Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
RE: OBAMA. Dana, what struck me about Dickerson's article suggesting the Obama campaign begin to panic about Clinton's apparent strength is how weak Dickerson's suggestions were. That's not necessarily his fault, as it's hard to make up 20 percent in the polls, and if there were an obvious way to do it, one of Obama's advisors would have mentioned it to the candidate and they wouldn't be in a distant second-place anymore.
But one thing the Obama campaign could do is start bringing out some bolder policy. Their health plan was less impressive than either Clinton or Edwards' offerings, their plan for withdrawal from Iraq was rather typical for the race, and their new tax plan is, well, incremental is almost too generous. It's just some giveaways and goodies -- giveaways and goodies that I support, to be sure, but that don't do much to reform or simplify a fairly mucked-up tax code.
As Kevin says, "[Obama seems] cautious to a fault. His big foreign policy speech was fine, but cautious and mainstream. His big healthcare speech was fine, but cautious and mainstream. And now his big tax speech is....just cautious and mainstream. I really want to hear something big and controversial from Obama, something that demonstrates a desire to shake up the status quo. But he just doesn't seem to be willing to take any chances." And it's hard to make up 20 points when you won't take chances.
--Ezra Klein
COMMENTS (11)
What struck me was that apparently somebody still gives a shit what John Dickerson thinks.
Posted by: CJR | September 19, 2007 1:53 PM
"But one thing the Obama campaign could do is start bringing out some bolder policy."
It's a bit difficult to imagine the Obama campaign undergoing a DNA transplant at this point in the calendar...
Posted by: Petey | September 19, 2007 1:53 PM
ezra, did you write this post, or did an ezrawonkbot write it?
do you value anything unwonky, or are you policy-all-the-way-down?
Posted by: David | September 19, 2007 3:07 PM
Obama is playing the Beltway Dem establishment game, which is to dumb down and mute his progressive instincts (particularly on Iraq) because our "centrist" media overlords like Dean Broder expect "responsible" Dems to do that. Why play that game? You're a young, exciting, attractive black man with a history of progressive activism and a sound position on Iraq that the public agrees with. Why not stress that and contrast it with Hillary, who's admirable in some ways but clearly a don't-rock-the-boat type? Beats me.
The thing that bugs me is how Edwards never really caught fire. I mean, we talk a big game as Dems and progressives, but when we get a guy whose positions are actually closer to ours, the rank and file don't rally to him. What the fuck? Did we actually buy the media's Kewl Kidz "he's just a rich phony" routine? Jesus.
Posted by: scott | September 19, 2007 3:44 PM
"The thing that bugs me is how Edwards never really caught fire. I mean, we talk a big game as Dems and progressives, but when we get a guy whose positions are actually closer to ours, the rank and file don't rally to him."
Meh. High information Dems have been an Edwards crowd pretty much all year. If you take a poll on an online Dem site, or a straw poll at a state Democratic convention, Edwards almost always wins.
It's the low information Dems who haven't gotten the message yet.
Posted by: Petey | September 19, 2007 3:48 PM
Actually, as a high-information Dem myself, Edwards never caught fire for me because I have a hard time separating his current incarnation from the conservative-leaning, centrist, War-resolution-sponsoring candidate who ran in 2004, a candidate who's campus organizing event I attended in 2003 to learn about and such.
What struck me about him then and strikes me about him now is that he's willing to play to his audience. Even the narrative his supporters push, that he's now "free from his handlers" and whatnot, admit that Edwards the politician was willing to pander to the electorate back then.
But NOW that he's running for the Dem nomination and taking out the standard hard-left Dem positions on just about everything, I'm supposed to be impressed by that? Please. It's like wondering why Republicans aren't more impressed by Romney.
Posted by: mopper | September 19, 2007 3:53 PM
[Obama seems] cautious to a fault
This is the same Obama everyone was attacking last month for his comments on OBL & Pakistan?
Posted by: Jinchi | September 19, 2007 4:49 PM
This is the same Obama everyone was attacking last month for his comments on OBL & Pakistan?
His comments were taken out of context, but were controversial and RIGHT. Rather than keep pushing and fighting back, he decided he had to back off. Since then he has been far more cautious, and far less exciting.
Posted by: IMU | September 19, 2007 5:01 PM
His comments were taken out of context, but were controversial and RIGHT.
I agree. But it's ridiculous to claim he's being too cautious, when just last month everyone was claiming he was to reckless.
Posted by: Jinchi | September 19, 2007 5:47 PM
mopper - You are actually a low information voter if you think Edwards ran as a 'conservative-leaning centrist in 2004.' The focus of Edward's campaign in 2004 was the progressive Two America's theme. While Edwards voting record in the Senate wasn't top ten liberal it was squarely in the middle of the Democratic caucus. Only an HRC fanboy who was surfacing on all the lefty sites to trash Edwards as a phony would claim he ran as a conservative Dem. Better check in with Team Clinton to get the updated talking points.
Posted by: mopper sucks ass | September 19, 2007 6:13 PM
"His comments were taken out of context, but were controversial and RIGHT. Rather than keep pushing and fighting back, he decided he had to back off. Since then he has been far more cautious, and far less exciting."
Yeah, an opportunity lost IMO.
Posted by: Korha | September 19, 2007 6:14 PM