Sunstein: Obama A "Univ. of Chicago Democrat"

Kevin Drum reports:

..In a New York Times Magazine piece running this weekend, David Leonhardt does a good job of describing Barack Obama's economic worldview, which is dominated by a mindful friendliness toward market solutions for economic problems (Cass Sunstein calls him a "University of Chicago Democrat").

Since this comment is about Obama's economic views, I am fine with it. My problem with University of Chicago Democrats like Cass Sunstein are on civil liberties issues, the right to privacy and Executive Power. As a centrist, free trader, Rubin Democrat, Obama sounds good to me on trade and free markets. But how about all the "fair trading" populists? How do they feel about that?

Post Script - here is the NYTimes Magazine article and reading through it, sounds to me like Obama on his approach to economics is the second coming of Bill Clinton. I mean that as a a compliment.

by Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< R2000 Nevada Poll: Obama By 1 | Assistant Prosecutor Fired For Misconduct >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I"m sure Republicans will be reassured (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by MarkL on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 01:41:33 PM EST
    by Sunstein's comment. Will that help Obama with the demographics where he can improve?

    no, it won't. (none / 0) (#16)
    by hellothere on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 02:04:23 PM EST
    There's another name for U of C (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by MarkL on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 01:42:12 PM EST
    Democrats ---Pinochet Democrats.
    It's not a good association.

    The world is upside-down. (5.00 / 8) (#3)
    by rooge04 on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 01:45:55 PM EST
    Didn't U of C economics used to be reminders of Milton Friedman, Pinochet, Reagan and so many other failed policies? They used to be called right-wing with bad economic policies.  Now they're called U of C democrats. My my. How things have changed indeed.

    I woulds not descrbe it that way frankly (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 01:53:13 PM EST
    It was an infelicitous phrase from Sunstein.

    He really is not a Univ. of Chicago Democrat when it comes to economics. He is more of a Clinton/Rubin Democrat on economics.

    Which I like very much.

    Fair trader populists probably should be pissed off about it.


    I agree. (none / 0) (#10)
    by rooge04 on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 01:57:27 PM EST
    It's one of the few points where I actually LIKE Obama. His Clintonesque economic policies (most anyway).  But geesh. University of Chicago Economics is what made me question his economic policy to begin with...since the practicers of such tend to frighten me.

    Clinton's policies (5.00 / 3) (#122)
    by BernieO on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 03:36:41 PM EST
    were pragmatic and effective. I find it hard to figure where Obama really stands on anything after he caved on FISA, but if he is Clintonesque that would be great. Too bad he kept dissing Clinton and his legacy - at one point he even said BOTH parties left people behind in the 80's and 90's which is one of the things that really turned me against him.(The other was his campaign accusing Clinton of racism.)
    I cannot for the life of me understand why Democratic bigwigs run away from Clinton's record. Balanced budgets, a growing surplus, strong productivity and growth, record numbers moving out of poverty, settling the Balkan crisis which really gave our country a lot of cred abroad is not good enough for these fools? Can you imagine the Republicans doing something this stupid? Heck, they go out of their way to make Reagan look like an economic god even though income inequality and debt worsened under him.

    Obama did not have to trash Clinton in order to win. He is paying the price now with so many Clinton supporters not yet willing to support him.


    Clinton supported Fair Trade (none / 0) (#31)
    by SueBonnetSue on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 02:20:26 PM EST
    Didn't he?  He signed NAFTA which pleased my republican friends very much.  

    Don't most economists support Fair Trade?  

    Reagan supported fair trade too and we can hate the guy, but he did turn the economy around after Carter's term.  Granted, it took him a while to do it, but during his term we no longer had gas lines and the interest rates weren't 15%, as they had been.  

    I like the Chicago thinking on Fair Trade because it seems to work.  JMHO


    Fair Trade... (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 02:33:39 PM EST
    ... is usually a term embraced by those who resist Free Trade, which is what NAFTA was. Nobody (who wants to win elections) actually describes themselves as anti-trade.

    Actually the reverse (none / 0) (#61)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 02:45:30 PM EST
    But I admit that I have come to use the phrase "fair rade" as a s club against anti-free traders.

