There are many, many people who believe that "Change" means something more than centrism.
Why they are all so misinformed is the real question.

Good post.

As they say, when someone keeps showing you he is, believe him.

That said, there are some economic advisors who could probably split the difference between the Hamilton Group and the Economic Policy Institute. Robert Reich, for example, who, in shilling for Obama's health care plan, seemed to be auditioning for a job. Or Paul Krugman! Who surely doesn't want the gig.

So while I think labor leaders are only pretending to be "taken aback" that Obama isn't a labor-liberal, they might be legitimately surprised that the head of his economic policy team popped out of Robert Rubin's butt.

I guess Reich is affiliated with the EPI, isn't he? Well, you get my point...

As many said during the primary (and yes it's too late to complain about centrism now), the reality is that too many people confused left/progressive with Obama=left/progressive or the Anti-Clinton candidate=anti-centrism rather than seeing him as what he was- Clinton without the baggage of the last decade and half. None of which meant anything more than rhectorical device. It's not tranformative. Not everyone did this. Many choose him because they thought he was a centrist. But, the notion of surprise now is odd. Didn't they read the policy positions on his website and notice who his advisors are?

Dean Baker and Jared Bernstein are think-tank economists, not academic economists. Good for crafting messages, not the most knowledgable when it comes to making policy. We can't let "Democratic economics" become as much a deserving object of scorn as "Republican economics."

Bernstein is on the team. http://bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&refer=politics&sid=aDGvbRvaVK7E

I expected more balance. Obama has long been a somewhat unknown quantity, and I hoped that he would come out much more to the left.

And I don't think it's stupid to be surprised by the announcement. All that's happening is that the pessimists are being proven right. I hope the outcry doesn't die down and Obama feels the pressure.

"they shouldn't fool themselves into thinking Obama has just made some staffing error here."

Indeed.

Just as folks shouldn't fool themselves into thinking Ezra Klein is anything other than a careerist scumbag who wants to see the working class exiled from the Democratic Party.

Petey, you've been happy to sell the country down the river on the war for more than 5 years, now, to fulfill your southern white male fantasies. That sort of BS you've been spouting is the exact for of crap that made the Democratic collapse of 2002 possible. Piss off.

Actually, gigli, your argument doesn't make factual sense. You knew , if you bothered to look , his economic advisors and policy contour months ago. That's not pessimism. It's due diligence about whom you support. He's our nominee. I will support him. But, that doesn't require willful blindness.

Along with a number of the folks above, I'm kind of fascinated that this whole discussion has merited three posts and counting... I mean, is it really surprising that Obama's fairly centrist on economic issues? Of all the things about him, it's the one I never really saw as a flaw - indeed, while supporting Clinton, the fact that Obama would be the one more likely to pursue her husband's economic policies was a selling point, not a detraction. But as Petey says - though I think in an extreme way - I think the trouble here all along has been the way these economic policies (including Mr. Clinton's) are not necessarily the best for lower income and less educated folks. And, all along, I've suspected that Obama supporters didn't really see what that meant (or, didn't see that Obama was actually not succeeding with lower income/less educated voters for issues beyond race). As such, Furman doesn't bother me... nor does he merit three posts from Ezra. But the defensiveness, really, is sort of instructive; this is who Obama is. And it's not necessarily great for working folks... but that's apparently going to be the Democrats' dilemma this election season, and probably going forward. We had that choice... and it seems to me, we made it.

Noah, as a certified academic economist I say you are completely wrong on Dean Baker. Not only has he been better at all the big policy questions (housing bubble anyone) but I think he has been better precisely because he has stayed away from academic journal style economics.

He uses a good grasp of economics fundamentals plus a hard look at what is actually going in the economy to get things right. He does not get blinded by overly formal approaches that mistake the map for the territory.

The weirdest thing about the fall of Petey has been the way he regards Ezra's honesty about the full set of Obama's virtues and vices as some kind of dishonesty. This is the kind of post an Obama skeptic should be happy with, just as David Mizner is above! Ezra has been crystal-clear throughout the primaries about the domestic policy shortcomings of the Obama campaign, as he is here.

Edwards withdrawal was hard enough for me, but I'm glad it didn't turn my mind inside out so that I think honesty is dishonesty.

Ezra has been crystal-clear throughout the primaries about the domestic policy shortcomings of the Obama campaign, as he is here.

And the response to those shortcomings isn't necessarily to be found in getting Webb on the ticket, but by working to get the House and Senate well stocked with Democrats to the left (in domestic terms) of Obama.

Petey dodged and ran away from the coattails issue right through the post-Edwards primary season, but it's not controversial to think a Clinton general election victory would deliver a tighter Senate majority, and thus entail legislative compromises to placate wobbly Dems to the right of the caucus.

Jared Bernstein was listed as an adviser to Obama's campaign during an interview with PBS's NewsHour. He wasn't a great orator, but his arguments were good.

And, all along, I've suspected that Obama supporters didn't really see what that meant (or, didn't see that Obama was actually not succeeding with lower income/less educated voters for issues beyond race).

Some, not all, Obama supporters didn't see this. I voted for the guy (well, sorta had to, given that I realized 9 mos. ago that I would have a hard time voting HRC in the CA primary -- mainly for the war votes), but thought that he deserved the ass-kick he received in Ohio re NAFTA. He's very much a proponent of the amending current global econ infrastructures as a way of bringing more working Americans as well as developing nations into a share of current potential for prosperity (see his speech @Google). This is not traditionally labor-friendly, but it would depend on how future free trade agreements would be implemented. One could argue that free trade is good for developing nations, but that such agreements would have to be closely regulated for equity and that it should promise better working conditions and a living wage for both Americans and the trading country.

