if it were true ("I'm choosing a dangerously underprepared person to be Vice-President, because I want to win Virginia"...  good luck with that).

So, the "governing" thing may be true, or may just be blowing smoke.  We don't know yet until he picks someone.

You can't really argue though that we have to believe him on that comment, but that we can't believe him on other comments (to the effect that he'll govern as a progressive).    Because then you're only choosing to believe Obama when it helps make your point, and deliberately disbelieving him when that helps your point.  

Bad combination of arguments.

clarification (0.00 / 0)
I thought that might be confusing, so I added an update.  Either take him at his word or don't, but if you take him at his word on policy you have to take him at his word on why he's choosing his VP.
[ Parent ]
Help him govern, not set policy (4.00 / 1)
Obama has said that his VP will help him govern, not set policy. So take him at his word.
[ Parent ]
govern (0.00 / 0)
What do you think govern means?
[ Parent ]
Oops, kjblair beat me to the punch (0.00 / 0)
See below for my definition of "govern"
[ Parent ]
Precisely so! (0.00 / 0)
[ Parent ]
Helping Obama govern (0.00 / 0)
I still question your apparent interpretation of what Obama meant by a VP who can "help him govern."  (see my post above)

Why do you take this to mean that Obama would cede part of the substance of his policy agenda to a VP, rather than part of the process of governing?

I interpret it in the latter way.  In particular, I'm thinking back to the debate (I forget which of the twenty-freaking-two it was) where he described himself as a big-picture guy who thought administrative details weren't part of the presidential job description.  Maybe, in light of this comment, Obama wants a VP-as-deputy, rather than a VP-as-Jr.-President.

[ Parent ]
huh? (4.00 / 1)
here's what he said:

"I think the most important thing, from my perspective, is somebody who can help me govern," Obama said. "I want somebody who I'm compatible with, who I can work with, who has a shared vision, who certainly complements me, in the sense that they provide a knowledge base or an area of expertise that can be useful. Because we're going to have a lot of problems and a lot of work to do."

He says he's looking for someone who will be compatible to him and compliments him with governs. No where does he say he wants someone to simply be an adminstrator to help him run things, but someone who agrees with him. Either Kaine's approach agrees with how Obama intends to govern, or this is a mistatement about what Obama meant to say. Both can't be true. Your interpretation can't be the correct one.

[ Parent ]
And I'm asking ... (0.00 / 0)
... why do you assume that's substantial rather than procedural compatibility he's talking about?

Remember, most of his "vision" has been an argument about process, about "how business gets done in Washington."

[ Parent ]
Because presidencies aren't run on procedure (0.00 / 0)
the primary reason why I find your comment confusing is that this isn't what American presiddencies are about; They set the agenda. When one talks of them governing, one is talking about idealogical believes. They aren't  either constitutionally or in terms of our tradition as a country administrators as you seem to be defining it.  this again is going outside of the rhectoric and putting it in context. Whereas you seem to be taking it out of context and placing your own meaning behind it.
[ Parent ]
Because presidencies aren't run on procedure (0.00 / 0)
the primary reason why I find your comment confusing is that this isn't what American presiddencies are about; They set the agenda. When one talks of them governing, one is talking about idealogical believes. They aren't  either constitutionally or in terms of our tradition as a country administrators as you seem to be defining it.  this again is going outside of the rhectoric and putting it in context. Whereas you seem to be taking it out of context and placing your own meaning behind it.
[ Parent ]
I know we're on an ideological site, ... (0.00 / 0)
... but Obama's campaign just isn't about ideology.  It's about process.  He says it over and over again.

Why can no one take him at his word when he says he wants competing views around his White House?  That doesn't mean they set the agenda.  I mean, he was a professor of ConLaw.  ConLaw, to take a (justifiably) cynical view, is all about staking out a position that does the minimum to account for interpretations that differ from your own.  This, in turn, allows you (rhetorically) to establish your decision as depersonalized and rational.  In this case, it's a way of establishing liberally-spun policy as "centrist"; which means that the more business-like the veep, no matter how centrist he or she may be, the more can be accomplished.

