Radical centricism. Thank you, John Judis, for finally giving name to my problem with the Obama campaign.

Just for the record, Obama has declared that his top three priorities as President would be:

1) End War in Iraq
2) Universal Health Care
3) Energy and Climate Change

http://news.rgj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080115/VIDEO/80115026
http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2007/12/obamas_top_priority_energy_pol.html

Remember Lakoff? Framing? I think the whole unity shtick is a framing exercise. Disagree with subsidized health insurance? Then you're standing in the way of unity! (I think the actual execution would be more artful, but you get the idea). Conservatives at places like the Corner get this; they ruefully complain that "unity" is a stalking horse for "liberal agenda."

Conservtives at the Corner thought McCain was a stalking horse for the liberal agenda (he admits global warming is real!

The problem is that Obama could be the most popular president ever and he would still not have any pull in Texas, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Idaho, Wyoming, Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina, etc.

You can believe, as Mark Schmitt has eloquently argued, that his emphasis on unity is part of a larger theory dedicated to achieving legislative change. Or you can believe that Obama thinks polarization is an actual problem to be solved and he means to conduct his presidency in such a way as to render our politics less divided.

Yes. You can then ask, what has Obama said that his priorities will be when he enters office?

Obama, as Korha says, has listed progressive programs, not centrist reforms, as his priorities.

Does anyone have a counter-citation for Obama saying that sweeping ethic reform will be his first priority?

And I'm not even sure Obama himself knows, or even can know.

Now there's a great reason to vote for the guy.

"Hi, I don't know how to govern in the manner I preach, and there's no way I can learn. Vote for me anyway!"

Cal, do not be concerned. The wisdom and intuitive judgment of Obama is infinite and supreme. Once he is elected, he will simply know what is right and we will likewise know that he is right Look at the article in today’s LA Times: All the right wingers are voting for Obama because….. well, even after reading the article, I still do not know why but it does not matter because once Obama is President, he will speak to the people and they will follow him. Somewhere.
Also, do not blaspheme! Didn’t Obama just demonstrate his awesome power by causing a solar eclipse (or maybe it was a lunar eclipse)? Anyway, never forget that he has the power to blot out the sun, or, as I say, maybe it is the moon the he can blot out. Still, it is a major accomplishment on his part and you have to respect him for it.

I know thos may come off presumptious, when we don't even have a democratic nominee, if Obama win the general should meet with dem leaders in formulating an agenda. As much as I like Obama, he can overboard with bashing Washington. He may end up alienating the Dems. I say that because the Dem leaders including Clinton were not out there to pick a fight with the Republicans. They truly believe in bipartisanship but the right wing have been inflexible.

I should have edited this.

I know thos may come off presumptious, when we don't even have a democratic nominee, if Obama win[s] the general, he should meet with Dem leaders in formulating an agenda. As much as I like Obama, he can [go] overboard with bashing Washington. He may end up alienating Dems. I say that because the Dem leaders including Clinton were not out there to pick a fight with the Republicans. They truly believe in bipartisanship but the right wing have been inflexible.

I'm continually astonished by the number of people who seem to believe Obama plans to lead the entire Congress in some gigantic hold-hands/kumbayah chant. Radical centrism. Get a grip.

Obama is very bright, and a very skilled pol, clearly. Is there any question about either of these statements at this point?

I think this isn't about anything more sophisticated than gathering 60+ Senators he can work with. Full stop.

"You can believe" "Or you can believe"

Very good description of the Obama "change" and "unity" programs. It's all a matter of beliefs. Because Obama never gave a definition of his understanding of the phrases. And now allegedly intelligent people are seriously talking about theitr tea leave readings or the insights they got from their crystal balls, instead of asking the candidate: Hey, wait a moment, what exactly do you mean by "change" and "unity"?

Don't Obama followers notice how ridiculous all this is?`Beliefs are no substitute for knowledge. And if Obama won'z give clear answers to his supporters, this should show them he has something to hide.