    It's Easy To "Turn the Ecomony Around" (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by creeper on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 02:46:51 PM EST
    when you increase the national debt 11.3% in your first term and 9.2% in your second.  Reagan robbed Peter to pay Paul.

    You need a better example of fiscal responsibility.  See Clinton, Bill.


    FAIR TRADE as proposed (none / 0) (#55)
    by Jjc2008 on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 02:39:19 PM EST
    by the Chicago guys was really NOT FAIR TRADE.  There is no such animal as a true FREE MARKET.  
    NAFTA is not so much wrong in the idea as in the idealism.....which makes it not fair.  

    Like anything with captilism, often adjustments have to be made.  None of it is free of greed, cheating, etc etc.  
    That was the problem with the Chicago mentality.  They supported the notion of people like PINOCHET....in order to get a free market justified murder, slave labor, getting rid of anyone who did not agree.

    Clinton's mistake was underestimating the greed of not only the nations involved other than the USA but the greed of our own lobbyists and their friends in government.
    I think given time, Clinton, especially Hillary would have used economic pressure coming from trade deals to get countries like China to end some things.  But since Bush sold all of our debt to China, now we have no leverage.

    It's not simplistic but to think the Global Economy is going to go away is foolish.


    I attended a rally where Bill spoke (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by 1040su on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 03:29:03 PM EST
    during Hillary's Senate re-election campaign.  He said very much the same thing you did here.  I'm paraphrasing, but the gist of what he said was that people criticized him for being too much of a free trader, but he was more of a fair trader & had strong trade agreements in place. When these agreements were violated they brought sanctions (I beleive he said 5 different times), but this administration had brought none because China now owned our debt.  He made a couple of really good analogies that everyone could understand. I could listen to him all day. He is a brilliant man who could put things in common sense, simple terms.

    I like Bill .... (5.00 / 2) (#150)
    by Jjc2008 on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 04:09:40 PM EST
    warts and all, as the saying goes.

    A lot of it is common sense.  It's like with public schools and the criticism about them.  The right is selling a load of bull to parents and it's easy to sell.  A lot of people would prefer to hear: it's not your kid's fault, or your fault...it's those overpayed union teachers.   I am a forty year veteran of the classroom.  I have tried to tell people: if kids were widgets and teachers and parents and kids all had "quality" control, education would be easy.  There are variables.  Even the absolute best teacher in the world will not succeed with 100% of kids 100% of the time.  If we could eliminate divorce, illness, poverty etc...it would be better but still not perfect

    PURE FREE MARKETS as the perfect answer is a myth.
    As long as humans are involved there are too many variables.  The best thinkers understand that the best system requires the best of both worlds....some free markets, and some regulation.
    I have always believe that STRONG UNIONS vs STRONG  MANAGEMENT is the best.....either one too powerful and the chance of greed, cheating, etc grows.

    But Amercians do have to get over the notion that the planet and all the profits of all industry belong to us...that we can continues to use 25% of world resources when we are nowhere close to representing that much of the world.
    As well, we have to get greed under control.  CEOs do not need 12 houses and seven cars, and the vast middle class does NOT HAVE to live in 2500 sq ft homes, own two SUVs and vacation twice a year. We may want to.....we just don't have to.

    Honestly I think many of us need to get a clue as to the difference between want and need.  


    One of the comments in the article (none / 0) (#51)
    by samtaylor2 on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 02:37:32 PM EST
    That was very reasuring was Obama's focus on Data and research.  

    I told by someone that the Presidents before Bush II had about a 50/ 50 split on politics vs. policy in the white house (both dems and republicans), and under Bush it went to near 100% politics.  His focus on coming up with solid answers and policy, rooted in good research, is something I am looking forward to.


    "I mean that as a a compliment" (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 01:51:06 PM EST
    I wonder if he would take it so?

    I wonder what the Big Dawg thinks of that (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by myiq2xu on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 02:02:30 PM EST
    I'm guessing they would both feel insulted.

    I suspect he might (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 02:07:02 PM EST
    want to mark his territory

    Ooh, David Sirota's going to have some fun (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by andgarden on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 01:53:09 PM EST
    with this.