My personal take on "The Audacity of Hope" is that he's saying: let's forget about riding the political pendulum-swing back leftward as far as we can, and let's worry instead about shifting the fulcrum of that pendulum to the left.

[ Parent ]
Ok, and this is it: (0.00 / 0)
Think about Reagan.  He was far from ideologically pure.  I mean he appointed two of the justices who are keeping the Supreme Court from tilting into wingnuttery, but there's no question that he prepared the country for decades of center-right norms--a gain that Bush has more-or-less squandered.
[ Parent ]
you are projecting (4.00 / 1)
and i can't really argue with someone who is. the fact is if you were right then he wouldn't be making the same choices as every other centrists as made before him. that's the test of whether you are right- does he do something that's unexpected and diffrent from what the centrists has done. you can talk until you are blue about how you feel he's different. i am about the actions. he doesn't need to always choose progressive, but when its clear nearly every chance he gets to demonstrate how he will govern diffrently- he chooses the centrist approach- well that says a lot more than all your explainations what you think it all means. i dont need your interpretation. i trust my own eyes.
[ Parent ]
you are projecting (0.00 / 0)
and i can't really argue with someone who is. the fact is if you were right then he wouldn't be making the same choices as every other centrists as made before him. that's the test of whether you are right- does he do something that's unexpected and diffrent from what the centrists has done. you can talk until you are blue about how you feel he's different. i am about the actions. he doesn't need to always choose progressive, but when its clear nearly every chance he gets to demonstrate how he will govern diffrently- he chooses the centrist approach- well that says a lot more than all your explainations what you think it all means. i dont need your interpretation. i trust my own eyes.
[ Parent ]
At this point, to the extent that he really is "different" (4.00 / 1)
I'd say that it's in terms of competence, not policy or ideology. As a campaigner, he's clearly very competent. As a senator, not bad for a rookie, could be better. As a president, he appears to be smart enough to do a very competent job. Style and competency-wise, he seems to be a cut or two above today's tired old pols on both sides. Policy-wise, I don't see all that much that's "different". He is not a Feingold, Sanders or Kucinich. He's basically a Democratic Bloomberg--a smart and competent centrist, with some left-leaning views, as opposed to a buffonish conservative (Bush) or a weak-kneed limousine liberal (Pelosi).

And, actually, competence would be a refreshing change from the status quo. McCain would be a disaster. But the idea that he's "different" in other, more ideological ways, is simply unsupportable by the facts. Words don't make one a progressive. Actions do. And they're lacking in him right now. He can change that, but that's in the future.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

[ Parent ]
Kovie and Bruh (0.00 / 0)
... read my lips:  Barack Obama isn't interested in ideology--as invested as we all may be in it, we cannot project this interest onto Obama.

I've read his books, his legislation, and he's been my political representative on the state and federal levels.  I'm trying to say something about how he thinks, based on that experience, and all anyone wants to talk about is ideology: i.e., what he thinks.

You're kidding yourself if you think you know what he thinks.  This is politics ... and politics in a volatile political time, at that.  Gimme a break!

[ Parent ]
Um, I said nothing of the sort (0.00 / 0)
So perhaps you don't know and how what I think?

I'm TRYING to figure out what and how he thinks--not saying that I HAVE figured it out.

Big difference.

And obviously he has some sort of guiding ideology, even if he might not think of or call it as such. Everyone does. What it actually is, is anyone's guess. But no one operates in an ideology-free space. I don't see how that's possible.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

[ Parent ]
incidentally and then I am going to leave this alone (0.00 / 0)
the idea that he's just talking procedural is kind of bogus just on his choice of picks not just for this role but for others. clearly he's choosing them on the basis of some standard other than can they do the job well and follow his orders. he's also picking them based on other criteria as well. as kovie so eloquently describes below, and i dont really feel like repeating so read that comment.
[ Parent ]
huh? (0.00 / 0)
here's what he said:

"I think the most important thing, from my perspective, is somebody who can help me govern," Obama said. "I want somebody who I'm compatible with, who I can work with, who has a shared vision, who certainly complements me, in the sense that they provide a knowledge base or an area of expertise that can be useful. Because we're going to have a lot of problems and a lot of work to do."