[Of course, there are also people who believe that free market global capitalism has ceased to be profitable in any respect, has damaged our lives and our cultures beyond repair and should be discredited and dismantled. In which case, none of the Dems are acceptable inasmuch as they all support policies and ideas that keep this structure alive. (I tend to agree, in the abstract. But since I've done nothing against the promotion of consumer culture, of international trade, or even consistently stopped buying products coming from places where I know unfair labor practices exist, it would be hypocritical of me to not deal with the choice offered up by the mainstream parties.)]

Obama's econ team reflects his consistency as a neoliberal. People have been writing horror stories about Goolsbee, Liebman, and Cutter for a while (paging Bruce Webb). And I do realize that, at worst, he would be Clinton on domestic econ policies w/o the baggage.

However, I'm not going to give Edwards the unconditional "progressive" credit here, either. His actual Senate record reveals votes that conflicted with his message. Which is the flip side of Obama having a relatively progressive record in the R-controlled IL state senate, a center-left voting record in the US Senate, and then actually having the gall to campaign as a centrist. Who do I believe in this scenario? According the some people, I should believe the record and not the promises coming out of the candidate's campaign.

When Russ Feingold openly criticized Edwards for his platform vis a vis the latter's actual Senate record, I was not exactly shocked even if I did think that Feingold was being harsh. I wished Edwards well, but my feelings about his "progressivism" and his ability to push his programs through remained as mixed as my feelings about Obama's "progressivism".

Sorry to be so long and rambly, and well "defensive", but as a regular citizen not particularly involved in politics but still wanting to make an informed choice, I resent being lumped with people who have little idea of who or what they're voting for. I know what Obama's record is, but I also have an idea of what Clinton and Edwards's records are. Between the three of them, I think that we were/are all hanging on a bare hope that they would actually pass progressive legislation. However, I never believed that one candidate was "more progressive" than the other two.

Paula

Your post wasn't rambling. It was actually a good post.

But, I disagree in part with regard to Edwards.

Yes, it's true that this record in the Senate was less than perfect, but if he had won the nomination, he would have won being beholden to progressives and the left. This is why I found many of Chris Bowers post regarding Obama well to put it mildly confused during the primary when it came to policies, advisors and when to exert influence.

Because too many Obama supporters give him a pass with regard to accountability on these issues, he isn't beholden to anyone on the left. The time to have won some influence was the primary. Now, it's too late.

The fact is this primary wasn't all that good on the subject of issues. After Edwards left it was mostly about identity politics and two cults of personality masqerading as something more substantive. Notice I say two- because Clinton was equally guilty of this.

The fact is the only reason Obama was able to get away this not having to prove his bona fides is that many people, especially progressives, gave him a pass.

As I said, I support him because he's our candidate, but I really will have very little patience as he governs for his most ardent supporters being "surprised" when he governs as a centrist. I am not including you in this. I am just making a general observation.

Never fear, after the dust settles President Obama is going to play the kind of long repressed catchup with the Right and the wealthy that will warm the cockles of the heart. The centrist mantra is eyewash.

Add me to the list of people not blown away by this. I have said endlessly that Obama is a centrist politician. It is what it is. But the biggest problem has been his wildly blind supporters.

They long believed he was the the liberal panacea to America's woes because they wanted to believe it, not because it was borne of any reality.

From health care to poverty, and the all very important choice economic advisers, he has shown centrist timidity on policy. Everyone mistakes his bold message of "change" to actual mean something. It is poll-tested PR phrase that was wildly successful, but it means nothing as far as policy.

As to Edwards: Yes, we know his Senate record was weak. How many red state Senate Democrats that unseated a Republican do you that are extremely liberal. Not many. He legislated in accordance with his constituency and was very new to politics.

However, when he was given the chance to shed a particular narrow group and develop politically, he was bold, and more than rhetoric, he selected real liberal advisors (Bonior, Trippi, Warren, Hindrey etc) and more importantly adopted very liberal proposals. Many of which were not politically popular, higher taxes, higher spending, and a dedication to
America's least liked group, the poor. That takes political courage.

In contrast, Obama has run a very effective campaign, and I will vote for him. But suspend critical thought, I will not.

he isn't beholden to anyone on the left

Who sez? Look, it's not like grassroots people stop existing once one of their peeps reaches a top inside post. The work is supposed to begin when someone new steps into the Oval Office. The same goes for the scenario in which JE wins the election. Even if McCain wins, it's the same scenario -- although he will ignore you more than the others will.

It never stops. This POV that Obama will somehow get a "free ride" from true progressives is as erroneous as the POV that somehow the issues of people of color/women will be de-legitmized by a black/woman president. Our politics are not encompassed by the figurehead that comes into the office. The emotion of the election season, unfortunately, obscures a lot of this.

What's more, it's come out of Obama's own mouth at least couple of times that he's expecting people to hold him accountable, that behind his ideas for a more centralized and more transparent government info database is so that people can keep an eye on him (and everyone else in DC).

So: keep an eye on him. No matter how obnoxious his supporters are. I, for one, am looking forward to some of the netroots loudmouths getting into public fights with Austan Goolsbee over single-payer.

I can agree to disagree about Edwards.

Finally, I have no idea what Mason Jahr just wrote.

Paula:

The problem with your last post is that all we can do as human is to go on is what people put out there- what Washington is, what the press is, what Obama has shown himself to be, etc. I think a lot of your post is projection. For instance, I am not overly emotional, and yet, you bring up emotions. I didn't even pick Edwards based on emotions. I am basing what I am saying on having done my due diligence. Could Obama surprises me, good progressives surprise me, or the press or DC? Absolutely. But, I don't have that evidence on the table providing me with any indication. The real surprise will be if Obama doesn't govern as a centrist. It will be a wonderful surprise and vexing (I am an old school moderate rather than centrist). However, I simply don't expect it to happen because of accountability. Hell, I don't think DC is capable of accountability anymore. Why should progressives be any different?

PS

Let me give you the example right now of the debate happening on Ezra's blog regarding Obama's comments about Roberts. There are certainly a lot more examples, but I think that what I believe will be a whole voting block of apologists for Obama rather than critical analysis of him. If it makes you feel any better, he's still 100 years better than McSame.