    Oh (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 01:53:36 PM EST
    This is definitely a red cape for Sirota.

    Bad timing (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by cawaltz on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 01:56:53 PM EST
    This cycle would have been an excellent opportunity to make the argument that allowing the market to do its own thing is just bad economics. I prefer an economic policy that recognizes that the market requires regulation and should be monitored by the government to ensure the interests of the citizenry is protected. Then again, I'm not much into "free markets."

    Most especially after the (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Xanthe on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 02:05:18 PM EST
    last eight years.  We need something else now. Or a reasonable mix. President Clinton didn't succeed W remember - and the entrenched market interests are stronger (and impersonally meaner) than ever.

    I do find Obama impersonal though - so that makes sense.


    Clinton seemed (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by cawaltz on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 02:10:36 PM EST
    to offer a reasonable compromise between the two. I liked how she wanted to spend money on government programs as well instead of just handing out rebate checks. I hated hearing people simplify all three as all the same when it was clear they weren't.

    Yep (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by cawaltz on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 02:17:24 PM EST
    That WOULD be a good area to hit on. Free market on wages equal good. Free market for investors such as Bear Stearns bad. The GOP has to be the biggest bunch of hypocrites regarding the market and they ought to be called on it.

    Hmmmmmmm (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by cawaltz on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 02:17:58 PM EST
    I don't know how I did that little lettering thing.

    it's magic (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by kredwyn on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 03:50:01 PM EST
    Woohoo! (5.00 / 2) (#140)
    by cawaltz on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 03:57:51 PM EST
    I can do magic. Now, I need to focus all my abilities at convention time. Heehee

    I think it's called (5.00 / 3) (#68)
    by magisterludi on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 02:51:29 PM EST
    Privatizing profit and socializing debt. Which is why the "free" market isn't free  at all.

    A cute little bit of trivia- Not long after 9/11, but well after THEY started dismantling and selling off our manufacturing base and then did the great outsourcing of telecom jobs to India, there was an international business convention in DC broadcast on c-span. An fellow was interviewed who represented an Indian company. He was asked "What jobs will replace the ones Americans lost with  all this out-sourcing?". His answer was "Why, the financial markets will flourish in America. Everyone will want to let Wall Street manage their profits! There will millions of jobs created!".

    Of course, this was before the sub-prime tsunami.


    Wow (none / 0) (#32)
    by SueBonnetSue on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 02:21:43 PM EST
    I'm not much into the government trying to control the market.  Let the people control it.  The government just mucks it up, imo.  

    Controlling and reasonable regulating (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Xanthe on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 02:27:18 PM EST
    are not the same.  Right now we are controlled by oil/gas interests.  How's that working out for you?

    Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by cawaltz on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 02:27:29 PM EST
    because if there had been regulation on stuff like credit that would be absolutely awful. Okay, I can't even say that with a straight face.

    The reason things are mucked up is because the market and who it represents(investors) exists to make a profit. It could care less whether you have clean air, safe products, etc, etc.

    As long as you have competent government(which excludes the GOP from control) regulation and the governments part in it is a GOOD thing.


    Well (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by CST on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 02:32:32 PM EST
    I think we have seen how well the "people" control it.  People who work for places like Enron, and Bear Stearns, and Freddie Mac...

    I think it needs to be a good mix between the two.  The government shouldn't "control" the market, but they should regulate it enough that people don't get ripped off.

    Also, the people who are really "free market" should also be against government bail-outs of the airline and housing industries.  I didn't hear too many complaints about that though.

    That being said, I am also pro-NAFTA, international trade is not something we can afford to back away from.  Globalization is here to stay.


    you know the elephant in the room (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by hellothere on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 02:47:34 PM EST
    regarding the economy and housing meltdown is simply this: the economy has been screwed up by the policies of george w. bush and company. fewer jobs, higher prices, and a broken treasury = recession! duh! i see those folks in dc running around blaming everyone but themselves. washington mostly screws things up. i don't have all the answers here but that is my observation. people can't pay their mortgage when fuel has gone up. that trickles down into all aspects of the economy. higher prices are passed to john q public. when i saw people running around crowing about their measly $300 or so, i shook my head and thought, "foolish, oh so foolish." you'll pay much more than that down the road for that pitiful return.

    and yet (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by cawaltz on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 03:22:08 PM EST
    Obama has not pounded home the fact that it was GOP policies that have placed us in this situation economically. He's too busy holding hands and criticizing his own team for regulation. Sigh.