Radical Centrism

Wow, what an extremely poor reading of Obama. For a more well thought out view, read George Lakoff's No Center, No Centrists:

...And there are lots of folks who are what I've called "biconceptuals": progressive on certain issue areas and conservative on others. But they don't form a linear scale...

Barack Obama has it right: Get rid of the very idea of the right and the left and the center. American ideas are fundamentally progressive ideas -- the ideas this country was founded on and that carry forth that spirit. Progressives care about people and the earth, and act with responsibility and strength on that care...

I've pretty much been hoping that Mark Schmitt is right. But I admit, it's an easy choice because I already viewed Hillary as being too corporate oriented to enact any real change. Obama could be more of the same, but there's no chance for change with Clinton.

Things really are so bad that we are in need of very serious reforms. We may not get them any time soon, but we really need to start prioritizing them over the lame culture-war battles of the last few decades. We are simply not going to get anything done with things polarized along these lines. I hope Obama can polarize this country strongly in favor of him and reform.

you know this idea was good the first time around back in 1992, and I expect the same level of sucess

FDR may not have gotten Republican pols behind him, but plenty of Republican votes went into those landslide victories. He didn't win by trying to flog the dead Woodrow Wilson coalition back to life. He galvanized the country around new ideas.

All Obama has done is try and tell people who think the Republican party is too far right for them that they could join us. That it would be ok. Many of these people would have preferred to be with us for a long time. Hell, many of them are more liberal than the life-long Dems I know. The Lincoln Chage's of the world are the ones being courted here, not the Strom Thurmonds.

Bill Clinton tried to woo old-line conservative Dems back to the party in 1992. Thats not whats going on here, and those folks wouldn't be voting for Obama. This isn't 1992

Lincoln Chafe, obviously.

Oh my!

It seems there is a strong whiff of buyers' remorse starting to rise up. Watch this space for more!

Some quick points:

If ethics reform ascends to the top of Obama's agenda, say good bye to meaningful healthcare reform. Ezra wrote the book on this with his review of what went wrong with the Clinton healthcare program back in 1994.

Which causes me to echo DivGuy's request:

"Does anyone have a counter-citation for Obama saying that sweeping ethic reform will be his first priority?"

honestpartisan says:

"Remember Lakoff? Framing? I think the whole unity shtick is a framing exercise."

Or it might be that what you're seeing is what you're going to get: a policy and legislative lightweight. Or, as Ezra puts it in his previous blog post:

"Seen through this lens, the problem with Obama isn't that he's less experienced than Hillary, but that he's inexperienced, full stop."

Well, the quote is actually from Kevin Drum. But as Ezra makes clear, he "side[s]" with Kevin on the experience issue.

My friends, Ezra in particular is developing an accelerating case of buyers' remorse.

Jake says:

"Obama is very bright, and a very skilled pol, clearly. Is there any question about either of these statements at this point?"

Yup.

Funny how one man's dogmas are another man's dubious propositions.

soullite says:

"But I admit, it's an easy choice because I already viewed Hillary as being too corporate oriented to enact any real change. Obama could be more of the same, but there's no chance for change with Clinton."

Funny how one man's* dogmas are another man's dubious propositions.

*I apologize if soullite is a woman. I can't tell from the name. I'll assume I got the gender right in Jake's case. And, oh yes, I'm a guy, as my nom de blog would suggest.

P.S. soullite, it's Lincoln Chafee.

So what do you question billyblog, that he's a skilled pol? You do appreciate that what he's accomplished to date wrt HRC is no small feat, don't you? Who has run the better campaign to this stage?

One of the reasons I am concerned- more so than what he means- is the cockiness exuded by someone like Jake. I can only hope obama isn't as stupid as his supporters seem to be about what has happened and what one can glean from it.

But with Obama, there's a particular tension in his rhetoric.