What Caldem Said. Noah, Dean Baker is a brilliant substantive economist. Like Caldem, I am an academic economist too. You should note that Paul Krugman who is, shall we say, a rather prominent academic economist clearly thinks very highly of Dean Baker.

I think Obama is going to be like Roosevelt and Clinton: a big left-wing economic push at the beginning, bumping up against the limits shortly thereafter, and a more centrist period after that.

Obama's rushing to the center is political; it's to get more votes. I'd expect him to move to the left after election, especially with Democrats in firm control over Congress. And hey, even if he really does stick with center-left policies, at least they're more left than Bill Clinton. Gradual change isn't that bad, as long as it keeps going in the right direction.

Do the comment(er)s on this blog = "true progressives"? I read this blog, and others within the popular circle of mainstream left internet pundits, and not in a million years would I call myself a "true progressive". (I would also use the label "moderate".)

In any case, our real disagreement may be that I actually think that the left-liberals' favored policies are still as vulnerable as they ever were despite the immense failure of the last 8 years and that John Edwards would not have drastically changed that. The amount of optimism regarding some kind of epiphany on the part of the American people on "right-wing" policy is, for me, overblown. The support for Dems has less to do with what left-liberal policies might give us vs what Rep. policies don't, but rather, about how the people called "Republicans" have given so little of what they promised either on economics or the drive of "moral values".

This is the reason, I think, why Edwards had so little traction and why support for Obama is very shallow, conceptually speaking and why his platform is very modest.

The mainstream media still operates in right-wing frames because Reagan really did manage to convince people about bullshit like "trickle down" or "law and order" -- so that phrases like "compassionate conservatism" or "ownership society" are taken as self-evident common sense and programs that we've had since FDR are slapped with the phrase "entitlement program".

There's whole narrative that the entire left has yet to make a dent in. Big gov't bad, oooga-booga. The abstract foundation hasn't been made that would allow people to think of progressive policies outside of right wing frames. And Edwards, I think, didn't articulate a strategy for the certainty of right wing frames being used by Republicans to block his platform or how to effectively sell his ideas to citizens who still believe in it. It's why so many people seemed turned off by his "anger". Or that they used details of his personal life (the haircut) to invalidate his anti-poverty initiative. Programs like that are "indulgences" in the mind of the pundit class weaned on the right's narrative, and the Very Serious People worry about things like the deficit or defense policy. And they spread those biases to their viewers.

Obama is also appealing to a wiiiiide swath of people for whom party/partisanship is anathema to actual political participation, rather than the source of motivation. These people decided that they don't like the Republicans being too ideologue-driven, so they're gonna try the Dems, in particular this Obama because he doesn't seem like a politician who'll create partisan deadlock at the expense of "practicality".

Which means, quite frankly, that they won't actually care about ambitious progressive goals beyond the issues that affect them directly, like some kind of promise of health care, even if you tried to explain it to them . In other words, his campaign didn't disturb the narrative of "common sense" as defined by the mainstream but rather framed everything coming out of their campaign is part of that narrative. (Which, as y'all remember, caused a fair bit of ire -- OMG Harry and Louise! OMG He likes Raygun! OMG he said SS is in trouble!)

It's rather late, and I'm tired now. But suffice it to say: it's a framing issue, and Edwards was stepping beyond the boundaries of the conversation that Americans were ready and willing to have about domestic policy. And that weakened his ability to build consensus for his platform that would have continued even if he was the leading candidate. I know a lot of people like to blame it solely on the media's focus on Obama and Clinton, but the fact that Edwards was seen as being rather strident about ostensibly "partisan" issues that were seen as outside of the radar of "regular Americans" also helped.

And the response to those shortcomings isn't necessarily to be found in getting Webb on the ticket, but by working to get the House and Senate well stocked with Democrats to the left (in domestic terms) of Obama.

a) That's not the argument you started in the prior post.

b) This new argument precisely what I meant by making excuses and apologies for Obama's decision.

c) No one knew Reagan would work before he did actually work.

d) Edwards , I am convinced, didn't get traction because he ran in 2004. Were he shiny and new, it may have been different.

e) You aren't seriously arguing that the media coverage was Edwards fault? That's not how the media works. They cover what they think is entertaining.

I could contiue to dismantle what you wrote, but what would be the point? You reaffirm my principle concern- namely that no one will hold Obama accountable, but instead will attempt to make excuses for his behavior, and thus ensure exactly what I realized from my due deligence he would be- a centrist. Those are the facts as they stand right now. I would be more than happy to be wrong, but your own arguments in the last post doesn't provide any encouragement. He's a cautious person, and thus won't act unless pushed to act, and it's clear no one is willing to push him so much as be lead by him. The blind leading the blind.

" It's progressives' job to build their own power rather than depending on favors from the White House."

Yet another coment based on making excuses for Obama. More than that, it's logically inconsistent with history and the nature of the Presidency. Conservatives didn't "build" power just by doing on the outside of government- they took it over and for example packed the courts. The argument also makes no sense in a Reagan sense of how conservatives built their brand. There was no prescendent for the conservatism that Reagan represented that could be found in Nixon for example.

Frankly, like I said, these arguments are all predictably about one thing- making excuses. I don't see how one for exmaple "builds power" if one doesn't try to build influence over the levers of government since that is in fact where power in a political sense derives. Most of these comments are just rhectorical devices.

It's sort of how the poster above makes a false comparison between Clinton and Roosovelt-- as if there were a real historical comparison (2 winning Presidencies does not a historical comparison make)- other than one designed to apologize for Obama.

We probably will hopefully win this fall. But these arguments aren't based on anything other than rationalizations. Thus continuing to prove why Obama won't have any accountability when it comes to at least some of the justifications for his actions found here.