    Agree (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by CST on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 03:28:44 PM EST
    That it really is mostly Bush's fault.  His tax plan only widened the gap between the "haves" and the "have nots".  When the "haves" spend money, it's generally of the speculator nature, betting on stocks.  Those stocks actually need to sell STUFF to make a profit though.  When the "have nots" spend money, they buy stuff they need, that creates a robust economy.

    However, I don't think you should totally let off the "predatory lenders" and such that helped cause the forclosure crisis.  That was a preventable, market-based f*ck up.  Now, the economy didn't help the matter with high gas prices, but it is pretty clear (to me) there was other shady business going on as well.


    absolutely! without a doubt! (none / 0) (#167)
    by hellothere on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 04:48:20 PM EST
    i just get cynical when i see all that self righteous blather and then look at their cave in record.

    Read the article- that is what Obama (none / 0) (#42)
    by samtaylor2 on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 02:28:35 PM EST
    Is pushing for.  He believes that markets work well.  And that it is the roal of the government to correct the places where the market doesn't: 1)schools, 2)civil rights, 3)infrastructure

    and yet (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by cawaltz on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 02:46:01 PM EST
    just downthread I read that he derides Democrats for regulating. Can he any less clear on where he stands?

    By the way, how did that stimulus check thing work out? Did everybody spend their way into economic prosperity?


    Obama: 'Dems too regulation-happy' (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by catfish on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 03:03:10 PM EST
    Just in case there are any doubters Rueters quotes him thusly:
    "I'm a Democrat and there have been times in the past when Democrats have gotten so regulation-happy that we don't think in terms of just efficiency," Obama said. "Well, I'm not in favor of government just for the sake of government."s

    And here's Wikipedia on Chicago School:

    The school emphasizes non-intervention from government and rejects regulation in laissez-faire free markets as inefficient.

    The Magic Hand of the Market, in other words? (5.00 / 3) (#136)
    by jawbone on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 03:55:53 PM EST
    Who thinks Obama will do anything meaningful about universal healthcare?

    Gotta give that ol' Magic Hand a free hand, right?

    But, who knows how Obama will actually govern? Seriously! Who knows?


    Again read the article (none / 0) (#77)
    by samtaylor2 on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 03:00:36 PM EST
    The whole point of the article is that his stance his somewhere in between, but that some place is clear.   He has done a poor job putting that position into a talking point, which the author talks about, and he think Obama agrees with.  But his position is not wishy washy.

    We're sick of the Chicago school (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by catfish on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 03:04:10 PM EST
    more mushiness from the Dem leader. Another Dem leader ashamed of his own party's ideas.

    Poliutics are about contrast (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by cawaltz on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 03:12:49 PM EST
    Instead of deriding other Dems is is too much to ask that Obama start picking on the opposition party? If he is confused about who they are I can help. They are the ones having a ball laughing at his naivete and lambasting him in ad after ad as inexperienced.

    Let me know when he's through chiding his own team and decides to, you know, pick on the GOP and their positions.


    i have seen very very little (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by hellothere on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 02:08:29 PM EST
    in the obama campaign that says clinton lite to me. i don't if it is the repub campaign or the obama campaign, but i walk away thinking carter, carter, carter. and to be honest btd, i know you reference very well with very good sources, but i just don't take hardly any pundits views seriously since the fiasco aided by the democrats that i have seen since clinton left office. obama has spent a great deal of his time(wasted time to me) dissing the policies of clinton. it is real stretch in my mind that he would be anything like clinton.

    That's because Obama has run away (5.00 / 4) (#27)
    by cawaltz on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 02:15:24 PM EST
    from the Clinton legacy. Nothing transformational at all about a twice elected Democrat. Nope why evoke Clinton when you can go all gushy about Reagan(a GOP member). Doh.