One could also take a look at how he as tried to legislate in the past to determine how he will attempt to match words to deeds. It would seem to be a much better approach to deducing how Obama will govern based on what he's already tried to accomplish rather than limiting speculation solely to his rhetoric.

It seems there is a strong whiff of buyers' remorse starting to rise up.

That's playing fast and loose with the term, methinks. That doesn't seem to be an accurate label for the sentiment Ezra expressed in the post: "It'll only be when [Obama] has to actually make the trade-offs between who he wants to be, what he wants to achieve, and what he's willing to sacrifice that he'll really have to figure this out."

That sounds more like a hypothetical about Obama's first 100 days than regret at which candidate is now the Democratic front-runner.

Bill, I did make it pretty clear I was speaking from my own suppositions. You may find them dubious, I don't. Do you really expect me to give your judgment more weight than my own?

I made it clear that there were reasons why this was an easier call for me to make than it was for some of the others. I explained my reasons. You don't have to accept them, but don't pretend I packaged them as gospel.

I'm curious why you see only two possible ways in which some sort of post-partisan unity could work. At the levels of state and local government, where problems are more concretely defined and less ideological, records of cooperation are much greater than at the level of national politics. As the workplace becomes less important as a site of political action, these types of intimate interactions of people who live in the same place, yet may differ in social status and beliefs, are becoming more fundamental.

However, I think that there are plenty of examples, especially from outside American politics, of cooperation between parties of opposing ideologies. Usually this means that the concerns of the minority party will be addressed within the context of the majority's reforms, and that the minority will participate in the administration of the reforms. Indeed, you could not explain the conservative turn of Germany's National Liberals without noting that conservative governments "kept them busy" with the details of administration.

If anything, Obama seems to be exploiting a narrow window of opportunity among people of both parties who fear losing a seat at the table.

All those people making up shit about what the times are, and yes, most of it is just shit I feel you are making up, provide the polling data that this is where people. Please don't resort, as others have- well he's winning that means that people support what he's saying or even understand it. If what you say is true you should be able to prove it. I know this isn't talk left or open left, but really this is silly on its face, especially the posts by soullite and nath-- you should be able to prove your claims. Look at Bush for why these arguments are false- popularity doesn't mean people know what they are buying into. 2004 should have taught you that if nothing else. to be honest, I expect deflection on this question, but it really would raise the level of commentary here if you didn't just make baseless claims.

You're right! In the world of politics, there has never been a coalition.

Caring about the procedures by which political will is translated into law is not radical centrism. Caring about reforming a clearly dysfunctional public culture is not "radical centrism."

This is just a fundamental misperception of Obama's position.

His #2 priority is universal health care?

Very strange, since he's proposing NON-universal health care.

Very strange, since he's proposing NON-universal health care.

Neither is Clinton.

Look at Bush for why these arguments are false- popularity doesn't mean people know what they are buying into. 2004 should have taught you that if nothing else. to be honest, I expect deflection on this question, but it really would raise the level of commentary here if you didn't just make baseless claims.

Your argument was fine up until you got to this point. You claim that popularity doesn't signal familiarity with the issues a candidate is running on. Bush's elections don't really support your claim.

In 2000, people could easily identify what Bush said he stood for (e.g. tax cuts, small government, isolationism). That he pursued a different agenda has nothing to do with issues of popularity or voter familiarity.

His 2004 re-election might even refute your argument. It's hard to say that after being in office for four years, people wouldn't know what he would do with the next four. They probably received exactly what they asked for.

The question of Obama's beliefs and whether people know and understand them is an entirely separate matter.

I think Obama will actually move to the left when he's elected and not be as centrist as he is claiming.

"It's hard to say that after [Bush was] in office for four years, people wouldn't know what he would do with the next four."

Bush's approval ratings have dropped an aweful lot since he was re-elected. That suggests that Bush hasn't lived up to the expectations of everyone who voted for him in 2004.

"His #2 priority is universal health care?

Very strange, since he's proposing NON-universal health care."

Excellent point, Denise.