He says he's looking for someone who will be compatible to him and compliments him with governs. No where does he say he wants someone to simply be an adminstrator to help him run things, but someone who agrees with him. Either Kaine's approach agrees with how Obama intends to govern, or this is a mistatement about what Obama meant to say. Both can't be true. Your interpretation can't be the correct one.

[ Parent ]
Update is good. (0.00 / 0)
Wasn't calling you a bad person, just saying the argument as written didn't quite work right.  It's much better now.

In the end I think we can't take candidates' word as anything more than a very rough guide to what they might do -- and even then only because having said something in the past constrains what they can do publicly in the future just a bit.  That goes for Obama, both Clintons, Pelosi, Edwards, et al.  

That's why looking at advisers is so much funner, and why the VP selection really is a big tell.  Not because of any particular thing the candidate said about what he's looking for in a VP, but just because the VP is the biggest single "staff pick" we have to look at.  Until the cabinet is staffed anyway.

[ Parent ]
Obama's overall positions on governing were always fairly obvious (4.00 / 1)
The only thing he has changed is a procedural motion on fairly specific language that his campaign manager said for something that didn't even make a difference either way.  And thats simply a part of jockeying in the senate.

So, one should not infer too much about how obama tends to govern from his vp pick because by now you should have a pretty good idea of how he will govern.

And what should you expect out of his government?  Reforms that help a lot of people and that are also very popular among both conservatives and democrats.

Its a horrible prospect I know.

The liberal wiki
Send an email to terra@liberalwiki.com

It's impossible to take Obama at his word at this point (4.00 / 4)
given all that we've seen and heard from him this year. In fact, it's absurd to take him at his word at this point. Not just over FISA, but over all the maneuvering and re-maneuvering on his AIPAC speech, Iraq, Iran, NAFTA, social security, etc. Considering how he's shifted around on these and other important issues, and his glaring flip-flop on FISA, he has given us not only no reason to trust his word, but not way to even know what he's saying, since he seems to be changing it as he goes along.

To some extent, I'm willing to give him a pass on this given that presidential contenders invariably do this when shifting from primary to general election mode, as well as within each of these phases of a presidential election. And to some extent, I'm also willing to give him a pass given that politicians do refine their positions as they familiarity and experience with various issues evolve, and as the issues themselves and day to day reality evolve.

But there comes a point when you've got to say Whoa!, what does this guy really believe and intend to do? And honestly, I find it hard to figure this out about Obama, at least from his words. So I'm left with his actions, which to me tell me a lot more about his beliefs and intentions than his words. And it's not entirely encouraging. FISA, for starters, is a big one. His pick of advisors is another, as will be his VP pick. Furman, Goolsbee, Sunstein, Lake, etc., are not exactly progressives. Even Power is to the right of many progressives. Obama, at least as judged by his actions, is to the right of most folks here. It's simply undeniable on the facts.

The real question is how far to the right of progressives is he, and how far to the right will be govern? To the extent that he has one, where does his core political and policy ideology lie? Or is he more of a pragmatist, just trying to get things done, and even if so, according to what guiding principles, goals and MO? As far as I can see, based on his actions, he's a centrist progressive establishmentarian, i.e. someone who wants to move the country forward out of its troubles, but in a small-c conservative, centrist, moderate manner, working with rather than against the power establishment to move things forward.

This sounds like a contradiction, but what most people here call progressivism is really more of a radical kind of progressivism that seeks to fundamentally or massively change the way things are done in the US (e.g. universal healthcare, ending neocolonialism be it of the neocon or neolib kind, conversion to a non-fossil fuel economy, etc.), as opposed to the more incremental kind that the power elite--or at least its more moderate and left-leaning members--have sought to implement (e.g. nudging the minimum wage up, expanding SCHIP, transitioning our presence in Iraq from primary to advisory, etc.). Basically, "our" kind of progressivism--i.e. fast and major--is more like that of Bernie Sanders or Dennis Kucinich's, whereas "establishment progressivism"--i.e. slow and incremental--is more like Cantwell's or Pelosi's. And Obama fully appears to be in the latter camp--at best.