    Let's see this election cycle will be about who can out Reagan the other. Is there any wonder I can't muster up any excitement?


    All the facts point to it. (none / 0) (#26)
    by rooge04 on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 02:13:15 PM EST
    He is Bill in 1992.  You may not like it. But there it is.  

    The fact that he doesn't (5.00 / 4) (#28)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 02:16:31 PM EST
    cater to or attract the working class makes him very, very, very un-Bill-Clinton

    Hee. I know this. He is running (none / 0) (#36)
    by rooge04 on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 02:25:09 PM EST
    on most of the same economic principles. But is coming off like a snob while doing it. It's a strange sight to see.

    Certainly that is the right talking point (none / 0) (#44)
    by samtaylor2 on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 02:31:20 PM EST
    But if you read the article and listen to what he says you would see that is nonsense.

    But it doesn't happen. (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 03:05:41 PM EST
    I don't have to read the article.  I look at the polls.  I look at the primaries.  The working class rejects your candidate.

    We've (none / 0) (#74)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 02:59:02 PM EST
    been listening to him. Obama has said that Clinton's economic policies are as bad Bush's.

    Read the article (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by samtaylor2 on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 03:02:32 PM EST
    It is worth reading in terms of having a sense of how potentially one of the most powerful people in the world thinks about markets and government regulation.

    Sounds a lot like (5.00 / 1) (#202)
    by sallywally on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:57:25 PM EST
    "read his Web site."

    With all due respect, if he's so great with words and has such great marketing folks, how come none of them can think of a way to put it into his actual campaign speeches and ads?

    Why should anyone have to read a long nyt magazine article or pore through a Web site to find it?

    What about the folks who can't afford the Sunday Times or the Internet?  

    This was not a problem for either Clinton.


    is this (none / 0) (#123)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 03:38:13 PM EST
    what he thinks now or what he thought during the primary or what he previously thought? Is this representative of his current stance?

    What he has always thought (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by samtaylor2 on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 03:39:14 PM EST
    What is wrong with reading the article?

    Actually the article (5.00 / 2) (#138)
    by tree on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 03:57:16 PM EST
    blurs the line between what Obama said and what Leonhardt relates in the article in explanation. Its hard at times to clearly separate who is speaking in the article, and who's economic vision is being laid out-Obama's or Leonhardt's.

     I think a better way to judge Oboma's economic views  is by his record. Its too "market-based" corporate welfare  for my taste.


    i know bill clinton(sorta) and obama is (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by hellothere on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 02:28:02 PM EST
    no bill clinton. i am sure that senator obama would readily agree with that idea.

    "You're no Bill Clinton" (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by Iris on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 02:29:17 PM EST
    With all respect, Obama is no Bill Clinton.

    thanks for that video. i am reminded (none / 0) (#52)
    by hellothere on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 02:37:42 PM EST
    again of just how smart, verbal, talented and great william jefferson clinton is. nope, no comparison! seriously i hope that btd is right, heaven knows i do. i just don't see it.

    Obama hasn't come close to (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by Iris on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 04:00:05 PM EST
    endorsing a "different economic theory," he reinforces the GOP's framing on nearly every issue.

    I think that Obama and Clinton (none / 0) (#38)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 02:27:00 PM EST
    were extremely alligned on the economic policy front.  She pulled away on that issue only because she is far more talented at talking to working class folks about economic issues they care about.  But in terms of how they think about the markets and power therein - I found little daylight between the two.

    No they weren't (none / 0) (#48)
    by cawaltz on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 02:35:52 PM EST
    Obama was right(free market), Clinton center(min of free market and government spending) and Edwards was left(government spending on infrastructure).

    Goolsbee went on national TV and ridiculed her for attempting to get money for the Oil for Elderly and touted Obama's position on economic stimulus checks. Now, one can make the argument that Obama is similar to Bill but I wouldn't buy into him being similar to Hillary. There were differences. This doesn't mean he couldn't or shouldn't work with her.