"I think Obama will actually move to the left when he's elected and not be as centrist as he is claiming."

So, left-leaning democrats are to hope for this move, while swing-voters (who'd otherwise go for McCain) are to fear it. Going after both kinds of voters in the general election, Obama may end up with neither.

"Wow, what an extremely poor reading of Obama. For a more well thought out view, read George Lakoff's No Center, No Centrists"

And here they go again, the Obama mindreaders! For heaven's sake, isn't it obvious that it should be the candidate's damn duty to clearly say what he stands for, and not to be so vague that hords of "pundits" contradict each other when trying to make sense of his stamtents?

This stinks!
Imho, this is confusion by desing. The Obama camapign knows perfectly well that most people will project their own desires onto Obama's mushy slogans. And when Obama becomes elected, he can't be held accountable for that the actual "change" isn't what people expected. He never made any clear cut promises about "change" and "unity", after all!

Not a bad strategy, but I really wonder why even supposedly intelligent people fall for this.
:-|

"That suggests that Bush hasn't lived up to the expectations of everyone who voted for him in 2004."

Let's not speak about those damn fools. I just had a heated discussion at scholarsandrogues with a Nader defender. Grrr...

1) End War in Iraq
2) Universal Health Care
3) Energy and Climate Change

One could also take a look at how he as tried to legislate in the past to determine how he will attempt to match words to deeds.

UnAndrew, judging Obama with your criteria leaves him well short of advancing any of his three primary goals. In some cases, he actually impeded progress at the behest of insurance and energy lobbies while in the state legislature. Also, Obama has introduced no legislation calling for hard timelines for withdrawal or defunding the Iraq war. The one piece of legislation he introduced, S.433 has been languishing in committee since January 2007 even though it called for redeployment to begin in May of that year.

The "Record" section of his website certainly pales in comparison to the "Plan" section.

I knew you would do this. People voting for you isn't a coalition. A coalition is a group of people who ultimately agree with it each other on the underlying principles and won't turn on each other when it comes time to actually govern.

You resort to referring to the ability vote for poorly understood candidates (a la Bush in 2000 and in some ways Bush 2004) due to emotions rather than actual governing. What Ezra cites is a way out. Namely, that the poorly understood candidate transforms the voters into a real coalition by defining the group.

Many of you have adopted the GOP's frame- namely- get elected without understanding how in the long run "you must govern." In 2004, I said this to many people who were on the right. I don't know exactly what you think you obtained here other than you own version of Jimmy Carter. In the short term, they had a victory, but 4 years later what do we see?

Please don't resort to -- Obama won't make the same mistakes. You know- you are right- he will make different ones. That's the entire point. That's why how he will govern matters.

The question here is to what end. No snide remark by you Nath can over come that question. It's a fair one.

But, like I said, I don't expect an answer. Mainly because I don't think you have one beyond the party line. I've done this with even the sane supporters. Asked them to explain their support in a way that will allow Obama to govern. The expectations will, by the way, be extremely high for this Presidency. The scrutiny more intense. As my grandmother used to say "if you are black you got to be three times as good."The first anything always faces this.

With the rhectoric he chooses it will be higher. My questions are about how to make a sucessful rather than failed Presidency. Yours are about how to get him elected. My only hope is that Obama realizes that his rhectoric is b.s. even if his supporters do not.

"Let's not speak about those damn fools. I just had a heated discussion at scholarsandrogues with a Nader defender. Grrr..."

Understanding what happened with Bush's presidency is the lesson that many Democrats seem to want to miss. It wasn't simply policy. It was the disconnect between what his coalition thought they were getting (however foolish they were) and what he gave them. The same is true now here of Obama. It's the disconnected between what the various people who are voting for him think he is versus what they are projecting onto him that worries me. What happens the first time he does something in office that's actually partisan? That's the core question. And no amount of spin in favor of arguments that work for present voters of him is enough to answer such a question. I don't know if there is an answer. But I do know when supporters make over the top statements about his ability govern, they aren't aknowledging even the danger mention here in this diary.