You are right about Obama being center-left from the git-go, and a pissed left response is off the mark. But there is another issue here, and it is deeper and more long term. Obama, if elected, is going to have an awesome political organization behind him. There's two ways this could go. On the worst hand, it could be just his organization run from the top. On the best hand, this could lead to a transformation of the Democratic party mostly from the ground up. A critical factor on how this will play out depends on the kind of feedback that can come up from the bottom. If the left was responding with strong arguments and practical alternatives grounded in reality perceptions rather than its knee-jerk reactions, then it could be building in the kind of substantive feedback that could make a big difference down the road.

michael johnson

"You reaffirm my principle concern- namely that no one will hold Obama accountable, but instead will attempt to make excuses for his behavior, and thus ensure exactly what I realized from my due deligence he would be- a centrist. Those are the facts as they stand right now."

Hahaha, what an asshole!

From the LA Times piece:

"One economist from the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute, Jared Bernstein, offered praise for Furman, saying he understood why some critics were unhappy, though he thought their fears were misplaced.

"I understand the concerns, given positions he has taken" on some issues, Bernstein said. "But I am 110% certain that it will be Barack Obama -- not Jason Furman or Robert Rubin -- who will be setting the policies for the Obama administration.""

From Krugman's blog:

"1. Furman is a very good guy, with a solid track record as a progressive. You can disagree with him about Walmart — and I do — but his heart is clearly with those who want more social justice and a stronger safety net.

2. He’s not, despite what the story says, Obama’s chief economic policy advisor — he’s the economic policy director, which is a process job: basically, he organizes other people to provide advice. Obviously there could be a real problem if the policy director steered the candidate away from progressive advice, but Furman is, as I said, a solid progressive, and well suited to the job of honest broker."

What would be a "practical response" by the left? No one here has written a bottom up mechanism. To expect that, one would expect a level of criticism that neither Peter or Paula or yourself have provided. What we got instead is that according to Peter K, I am an asshole, and, thereby, inadvertantly summing up the response by Obama's most ardent supporters so far. It reaffirms there is interest in holding him accountable. I would love to hear how this bottom up approach will work since there are no indicators of a bottom up approach about it. To have a bottom up approach I would expect a set of principles outside of "elect Obama." I haven't seen any of you- and this is the core problem here- announce any core principles that will come from the bottom.

Dude, where do I say anything was Edwards' fault? I say, mostly, that he picked a difficult narrative to run on, and his level actual success made me question the extent to which people (both voters and the media) were willing to deal with his message either as a GE nominee or as a president.

As for Obama, I'm talking about how he bought into the frame and that was why he won. But it doesn't change the reality of the frame that still exists. If you think that's an excuse for Obama, then I would say that you have a more optimistic view of American politics in general than I do. You think that if "people are informed" then "they will get it". I say, actually, they just really dislike what happened the last 8 years and want something "different", but aren't sure what.

"Anti-conservatism", as a political POV that's on display right now, the one that gives lip service to global warming and anti-war positions, is less an activist position than a set of opinions against Bush, and more importantly, Bush's "partisanship" on issues like the war and stem cell research and civil liberties. The progressivism that Edwards attached himself to is one that assumed that people got beyond mere antagonism to Bush and decided that the whole philosophy of the Republicans was defunct. I say, the American people aren't there (yet). And they weren't going to be there even if Edwards became the assumed leader of the party.

a) Not assumption, polling. Polling data disagrees with me about where the American people are by a rather significant margin. It's not anti-conservative. It's pro progressive. They simply label it differently. ie, someone may say they are Republican until you ask them where they stand on actual issues and how to resolve them.

b) You confuse partisan breakdowns of the past with principles of what the American people want. The interesting thing is Obama claims to be about getting past partisan id to address the issues and policies. And, yet, here, you are using partisanship as an excuse to not change policy. Thus it's more than what his supporters think is happening. Namely, just dialogue or label changing, but instead triangulation about where you think the American people are. The problem of course is that you are wrong. Obama will have rare opportunity to demonstrate what he claims, but his policies won't allow that. Let me rephrase your entire posts thus far "The American people are conservative republicans or anti conservative republicans." Those are the two choices. That's triangulation by another name. Its a catch 22.

c) None of what you say produces or relates to accountability for Obama because it ignores the dynamic I just described. It's Clintonism without the last 15 years of experience. I am not even sure Obama believes what you wrote.

ps no one is saying by the way that he shouldn't have right of center advisors, but one would expect a nominee who is truly post partisan to have both left and right rather than just right.

akaison
"ps no one is saying by the way that he shouldn't have right of center advisors, but one would expect a nominee who is truly post partisan to have both left and right rather than just right."

That is why you are an asshole.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/12/business/12econ.html?ref=business

"Mr. Obama’s campaign aides, among them Bill Burton, the press secretary, emphasize that Mr. Furman has already consulted a range of experts, from Mr. Rubin and Lawrence H. Summers, the Harvard economist who succeeded Mr. Rubin as Treasury secretary.

Others consulted include Joseph Stiglitz, the Nobel laureate in economics who is critical of Rubinomics; Jared Bernstein, senior economist at the labor-oriented Economic Policy Institute; and James Galbraith, a University of Texas economist whose Keynesian approach and preference for public spending is to the left of Rubinomics.

“Of course, I’m part of it,” Mr. Galbraith said. “Jason is a guy I know, a professional I respect. If he wants my views, I’m quite happy to be giving them to him. The task before us is to develop practical steps for the problems before us now.”

Mr. Furman emphatically agreed. “I am not here to tell Senator Obama what to think about Wal-Mart,” he said, “but to help him implement his ideas, and they are ideas I share, like universal health insurance, progressive taxation and not privatizing Social Security.”"

Obama also has a voting record in the Senate. You are just being a dick for the sake of being a dick.

I am completely fed up with people who are oh-so sick of Obama's supporters. It's such a pompous condescending generalization.

Furman is a bridge to Rubin who had backed Hillary. Obama will need Hillary's supporters if he is going to beat McCain.