    From where I sat - (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 02:44:06 PM EST
    which was in the Edwards wing of the world - they both still gave a lot of deference to Wall Street in their programs.  The thing that most concerned me was the mortgage and banking oversight which neither seemed to want to touch.  We can place moratoria on foreclosures and hand out stimulus checks all we want, but until we fix the underlying problem which is a lack of regulation and oversight, our economy is going to be vulnerable to these kinds of massive collapses.

    Sure (none / 0) (#67)
    by cawaltz on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 02:50:05 PM EST
    Clinton was definitely to the right of Edwards. That said, she was definitely to the left of Obama on everything from health care to how to stimulate the economy. Frankly, it was for this reason she got my nod for second choice. The government should not just exist to bail out bad investment decisions, it should be proactive, not just reactive.

    first the government needs to clean up (none / 0) (#69)
    by hellothere on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 02:51:31 PM EST
    their own act. wasteful spending in like bridges to nowhere. they need to pay attention to what we need and not what we think we want.

    I'm a strong believer in multi tasking (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by cawaltz on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 03:05:29 PM EST
    There is no reason the government can't clean up its act and work on problems like health care.

    That said, I find it alarming how fast the government is willing to cede public interests such as roads or ports to private entities. I daresay that's the OPPOSITE direction of where I'd like to see us going.


    Cramer: Hillary 'Way Out In Front on Housing' (none / 0) (#90)
    by catfish on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 03:07:43 PM EST
    You weren't watching the election. She was leading on the housing issue.

    Cramer on the Ellen Show: hands down, Hillary is leading on the economy, the big issue is housing.

    Hillary in longer discussion on housing on CNBC.


    I clicked on the You Tube link and it demands (none / 0) (#142)
    by jawbone on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 03:58:45 PM EST
    registration. I don't do You Tube a lot, but has it gone to registration only viewers? T/U.

    No registration needed as far as I know. (none / 0) (#163)
    by tree on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 04:42:37 PM EST
    Try this. I'm not sure its the same interview the other poster is talking about but I found it through the search function, putting in "hillary clinton cnbc housing"

    Another reason to have low expectations (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by jerry on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 02:21:57 PM EST
    But how about all the "fair trading" populists? How do they feel about that?

    I'm sitting in a pretty nice cafe at the moment, listening to yuppies complain about Obama and McCain.  Turns out they're against war because America no longer makes bullets or tanks.  I guess they'd be for war if I told them that was all America now makes.  Well, they're clearly in some service industry so who cares about trade?

    Me, I like knowing that the rights our parents and their parents died for, died in the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory, died licking brushes to paint radioisotopes onto clocks, died in the mills and mines, died on the picket lines by the Pinkertons, died to keep kids out of the labor market, and to get health care benefits, and to get a 40 hour work week and to get vacation....  Me?  I support FAIR Trade, the best way to make sure that everyone gets lifted up.

    What does Free Trade do?  It enriches businessman by subsidizing their products and labor costs by arbitraging labor rights.  That is, we suffer until we give up those labor provisions while they find cheap labor suffering even more who will work for much less and without those health, safety, and environmental benefits.

    Free Trade is not a positive sum game.  It's a ZERO sum game.  FAIR Trade, trading with companies and countries where laborers have the right to organize, no child labor, occupational safety, and environmental protection, THAT's a POSITIVE SUM GAME.

    How BTD, is it "Free" trade, if the workers don't have a right to organize?  And what does it mean when countries like China that actually try to give the rights to organize are opposed by US Companies?  What does that tell you about free trade vs. fair trade?

    Pardon my Spanglais (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by Ellie on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 03:01:27 PM EST
    ... but right the f*ck on.

    This anti-Sen Clinton (AKA Those Awful Clintons) as an atempt to pander to media was purely a marketing consideration. Shameful that this even merits pointing out, but she wasn't the Clinton admin(s), or fmr President Clinton's policies. She's a whole separate person. (Imagine that!)

    I also don't appreciate the sudden need to bash fmr President Carter to show one's NuDem cred or express the will to "win". His admin is more distant than Reagan, but I don't see where THAT's coming from at all. Apart from him being vilified by the right as much as HRC was tainted as innately "divisive" by Team Obama, why the sudden smack?