No instead they do the now customary deflect by talking about how many people voted for him. As I said, this is bizzare given the number of people who voted for Bush in 2004.

Obama is more than a centrist. He endorsed Joe Lieberman afterall. It seems the lefties have forgotten this in their rush for the new.

Akaison, you ascribe much to someone you've only encounter in the last half day. If you want to "get real," we can discuss how coalitions work in the real world, both formal and informal, and how they might apply in the context of contemporary America, I will be interested in reading your thoughts, which were initially addressed to Mr. Kein. Otherwise, you're just trying to score political points rather than have a serious discussion.

Why am I even writing this? You know me well enough to know this is how I will (snidely) respond.

Have you substantively argued against any of my criticisms? A re-read says no.

I don't care who you are. "scoring political" points is precisely what you are trying to do when your analysis is basically your opinion. And, as for "getting real' and the "real world" well, unlike you, I've given a really big real world of a President who won but didn't build a real coalition. So has the diarist with regard to governing.

So far from you, I've gotten opinion without argument substantiating or facts to back those arguments up. It's fine if alll you want to do is post your opinion, but don't pretend as if you are answering Ezra's concern or mines. Or that I am the one sniping because you can't do so. That's just more projection by you.

Why should I? You haven't afforded me that dignity. I inquired as to why is was difficult to imagine something beyond strict partisanship when there are plenty examples thereof, especially outside the strict confines of American politics. Your response was not only not substantive, it was degrading: "I know this isn't talk left or open left, but really this is silly on its face, especially the posts by soullite and nath-- you should be able to prove your claims." When you start to respond with substance, I will be glad to follow. Otherwise, don't be surprised if I answer your antagonism without courtesy.

akaison, you need to familarize with the history of parties in this country. What you are suggesting has never existed. We have never had parties with completely coherent agendas and where everyone agreed with everyone else about their goals.

Tell me, was the greatest democratic coalition ever, the 'black people and people who hate black people' coalition, really about shared ideological goals, or simply shared desperation?

I find it truly bizarre that Akaison demand I prove the unprovable.

How on earth could I, as a matter of evidence, prove that Obama will make a great President? How can I prove what that Obama will do what I want him to do once in office? You can't ask people to perform an impossible task and then howl in rage when they can't. Well, you can. It just makes you look like an asshole.

And here they go again, the Obama mindreaders!

No mind reading involved, just believing he isn't lying.

He spells out what he wants to accomplish. The agenda is very progressive. He is asking everyone who supports this agenda to join him, even those that call themselves conservatives.

Mark nailed it, in his first comment.

The American people, when not manipulated by the Luntzs and Roves (and the Republican moneycons), are consistently left of center.

Obama's "unity" move is in itself a liberal move. Note how the conservatives have attempted to splinter and divide the country--to pit this group against that.

If the conservatives can't frighten and splinter the country, they can't win.

That's the brilliance of what Obama is doing (as it relates to this conversation).

Oh, and optimism works better than pessimism. Fear is only effective in the short-run.

Mark nailed it, in his first comment.

The American people, when not manipulated by the Luntzs and Roves (and the Republican moneycons), are consistently left of center.

Obama's "unity" move is in itself a liberal move. Note how the conservatives have attempted to splinter and divide the country--to pit this group against that.

If the conservatives can't frighten and splinter the country, they can't win.

That's the brilliance of what Obama is doing (as it relates to this conversation).

Oh, and optimism works better than pessimism. Fear is only effective in the short-run.

All right, boys and girls, let's stop measuring Barack Obama against some fanciful ideal candidate of one's own design, one which never existed and cannot exist. He's running against Hillary Clinton and then, presumably, John McCain. Please hold the comparisons to those two.

Still no answers to my question, and the last posts is just deflection. Anyway, I hope we win, but more importantly, in the real world I hope that our win isn't short term. But as Obama's supporters prove- hope is about all we have.