Phil Gramm is advising McCain. Would you rather have him or a guy who's talking with Jamie Galbraith, Stiglitz and Bernstein???? Give me a break.

a) show me in his record in congress where he's been anything but centrist?

b) show me in his policies as he's running for the presidency where he's been anything but centrist?

And yes let's bring up red herrings about what McCain is when I am asking you what Obama is. Let's be clear- this is probably what we can expect:

http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do;jsessionid=3803A17139DC7DD942FDBA962F06ECDA?diaryId=6303

If I am an ass and dick then so is everyone else who talks about these issues who seem to think Obama is centrist.

No one is questioning whether this is better than McCain. The question is whether this is the best we can get out of Obama.

by the way, i like how you seized on the last little bit of what i wrote without the prior statement which provides context. if you want to prove me wrong, you may want to show instances where it doesn't appear that he's just spliting the difference. if one were truly not trying to be centrist, one might seem sometimes the solutions will be on the left and sometimes right of center, that would be the result if one were post partisan rather than centrist. instead it seems the results are always split the difference.

" instead it seems the results are always split the difference."

"But, the notion of surprise now is odd. Didn't they read the policy positions on his website and notice who his advisors are?"

This is just a dickhead attitude. This is an attitude of someone bitter about the primary. Get over it.

I quoted Jared Berstein, Stiglitz, Galbraith, Krugman on how Furman is progressive. Yes, he isn't a Naderite but we can't have everything.

Why are we supposed to be surprised? WHOS surprised?

Clinton was about triangulation. Obama will be about good government and transparency.

Hillary ran a shitty campaign. Obama ran a brilliantly tough campaign, a good sign.

Right now it is Obama vs. McSame. And here you are asserting people are supposedly "surprised" - when they aren't - about supposedly "centrist" Furman - when Krugman, Bernstein, Galbraith, Stiglitz etc say he isn't centrist.

Get your facts straight before complaining. And Obama will be held accountable, don't worry about it. Have you followed the campaign at all?

Akaison:

"He's a cautious person, and thus won't act unless pushed to act, and it's clear no one is willing to push him so much as be lead by him. The blind leading the blind."

What the hell are you talking about?

here's another example of Obama spliting the difference with regard to the issue of israel for example:

http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=06&year=2008&base_name=the_aipac_speech_goes_worldwid#comments

This was a situation in which he had to back pedal because of his triangulation. There are other examples. ie, the Roberts nomination- guess who was for not giving habeus corpus to detainees today? Roberts, but guess who didn't endorse the filabuster- Obama. Why? because like Clinton he went the centrist route.

I am not going to waste anymore time with you Peter. The discussion isn't what you keep trying to change it into. You can't argue the merits so you do what people who can't argue the merits do- change the subject.

The irony of course is that a) you aren't just arguing with me but everyone else including some ardent Obama supporters like Paula (because factually speaking she's not even questioning whether Obama is centrist) and b) you don't have much to add other than calling me dick or asshole or blah, blah blah. To that I say, whatever. I've proven my points. All you have done is proven it further about the fact there are some of you who are pretty clueless.

Akaison:

"And yes let's bring up red herrings about what McCain is when I am asking you what Obama is. Let's be clear- this is probably what we can expect:

http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do;jsessionid=3803A17139DC7DD942FDBA962F06ECDA?diaryId=6303"

There are some really good comments about Bowers conservative list. You should read them instead of assuming the worst.

You haven't proven any points. You just come of as a bitter Edwards supporer. You just sound like a pompous ultra-lefty.

Oh, I proved my points whether you accept it or not. I give you for example the AIPAC speech- which was pandering further to the right (ie, triangulation) because Obama feared his numbers with the Jewish vote.

As for bowers post, I read the comments. I find them about as compelling as any other spin here.

The problem isn't that things couldn't change. If there were pressure, it could. but that pressue isn't going to happen because everyone who disagrees with you or questions Obama is a "dick" or asshole.

The problem is figuring out how will it occur given the people involved. Is Nancy Pelosi going to stop being Nancy Pelosi or Reid being Reid? Is what Obama is showing now going to change once he's office. If so, why>

Are all the common wisdom arguments for centrist raised here going to cease to exist simply because we have good government?

Akaison
"Yes, it's true that this record in the Senate was less than perfect, but if he had won the nomination, he would have won being beholden to progressives and the left. This is why I found many of Chris Bowers post regarding Obama well to put it mildly confused during the primary when it came to policies, advisors and when to exert influence.

Because too many Obama supporters give him a pass with regard to accountability on these issues, he isn't beholden to anyone on the left. The time to have won some influence was the primary. Now, it's too late."

I've heard you're theory a million times. The primary is over.

You're a dick b/c your'e slandering and insulting Obama supporters. And then pretending your'e not. Anyone who doesn't agree with you is blind or a sell out. We'll see how Obama does. We know where you stand, you're just waiting for him to fail.

Due diligence? Obama won the primary. Edwards endorsed Obama or didn't you hear? Would Edwards endorse a centrist. Would Edwards beat McCain? Etc?

I'm just sick of you know-it-alls bashing Obama supporters. And I'm sick of your bullshit Internet argument tactics.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/11/jason-and-the-obamanauts/#comments

"I watched Jared Bernstein on The News Hour last night taking the Obama side in a discussion. I give Obama points if he’s got Jared Bernstein on his team to work on economic issues as well as Elizabeth Edwards to work on universal healthcare. He should let both those people run with what they want to do for the American people."

--from the comments on Krugman's blog. Yeah Obama is a centrist b/c of his AIPAC speech. Right.