    I'll never excuse Team Obama's gushing over Reagan (who I remember well and whose policies I despised). Oh, yeah, THERE's a winning model of d0uchebaggery we need trickling down upon us from the great hereafter.

    Marketing over principles, media points over issues: these obsessions are frivolous and short sighted. The current mindset that hard won human rights (or resources and institutions) are dispensible if we don't happen to "need" them at the very moment is just tragic.

    And did I mention that we don't need an Obama clothing line, even if it creates a few hundred sweatshop-level McJobs?


    your spanglish (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by addy on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 03:29:15 PM EST
    Is music to my ears. Very well said.

    Fair Trade (none / 0) (#59)
    by SueBonnetSue on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 02:44:17 PM EST
    Doesn't prevent anyone from organizing, but it does create jobs.  Of course, if you would rather people didn't have jobs at a certain wage, I understand.  But shouldn't that be the decision of the workers?

    And that works how? (none / 0) (#101)
    by Jjc2008 on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 03:17:56 PM EST
    Do you think the people in Mexico or China or India don't want better wages, better benefits?  Oh wait these workers came from abject poverty, so 50 cents an hour is better. And frankly, in some places, the workers have NO POWER to organize, to fight for better stuff....

    How do people compete.  The FREE trader says "Hey I am moving my business to where there are no or few regulations..." and to hell with people want decent working hours, decent wages, time off etc. I can go to nowhere land in China, built a factory cheaply, hire people who will work long hours and not worry about inspectors to see if the paint is lethal, if the workers are in danger.

    I used foreign countries but the same as here. Look at how the miners are faring thanks to Bush's policies where "inspectors are in name only."  FAIR TRADE is an oxymoron when poor people are used to make the already rich, richer.


    During the Olympics (none / 0) (#203)
    by Grace on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 06:00:34 PM EST
    one TV station did a story on the economy in China.

    Factories in China are closing because the USA doesn't have the money to buy all those goods from China anymore.  On top of that, workers in China have doubled or tripled their wages in the last 10 years so things are no longer as cheap as they once were.  

    They followed a guy (looked American) who buys lighting fixtures for export in China and he said something about having to go to other countries to look for cheaper labor.  

    Bottom line:  Things are not going to be as cheap as they once were, even though we exported our manufacturing.  

    Did anyone else see this segment?  I can't remember what show or station it was on.  


    More protected Fannie and Freddie markets, great. (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by catfish on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 02:35:26 PM EST
    Obama's past promises to increase taxes (which is fine with me because I'm a Democrat) and relax regulation ("Democrats have been too regulation-happy" and "free markets are more efficient") and statements that "Blackwater gets a bad rap" do not inspire confidence.

    What this has done to Chicago is turn over public spaces to private interests. It's happened here in San Francisco, too. And what's worse is, our tax dollars are funneled to inefficient contracts to private entities.

    I mean, Medicare Part D? Was Obama not paying attention?

    Triple Ugh (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by cawaltz on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 02:39:45 PM EST
    Everytime this guy opens his mouth I just want to punch him.

    Increasing taxes (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by SueBonnetSue on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 02:52:58 PM EST
    If Obama is saying he will increase taxes, he's dead.  No one has run with that as part of their platform and won.  Just ask Mondale.  

    Obama isn't Clinton yet (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 02:49:43 PM EST
    but I wrote big long comments in open threads about how if Obama can create the same kind of economic prosperity that existed in the 90s, then I wont try to rationalize it.

    I'll give him the same credit I give Clinton.

    Obama is no Bill Clinton (5.00 / 5) (#75)
    by RonK Seattle on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 02:59:13 PM EST
    First, he has no grasp of the fundamentals of classic/naive  market economics, of Econ 101 -- witness his belief that windfall profits taxes on oil companies pseudo-rents are inconsistent with Econ 101.

    Second, he is unschooled in the many reality-necessitated departures from the simplified models of Econ 101's first plateau.

    Third, while he listens to many voices, he is overly receptive to various crankish conservative theories of government incapability.

    Obama is a UChi victim in the Reagan mold, just waiting for the next Laffer with the next cocktail napkin.