Sorry, I get up at a different times than most other people here, and so miss out on the give and take in real time. So I am constrained to aggregate my comments, and probably end up as the last post that no one will read – as usual.

Anyway, let me provide here my responses to Jake and soullite, and, implicitly, to some of the other points that have been made in this thread. This will be the more ample comment. Later I may get around to something a bit more bullet-pointish for some of the other comments..

Jake replies to my laconic "Yup" with a question of his own:

"So what do you question billyblog, that he's [Obama's] a skilled pol? You do appreciate that what he's accomplished to date wrt HRC is no small feat, don't you? Who has run the better campaign to this stage?"

The implicit assumption in Jake's first question is correct. No, I don't question that Obama is an extremely intelligent person. Easily in the 99th percentile, as is, of course, Clinton – though it would appear that Frank Rich and Maureen Dowd would not agree with this assessment vis-à-vis Clinton.

I happen to think Clinton is at least marginally smarter.

That is my opinion, of course. But, if you took the way Clinton and Obama have presented themselves in the debates as your only evidence, I would argue that Clinton, net net, came across as the more intelligent and focused person. Obama's intelligence, however deep and broad, seems to invariably have fuzzy edges to it. And fuzzy edges that cannot be completely spun back into the positive notion of "nuance."

I have no doubt that the Obama people would disagree, and try to prove their point by cherry picking the debates to show particular instances where Obama said something transcendently intelligent and Clinton said something abysmally stupid. But my own auditing of the debates – even back when I was an Edwards supporter – as well as my reading of the post-debate blatherings by the people who are paid to do this sort of instant analysis -- is that the consensus was that either Hillary or Edwards won most of the debates – and not on the basis of simple gotchas or other isolated slam dunks – while Obama came in third in most cases – and second in the head-to-heads.

But reasonable people can disagree on this and, as I said, both are in the 99th percentile à mon avis.

To the other part of Jake's question.

Yes, Obama has been a very skilled campaign pol. And it certainly appears now that, in the end, the sum of his well-executed strategy/tactics and luck will bring him the prize – at least in the Democratic nomination process. In the end, it's what's on the scoreboard that counts.

But two comments here.

First, I invest the term "pol" – which is not a dirty word for me -- with a wider range of meanings than just running a successful campaign. Though that is, of course, extraordinarily important. A fully rounded pol is someone who can get things done – after the election. FDR, by all reports, was a fully rounded pol. And, in my opinion, LBJ was a fully rounded pol, with one huge blind spot, the Vietnam War.

It would appear that a whole lot of the people in this thread as well think that this dimension should be added to the notion of poll. Though they have not put it in these specific terms.

The jury is still out – even among thoughtful Obama supporters, and the anxiety over the issue seems to be increasing palpably as Obama supporters try to figure out how they are going to finesse the experience argument with McCain – on whether Obama will turn out to be as good a pol after the election as he has been during the primary process.

And quite frankly – though it appears that this counter-factual will never be tested – I think that Clinton would have been more successful in the legislative stage than Obama will be. But I don't want to get into an extended discussion about what will almost certainly be, as I mentioned, a counterfactual situation.

So on that one, you're stuck with my opinion -- and Ezra's and Kevin Drum's agreement that Clinton wins the "experience" argument over Obama. If you disagree, please register your disagreement with Ezra and Kevin Drum.

Second, politics, like pretty much the rest of life, is 97-98% luck and 2-3% brains and hard work. I'll focus on the brains here, since "intelligence" is the term Jake originally introduced into the discussion. For me, "More luck than brains" is not an invidious remark. It simply reflects the way the universe is configured.

And in Obama's case, he clearly has had more luck going for him than did Clinton. And it was not luck of his own making. Of course, though most luck is not something we create, we should never turn down the favors Dame Fortune bestows upon us.