You Edwards dead-enders need to get your priorities straight.

here's another tidbit that reflects on the discussison here regarding what an Obama administration will look like that one can glean from how he's running his campaign:

"The Obama campaign is clearly obsessed with maintaining a tight, top-down organizational and message structure. So far, as TPM Election central notes, the Obama campaign has been "famously devoid of (publicly visible) infighting and/or leaking." Last month, they put the clamps on progressive 527's, and now they are taking over the DNC. Virtually the entire general election messaging will run through the senior leadership of the Obama campaign, and no one else. This makes the Obama campaign something of a living paradox, as it sports the largest grassroots corps in electoral history, combined with the tightest top-down message structure in recent Democratic presidential election history."

a) Not assumption, polling. Polling data disagrees with me about where the American people are by a rather significant margin. It's not anti-conservative. It's pro progressive. They simply label it differently. ie, someone may say they are Republican until you ask them where they stand on actual issues and how to resolve them.

>>> OK, so why is it that we aren't looking at a landslide victory this fall. Why is it that people still want to judge Democrats on so-called "security issues" and why it doesn't seem to matter to people that McCain doesn't have the greatest grasp of the economy? The persistence of that "label" is precisely what I'm talking about. It's why certain parts of the country like to to vote Dems and moderate Reoublicans into local and state office but balk at Dems in the national races >>> like swing states, for ex.

b) You confuse partisan breakdowns of the past with principles of what the American people want. The interesting thing is Obama claims to be about getting past partisan id to address the issues and policies. And, yet, here, you are using partisanship as an excuse to not change policy. Thus it's more than what his supporters think is happening. Namely, just dialogue or label changing, but instead triangulation about where you think the American people are. The problem of course is that you are wrong. Obama will have rare opportunity to demonstrate what he claims, but his policies won't allow that. Let me rephrase your entire posts thus far "The American people are conservative republicans or anti conservative republicans." Those are the two choices. That's triangulation by another name. Its a catch 22.

>>>> Uh yeah, pretend we haven't spent the last eight years mired in reductive language of "left" and "right". Pretend that people haven't bought into it. Or, pretend that people don't hate the living hell out of anything that sound remotely partisan. And notice I'm not characterizing that that I actually think Edwards' policies are some kind of dismissible partisan hackery -- just that the right and the media that coddles them will take great pains to make it so.

Am I supposed to quake in dismay when you use "triangulation" in re Obama? I'll do you one better: it's total fucking triangulation. It worked for Clinton didn't it? The guy wants to win. Should it have any bearing on how progressives understand their own goals? No. Obama does not equal the progressive movement, no matter what idiots on the internets say. And yes, we're entering into an age where the social agenda will move about two inches ahead for everyone and probably not much further. But Clinton didn't kill off the real progressive movement that actually has its eyes prizes larger than the person occupying the oval office, and neither will Obama. But your steadfast belief that somehow Edwards will have drastically changed the set of conditions that progressives would have had to fight in is, I think, unsubstantiated, esp. given that you can bet Reps. would have dogged him with charges of flip-flopping on his own Senate record every step of the way.

[If progressives wanted a candidate, why didn't they pick Kucinich? A strong, consistent progressive record, years of experience, and the only real universal health care plan of the bunch.]

c) None of what you say produces or relates to accountability for Obama because it ignores the dynamic I just described. It's Clintonism without the last 15 years of experience. I am not even sure Obama believes what you wrote.

>>> What did I write that Obama believed? That he's expecting to be held accountable? Does it matter whether he believes it to his soul? Since when do we consider deeply about what politician's actually "believe"? All I know is, he said it, it's a matter of public record. Take him at his word/call his bluff.

You assume that once people have "the facts", that they'll march right behind you. But you seem oblivious to the idea that the last paradigm has dictated the structure of people's ordinary lives for quite some time. People really do believe this country is a meritocracy, people do believe in "welfare queens", and other bullshit, and they don't like it when you point out that they're wrong and being manipulated by other people. The reaction to Katrina being the most recent example: stop whining, work harder, stop expecting the gov't to bail you out! Never mind that I'm in the same situation! You're a loser, I'm not!

But I think I'm right to assume that the progressive movement that existed before Edwards, Obama and Clinton will continue to exist long after they are gone.

Or: whatever, getting into an argument with you was a stupid idea, I'll grant you that. You keep on with the Edwards fan-age. He's young enough to run again.

According to Jason Furman WalMart skins workers for $5 billion in wages -- but benefits consumers to tune of $263 billion? Mmm; doesn't take a Ph.D. to figure out that means WalMart could pay out those $5 billion in wages AND $258 BILLION WOULD STILL BE LEFT TO BENEFIT CONSUMERS. :-)

I wonder if Furman even thought of that (cab driver cynic me). Assuming he did (I hope we can assume), is not noting such just another example of far from any realistic (as in visceral) interest in those of us below 50 percentile income level academic progressives perpetually are?

Okay- once you can assign someone to a particular primary camp, you can then ignore their arguments.

By the way, for anyone curious, Paul Rosenberg of Open Left had some great posts up a few months back about partisanship versus polarization in America. They aren't one and the same. Paula and several others makes that assumption. Nor is Obama approach necessarily the best way to address it- namely being post partisan by being centrist. Post partisan can mean understanding where the American people are in their actual polarization on the issues. Again, not what Obama is doing in actual policies. If it were, his policies would be different. He's being post partisan by once again doing the Democrat-Republican tango. That's apaprent here amongst his supporters.

akaison, I totally disagree with your characterization of Obama.

And like every one of your posts, you need to take a generalizing swipe at his supporters.

For me, "post partisan" means not ultra partisan. If you had listened to his speeches you would know this. Ultra partisan is what Clinton did with Gingrich and what Gingrich did with Clinton: use the other side as foil and not actually accomplish much besides enriching yourself and your supporters.

If you think that by being obtuse you are somehow pressuring from the Left, you are completely wrong. You are annoying people and ruining the left's message. By completely mischaracterizing Obama and his supporters all you do is piss people off.

Maybe Obama actually wants to improve things? He was a community organizer in the inner city, not a super rich trial lawyer like Edwards.

Go ahead an minimize anything good about Obama and maximize his mistakes and missteps and compromises. It's your right, but I'll fight you every step of the way.