And I only added the "at best" qualifier because I, like everyone else, have no idea how he'd actually govern as president, and have to make my best guess. But based on his actions, I'm fairly comfortable in saying that he is a progressive, just not "our" kind of progressive. I.e. he wants to improve the same things that we want to improve, but far more cautiously, slowly and incrementally that we would, and in a way that aligns with, not threatens or opposes, the power establishment. This doesn't make him a true conservative in an ideological big-C sense, but it does make him a conservative in a stylistic and political MO small-c sense.

However, just because I can no longer believe what he says, and don't like his political style and operational conservatism, doesn't mean that I view him as equal to McCain or even the least ideologically scary Repub who might have run against him. Far, far from it. He's not the president that I would have wanted, but he's clearly the president that I still overwhelmingly prefer over anyone that the other side could have offered up. He's clearly not our kind of progressive. But he is certainly not a Republican or big-C Conservative, and is unlikely to govern as such. Perhaps I'm arguing with straw men here, but it annoys me to hear people call him a stealth Republican, just because he's not our kind of progressive. He's neither--he's an establishmentarian incrementalist.

The real question isn't who and what he is, but how much courage, smarts and tenacity he'll prove to have as president, if he wins, on a policy and political level. How far and fast will he try to take things, and how effective will he prove to be at it? There are some reasons to feel encouraged, and some reasons not to. Of course, there are no reasons to feel encouraged about a McCain presidency, and no end of reasons to feel discouraged about one. Obama's obviously by far the better choice. He's just not the choice that we would have wanted.

So it goes...

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

I agree with you post, but think the point is to get progressives to understand (4.00 / 3)
what Obama is and isn't so that they can be prepared to fight for the things that will needed to be fought for rather than believing the marketing over change and a different kind of politics when in fact as you say he means a little change and very much the same old politics.
[ Parent ]
I honestly can't read this guy (4.00 / 2)
Sometimes I think that I can, and sometimes I think that I'm just kidding myself. Anyone who thinks that they know what he's really about--good or bad--is just kidding themselves. He's a master cipher, and it's intentional. He might not even know himself what he's about and wants and intends and is willing to do. The blank slate might be two-faced here. Which can be good, or bad. We won't know till we know. We just know that the upside potential with him appears to be much higher than with McCain, and the downside potential much lower. He's simply the better bet, but by now means a sure thing in terms of bringing about the sort of change that we actually believe in (heh). That's how politics--like life--usually works.

My gut feeling is that he wants to do a lot of good, and has some idea of what that means and will entail, but will only push as hard as he thinks is possible under current circumstances, without forcing an open and nasty confrontation. He's not about confrontation. He's about smart accomodation. That's what FISA was all about. Give some here to get some later. Whether that's smart or cowardly is to be determined. He's certainly smart. We just don't know if he's smart enough to do with finesse what he seems constitutionally incapable of or unwilling to do with political brawn. He can certainly do various things to set things up such that less confrontation might be needed. But that only takes you so far. At a certain point, you just have to go head to head, and he's yet to show that he can and is willing to do this.

Even he doesn't know, I suspect. The Obama that we're hoping for might not even exist yet. He might have to grow into it, be forced into it, learn how to become it--and part of that has to do with being pressured--by us, among others--to do so. This is where I passionately disagree with the "Leave him alone or he will LOSE" Kool Aid-drinking pony-chasing crowd over at DKos (who strangely seem to have quieted down of late). If we push him hard and smart enough, he might just govern progressively enough. If we don't, there are many reasons to believe that he might not. Like I said, a cipher.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

[ Parent ]
What will he get later? (4.00 / 1)
> He's not about confrontation. He's about
> smart accomodation. That's what FISA was
> all about. Give some here to get some later.

That is what the Democratic leadership said at the time too.  I have yet to figure out what the compromise was or what we will "get later".

Compromise is only good when it is smart compromise and the other party gives something up.  Entering a negotiation by saying "I can work with all your demands" is not a good tactic or strategy.

sPh

[ Parent ]
well-said (0.00 / 0)
I am in agreement: Obama is a total cipher, and trying to fathom his motives is an utter waste of time.