The greatest bit of luck that Obama had going for him was Clinton Derangement Syndrome. This is also sometimes expressed as "Hillary's overwhelming negatives." Remember how Karl Rove was counting on them to do her in? It turns out he was right about the effect, but wrong about the timing. He thought it would only happen in the general election.

I know there are people out there – and even in "here" – who think that Hillary's negatives are largely earned.

I disagree. I don't think any human being – short of the proverbial Adolphs, Genghises*, and Attilas – let alone Hillary and/or even Bill, could possibly support the level of evil-intentioned and otherwise dastardly behavior that is reflexively ascribed to them. They are no more evil intentioned and malign than the average politician – or you and me for that matter. And notice, by the way, as we approach denouement, some of Hillary's and Bill's malignity is morphing into "incompetence" in the eyes of their critics. I mean, if nothing else, Satan is not incompetent.

[*I was once in Istanbul on business. My gracious host took me out with his staff to a charming Armenian! restaurant in the heart of the old city. In the course of the conversation I finally figured out that my host's first name, Cinkas, which I had not fully parsed up to that point, was actually a form of Genghis, as in Genghis Khan. Since we had had enough to drink by that point – they were very secular and leftist Moslems – I allowed as to how I found it just a bit remarkable that anyone would name their kid after Genghis Khan. "Easy," came the reply, "It's just you Europeans who have a problem with him. He was a hero for us!" And so it is with Attila in Hungary!]

But the ways in which the Clintons' failings – real and imagined – have been feverishly magnified in this campaign, and in campaigns past, is certainly something that will be the subject of a few dozen theses in journalism and American Studies in the coming years.

Media Matters – which has no dog in the fight between Clinton and Obama, and which has been as vociferous in its defense of Obama from right wing and even mainstream media slander – has documented this phenomenon in spades over the past year or so.

It has been a wild ride, and we see echoes of it – in a considerably milder form than the sorts of rants you find on even the esteemed New York Times' blogs -- in this blog, with statements such as the following from soullite, whom I'll continue to refer to with the masculine pronoun until instructed to do otherwise:

"But I admit, it's an easy choice because I already viewed Hillary as being too corporate oriented to enact any real change. Obama could be more of the same, but there's no chance for change with Clinton."

One is reminded of Oliver Cromwell's comment in the midst of an even more polarized time: "I beseech ye in the bowels of Christ, think that ye may be mistaken."

Soullite did respond to my earlier criticism of him on this score. Here is the response in its entirety:

"Bill [that would be me, not Bill Clinton], I did make it pretty clear I was speaking from my own suppositions. You may find them dubious, I don't. Do you really expect me to give your judgment more weight than my own?

"I made it clear that there were reasons why this was an easier call for me to make than it was for some of the others. I explained my reasons. You don't have to accept them, but don't pretend I packaged them as gospel."

No, of course I expect soullite to follow his own lights rather than mine. "Let your conscience be your guide." But I looked in vain for principled reasons for why soullite considers Hillary Clinton beyond redemption with respect to major policy initiatives, as distinguished from some apparently implicit pop psychological theory from soullite's other postings, and I came up empty handed.

So I really do wonder if a conscience which can make the above sort of categorical statement about Hillary Clinton – or anyone else, for that matter -- may not be trapped in some sort of evidence-free dogmatic fog from which it can never escape.

Thus, I sincerely doubt – though I am open to being persuaded otherwise -- that there is any evidence that could be brought to bear which would cause soullite to be shaken in his dogmatic belief that there is no possibility for redemption, i.e., "change" – à la soullite's agenda – for Hillary Clinton.

An extraordinary attitude towards another human being when you reflect on it. But altogether characteristic of CDS throughout this campaign.

By the way, to state the blindingly obvious, change is not a value in itself. In the year 2001 we certainly did make a change from the Clinton era to the Bush era. Anyone here want to argue that was, net net, a salutary change?