Peter- do you realize you begin every post with a discussiona about personality? Just curious, because you do. That should tell you something, but I doubt it will. Good luck. For anyone who happens to check out this thread- you really should go to Open Left- it's a better written and more thought provoking approach all around.

"Okay- once you can assign someone to a particular primary camp, you can then ignore their arguments."

Akaison, that you can write that without an ounce of irony is truly astounding.

See, I have my doubts about Obama. I had my doubts about John Edwards. They both have records that can be compared and contrasted. They both had primary campaigns varying in audience and effectiveness. You, however, seem to be seeing something in the future of JRE administration that I don't see based on what they did in the past OR what actually happened in the campaign.

I said, the issue of the American people being somehow more "progressive" is questionable, given how few connections people have made from their dissatisfaction to progressive values qua progressive values. I can't imagine the amount of times I saw the words "class war" attributed to Edwards by pundits AND their audience despite the fact that he's not proposing anything any good capitalist would have a problem with.

Oh, and since akaison is apparently too busy to post links, this is Paul Rosenberg's stuff:

http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=2909
http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=3458

My reaction when I first read this stuff was mostly mixed, mainly because I don't often read "history" as gleaned almost entirely from polling data. And, uh, I got the suspicion that he was quite literally projecting our current definitions of "conservative"/"liberal" into contexts that were quite different. Which leads him to write something like, "the Civil Rights dimension is a less significant determinant" with complete seriousness.

I guess that is where I draw the line. I DO in fact believe that much of how people frame economic policy arguments hinge on socio-cultural trends that have everything do do with things like race, ethnicity, and region. That regardless of what polling data accumulates in terms of support for ostensibly populist/progressive policy the frame of the debate from the earliest working class revolts in the mid 1800s onwards has been about exploiting difference. Remember "Red Emma"? Remember when Eugene V. Debs was jailed as a traitor because he opposed US entry into WWI? Remember segregated unions? Remember the urban crime measures of the 80s? Remember the "welfare mom"? Or the debate over affirmative action, for that matter.

Obama and his team are stuck within a frame constructed by Reaganism, most people have regretfully bought into the argument that Social Security and Medicare are proof that Big Government is the Problem. This has trapped the center into a place where proposals for bold government led action are simply dismissed out of hand.

Which gives progressives a political opening, if they could only exploit it. Because Social Security is not in 'crisis' in any meaningful sense, not now not in 2017, not in 2023 and not in 2041. People believe that it is because they have bought into a deliberately crafted narrative entirely designed to undercut popular support for these programs. That storyline has been fantastically successful.

In my view that storyline can be expected to totally break down over the next two to four years, and privatizers and their fellow travellers will be exposed for what they are, not just being wrong on the data but deliberately so. In other words many of them are lying much the way their ideological counterparts lied on Iraq.

Social Security thus represents a tremendous offensive weapon for resuscitating the progressive agenda and vindicating the New Deal. Mostly it just takes getting out of the defensive crouch we have been in for 25 years and going on the attack.

"Peter- do you realize you begin every post with a discussiona about personality? Just curious, because you do. That should tell you something, but I doubt it will. Good luck. For anyone who happens to check out this thread- you really should go to Open Left- it's a better written and more thought provoking approach all around."

akaison, Obama's supporters aren't blind cultists. Obama doesn't have a lack of courage. These insults won't stand.

From the centrist David Brooks column today:

"Is Barack Obama really a force for change, or is he just a traditional Democrat with a patina of postpartisan rhetoric?

That question is surprisingly hard to answer. When you listen to his best speeches, you see a person who really could herald a new political era. But when you look into his actual policies, you often find a list of orthodox liberal programs that no centrist or moderate conservative would have any reason to support."

Edwards endorsed Obama, akaison, give it up.

Of course you know better than Edwards though, b/c you're more catholic than the pope.

Bruce:

I agree it can be broken down Bruce, but first, they have to stop believing it themselves. As you can see along this thread, that's an hurculean effort in and of itself. They can't even see it.

Paula:

If you will go back and re-read my posts versus others- which of us- myself or say Peter K attacks, attacks attacks based on who he thinks I am still supporting. For the record, I support Obama. He's our nominee. I do it differently than you two do it. I'm not still fighting the primary. I am arguing for how we can understand how to improve Obama's performance from a progressive perspective. That's somethign entirely diffreent from caling me "dick" and "deadender." if you can't see the difference then this conversation is a waste of time.

By the way- show me along the thread where I talk as extensively as you do about Edwards? Like I suggest to Peter, perhaps you need to examine that. He isn't the begining or end of conversations for me. He's not the basis of why I wrote what I wrote. Yet, because I said a separate comment about Edwards you have certainly run with that.

For the record, I actually did cut and paste the links to Open Left in a separate longer post several times, but the system kept saying I had to wait for admin approval. Finally, I just gave up and posted the shorter statement. I don't know why the system did that, but it did.

So, once again your assumptions that you have been making a long the thread are well just that- assumptions.

By the way, beyond saying you don't beleive- what proof have you asserted? You finally provide some this last post. The problem is that it misses the point. if what you say is true, then Obama- as a black guy- really shouldnt be be a) the nominee and b) likely the president. if we are just slaves to the demographics. if narratives can't change. if progress is that limited. If you believe what you believe, then your support of Obama's message seems inappropriate too. There are any number of historical reasons for why your support based on your arguments don't make sense. But yet, I suspect you still support him.

I do too. I just happen to not feel the need to twist myself into a pretzel to do so. I think he's the best choice of the two we got. I think that he's 100 times better than mr 100 years war. That doesn't mean I don't think we can't forcefully argue he can do better. That last sentence at the end of the day is the difference here. It's why Paul's commentary mattered and why I mentioned it.

Peter

Once again- Obama's AIPAC speech says it all. He's a politiican. there's nothing wrong with that except when we can't hold him to a standard of what our values are. ie, the AIPAC speech was wrong based on those value. It would have been wrong regardless of who said it.