As to whether he has gone "head to head", as you put it: he has, in fact. At one point in his early career, when he was running for the IL state senate, an incumbent reneged on her promise to step down and allow him to run for the open seat. He had his people challenge the legitimacy of the signatures she had been required to collect to get on the ballot, and managed to get her and all his opponents thrown off.

But the key point there is that he was only playing hardball for himself and his own interests. The question is whether he'll play hardball for our interests, even if it risks harming him politically. And I have never seen any indication that he will.

My take on Obama is this: most politicians choose their policy goals after study and thought on the issues, then compromise only as much as is necessary to achieve some reasonable approximation of those goals in reality.

Obama is fundamentally different from that model. He seeks compromise not as a means to an end, but as an end in itself. When he works towards a policy goal, he is not searching for the best policy, but what he thinks will please the largest number of people, irrespective of whether it serves the interests of the people.

By nature, he seems to want to avoid any conflict of any kind and possesses a great need to please. Not a need to win love (like Bill Clinton) but a need to please, in and of itself.

His political strategy is consistent with this nature: he seeks to present himself as a nice guy whom everyone agrees with, while quietly currying favor from the powerful people whose support is needed for his advancement. As a student of Alinsky, he knows to go where the power is, and not to waste time with those who don't have power.

I see him as a sleepwalker. In order to please the powerful people who can help him get ahead, he is capable of doing horrific things that go totally against his previous statements, like supporting and voting to legalize Bush's illegal wiretapping program. And I am absolutely certain that he doesn't even see any contradiction between his actions and his words. He just does what's required of him and doesn't question it.

To make things worse, he is so smart and articulate that he can readily sell people on anything through the sheer strength of his rhetoric and charisma alone. It is this that makes him potentially very dangerous.

For it's clear that the forces that run this country, the military-security-industrial complex and the dirty energy corporations and the financial sector and the telecoms, want the Unitary Executive to continue after Bush has left.

In this regard Obama would make an ideal spokesman for them and their interests, better even than Bush. For whereas Bush has objectionable personal qualities--an undisguisable cruelty and mendacity--that arouse opposition and distrust, Obama has none. He's not malicious or mean, and he exudes sincerity and good will. Nor does he have Bush's various psychological hangups.

The trillion-dollar question is: is he's as pliable and accommodating as they think he is? So far, the evidence seems to indicate that he may well be.

If what happened with FISA is any indication, here's what an Obama presidency will be like.

  1. Lobbyists bribe and corrupt key Democratic leaders, like Hoyer and Rockefeller, to write a bill favorable to their interests.
  2. The bill comes up for a vote. The progressive Democrats object to it, and the bill is stalled.
  3. Obama praises the bill, which gives the lobbyists even more than they asked for, as a "bipartisan compromise" and gives speeches to the American public in support of it.
  4. Obama's support blunts some of the public's opposition to the bill, enough to allow the Democratic leaders to force their caucus into line and pass the bill.

I suspect this pattern will be repeated over and over again, on Iraq, health care, the environment, the economy--all the most important issues of the day.

As to the hope that Obama could learn--I don't really think there's anything to influence, not in the way you might wish. He's not fundamentally proactive, but reactive. He waits to see what's popular, then takes a position on it that he sees as the exact center.

If public outcry did become very big, he might take some token measures to try to quiet it. But he wouldn't have the confidence or vision needed to take really bold and unconventional steps to address the problem, because he wouldn't want to offend the powerful corporate interests which infest our politics.

That's my take on it. I frankly get a little nauseous trying to understand what goes on inside Obama's head, but this is as close as I can come to trying to fathom him.


[ Parent ]
I agree with you post, but think the point is to get progressives to understand (0.00 / 0)
what Obama is and isn't so that they can be prepared to fight for the things that will needed to be fought for rather than believing the marketing over change and a different kind of politics when in fact as you say he means a little change and very much the same old politics.
[ Parent ]
Believing Your Lying Eyes | 106 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox

Powered by: SoapBlox