I am reminded that I recently attended a round table at Sciences Po in Paris, where Carl Bernstein, in promotion mode for the French translation of his Hillary book, was the star speaker. It was revealing to hear Bernstein go through a narrative which unfolded in the following terms:

1. First there was the mendacious, ruthless, truthless Hillary Clinton of the 1992-2000 years.

2. Then Hillary went off into exile and became a pretty good Senator from New York, no longer the deeply flawed Hillary of Bill's presidency.

3. But now that she is back on the campaign trail, I, Carl Bernstein, can see the same old mendacious, evil-intentioned Hillary – and Bill, of course, as well – starting to erupt out from under that well-coifed shell..

Keep in mind that Bernstein had been writing his book for the past eight years, and was only finishing it up about the time Hillary was heading out into the presidential campaign of 2008. So the years of his writing were the years that Clinton was primarily the "good" Senator Clinton years.

Let me go out on my own pop psychological limb here. Apparently concerned that few people would be interested in a book about Hillary which ended on a "good Hillary" note, Bernstein went to the trouble to add an updating afterword to his book – which I haven't read, though Bernstein described its argument in roughly the above terms at Sciences Po – which made it clear that Hillary had now reverted to her severely character-flawed person who would probably do irreparable damage to the Republic if elected president.

By the way, the only mention of a policy issue in Bernstein whole presentation was when he somewhat offhandedly said, and I paraphrase because I was not taking verbatim notes, but this really is the essence of it: "I actually think that Hillary has a superior healthcare plan to Obama's" And he then proceeded to wave off any discussion of policy issues as worth his time and plunged back into explaining to his audience how he had nailed Hillary's flawed character.

This, of course, is the same Carl Bernstein who was the subject of a bit of psychologizing himself some years earlier by Nora Ephron in Breaking Up. I'm sure he doesn't think he is quite the cad Nora made him out to be. And he may even be right about this. Though I found little evidence to support that latter claim in his appearance at Sciences Po.

Though my evidence is only casually anecdotal – not rigorously statistical – my sense from the blogs is that, even from the earliest days of the campaign, the number of Obama supporters who declared that they would never vote for Clinton under any circumstances, even if she won the Democratic nomination, absolutely swamped – and continues to swamp -- the number of times you hear this sentiment expressed in reverse by a Clinton supporter. Indeed, even the candidate's wife expressed a somewhat less intense but still astonishing version of this trope. And was, of course, promptly spun back to correctness by her husband's campaign.

Those of us who supported Edwards initially, and switched to Clinton after he dropped out of the race because we thought we saw – and supported with principled arguments – that Clinton is more specifically and progressively policy oriented, on healthcare to be sure, but also Social Security, which Clinton rightly knows is not "in crisis," can, I think, be forgiven a bit for questioning the maturity of the sort of hissy fit politics which is expressed by: "I consider myself a progressive but would never vote for Hillary Clinton. That's frighteningly close to the attitude which got Ralph Nader so many votes in Florida in 2000.

The Obama supporters would, of course, counter that absolutely, positively everything they say about the inherent evilness and despicableness of Hillary Clinton – and Bill – is grounded in unimpeachable – to coin a phrase -- fact.

Whatever.

As a final point in this particular post, I want to focus on a statement by soullite which I found puzzling. I'm not sure I fully understand it. But here it is:

"Things really are so bad that we are in need of very serious reforms. We may not get them any time soon, but we really need to start prioritizing them over the lame culture-war battles of the last few decades. We are simply not going to get anything done with things polarized along these lines. I hope Obama can polarize this country strongly in favor of him and reform."

Leave aside the reference to "lame culture-wars." Did soullite just say that the only way that we are going to get anything "serious" done in this country is through a "strongly" polarizing leader named Obama? You know, the guy who has supposedly been drawing in his followers by promising them an end to polarization?

Some good psychologists have argued that there is a tight correlation between the authoritarian personality – whether as leader or follower – and the tendency to demonize your opponents and consider them beyond the pale of any sort of redemption.

Something to think about as we continue with our exercise in representative democracy.