Obama doesn't have any more or less courage than any other politician. In fact courage is irrelevant.

It's not about YOU. that you keep referencing yourself is why you think it matters that you call me dick or asshole. Its all personalized discussion rather than what principles politically speaking are involved.

When i discuss a standard of how to examine Obama- I am thinking of an objective one that doesn't rely on either of us. Ie- what should the role of the US be in the Israeli-Palestenian conflict. Not, what does Obama think?

akaison, the AIPAC speech wasn't that bad. Remember, people move to the center during a general election. No doubt some Jews are concerned b/c his middle name is Hussein.

He's been good on Cuba.

Bill Clinton ran to the RIGHT of George HW Bush on both Cuba and Israel b/c of Florida. Look it up.

By the way- show me along the thread where I talk as extensively as you do about Edwards?

>>> No, I brought up JRE because my personal choice was always between him and Obama. It was about how "far along" people were in accepting left-liberal policy and how I thought this affected their success. I weighed their records vs. their campaigns/platforms. And found them rather equally balanced. And then tried to figure out why it was that JRE's much forceful message ended up being the losing ticket. My ire was raised when you insinuated that I "faulted" Edwards for losing when I was mostly just talking about the overarching narratives of not just the race but how Americans and pundits have talked about left-liberal policies. And you insinuated that I'm some kind of wholesale supporter of Obama's happier sentiments when I pretty much have repeated your ideas about Obama -- yeah he's a triangulator. Yeah, he's centrist. He panders to left and right. Am I missing anything? You were the one who made the jump from my conclusions: "Obama and Edwards were about equal for me in terms of overall persuasion" and "Edwards had a difficult message" to "Excusing Obama" and "Projecting".

For the record, I actually did cut and paste the links to Open Left in a separate longer post several times, but the system kept saying I had to wait for admin approval. Finally, I just gave up and posted the shorter statement. I don't know why the system did that, but it did.

So, once again your assumptions that you have been making a long the thread are well just that- assumptions.

>>> Gee, akaison, I'm sorry your feelings were hurt. But you're the one who brought up Rosenberg's posts. I read them too and thought that this thread would be better served if the links were up, so I needled you. It's convenient to be the well-intentioned polite one after you've already waved me away, isn't it?: "I could contiue to dismantle what you wrote, but what would be the point? You reaffirm my principle concern- namely that no one will hold Obama accountable".

BTW, I agree with the sentiment that the Dems need to put up a strong contrast in order to win rather than appropriating a milquetoast version of Rep policies. But I say, once again, that doing so doesn't mean we get a new set of attacks. And if people don't understand, say, the connection between the cost of their health insurance, gas, their food and our deregulatory business policies, a sane, humane immigration policy, a rejection of the so-called "war on terror", and our insistence on cheap products from overseas -- I say, progressive policies are vulnerable, and whoever won the nomination would be subjected to that disconnect.

By the way, beyond saying you don't beleive- what proof have you asserted? You finally provide some this last post. The problem is that it misses the point. if what you say is true, then Obama- as a black guy- really shouldnt be be a) the nominee and b) likely the president. if we are just slaves to the demographics. if narratives can't change. if progress is that limited. If you believe what you believe, then your support of Obama's message seems inappropriate too.

>>> I'm not twisting anything. I'm just looking at why he won. My proof, as it were, is mostly what I see in front of my face -- mainly that progressive policies have a weird way of getting twisted in the vernacular that made it difficult for JRE and will make it difficult for Obama should he win, now as it has ever been throughout American history.

Also, what does Obama's Black identity have to do with it? -- multiculturalism works for the establishment as well! Well informed people should know the difference between tokenized " ____ faces in high places", and actual policies that affect people of color for the better.

For the record, I tend not to believe anything coming out of a presidential campaign. In particular, I don't care about "hope" and "change" other than the "hope" that a Dem white house is closer to my liking that a Rep white house because I'm generally a supporter of social welfare programs and not a great fan of aggressively pro-business legislation.

There are any number of historical reasons for why your support based on your arguments don't make sense.

You know, it would be helpful to state your argument rather than dismissing me. I've tried to argue your points at face value, so, you know, maybe you could try the same thing in return.

Like I said, I am skeptical of the frame of history that Obama likes to use because it's just a lot of campaign pablum. Which is why, I assume, one also looks at the records and try to find a balance of perception.

And yes, I DO believe that progress is limited inasmuch as the language we use does little to question the underlying material conditions of our values. (And on that score, none of the Dems save Gravel and Kucinich spoke with any real moral suasion about our rampant consumerism, our selfish anti-internationalism, our blindness to our government's brutal relationships to the Third World as connected to our current woes.) Inasmuch as people are not aware of how one problem connects to the next, we are not facing a drastically new paradigm of social progressiveness.

Therefore, real progressives, ie the ones who have goals beyond electing the privileged, corporate-vetted figurehead least likely to screw them over, will continue hold politicians accountable regardless of whether or not the mainstream left blogger community can muster the energy.

Peter K., that AIPAC speech was pander-monium.

Peter

I know that about politicians. My point is Obama is a politician, and we need to hold his feet to the fire. That's all I've really been saying. I have also been backing that up by for example talking about polarization, and how where he is on issues doesn't necessarily reflect a post partisan feel so much as centrism. Post partisan would be go toward what the American people want- not try to fashion statements such as AIPAC that reflect's DC speak or try to worry too much about the GOP.

Paula:

a) My feelings aren't hurt.

b) You lose credibility when you ask what does his race have to do with it, but then talk about demographics trumping polarization. Race matters because begs the question of what you mean- if what you say is true, then Obama shouldn't exist? If Obama exists as our candidate, then is what you say really true regarding demographics. The rest of what you post is-well- I have no idea how it relates to be honest. It seems you are a pessimist. I am more of a realist.