    I am about as far from being an economics (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Anne on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 03:03:25 PM EST
    expert as you can find, but I think I am smart enough to understand that the term "University of Chicago Democrat" is one that will be used against Obama in the worst possible ways; it will not matter if it gets "explained" or gets the What-Advisor-Really-Meant treatment.

    The only silver lining may be that this might kill Sunstein's chances/hopes for a Supreme Court nomination in an Obama administration.

    My hidden agenda (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 03:08:42 PM EST
    Your last line.

    I confess, I am trying to cause trouble for Sunstein.


    it reinforces the concept of a (none / 0) (#170)
    by hellothere on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 04:51:44 PM EST
    cool, noncaring person in love with their pet theories and little else.

    The real issue with Obama is never (5.00 / 4) (#89)
    by frankly0 on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 03:06:10 PM EST
    really, What are his stated policies?

    It is now, and will always be, what are the policies he will actually advocate for when he is in a position to do so?

    Or have we not learned that lesson?

    That, you see, is why people do and should care about character in a President, and whether, why, and how often they flip flop.

    Just to add to my (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by frankly0 on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 03:11:45 PM EST
    point, perhaps even more important than whether Obama will flip flop on a given issue is whether he will actively promote his stated policies when push comes to shove.

    UHC is one such obvious stated policy. Even granting that it is already deficient from a progressive point of view, it is in no way obvious that Obama is going to put any political capital on the table in advocating for it.

    I don't even know of any economic (or other, for that matter) policy where I'd say with any confidence, Yes, this I'm pretty darn sure Obama is going to work hard to bring about.

    Which means I have no idea how an Obama Presidency might turn out in terms of achieved policy.


    So OT, but (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by andgarden on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 03:09:25 PM EST
    Obama as made his choice:

    I want somebody who's independent, somebody who can push against my preconceived notions and challenge me so we have got a robust debate in the White House.

    If I had to guess now: Hagel. (Of course, that could also mean any number of people. . .) Ugh.

    Still OT (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by waldenpond on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 03:17:20 PM EST
    He also said it would be someone with whom he could strengthen the economy and the middle class.  The talking heads said he was talking about Clinton and since it couldn't be her, he was just talking to be talking.  

    No clues.  Just him building up the person no matter who it is and talking down the perception of the Bush/Cheney relationship.


    My next guess is actually Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by andgarden on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 03:18:52 PM EST
    But she's so obvious (and obviously not. . .) that he didn't need to say this.

    Hagel gives supers an opening to nominate Hillary (none / 0) (#94)
    by catfish on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 03:10:19 PM EST

    Trying to be optimistic (none / 0) (#148)
    by Democratic Cat on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 04:07:54 PM EST
    Maybe he means he'll pick someone far more liberal than he himself is.

    Here's my problem with (5.00 / 3) (#97)
    by tree on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 03:12:43 PM EST
    Obama's  views on economics and government in a nutshell:

    Grim Proving Ground for Obama's housing policy

     Expect the same kind of exploitation of the faith-based expenditures.

    Lemee guess (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by cawaltz on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 03:17:51 PM EST
    More handouts to private entites at the taxpayers expense with little to no oversight to ensure that the taxpayer gets his/her money's worth?

    I haven't read it. That said, free marketers love them some corporate gimmees.


    Impression I got from that article (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by rilkefan on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 03:17:58 PM EST
    was that the Dems are in agreement, or anyway the leading thinkers, that Rubin was right at the time but we need some more Reich now.  This doesn't match the winners/losers take above as far as I can tell.

    What winners/losers talk? (1.00 / 1) (#124)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 03:38:21 PM EST
    Stop making sh*t up please.

    The Chicago School... (5.00 / 4) (#143)
    by Dadler on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 03:59:26 PM EST
    ...was the leading force pressing the former Soviet Union to hyperspeed into free markets, which impoverished many there and has led right back to a guy like Putin, organized crime out of control, etc..  Free markets, at their core, mean pay as few employees you can as little as you can, when the opposite should be the rule.  Without an ethical base that realizes you can't have consumers without paying EVERYONE a livable+ wage, the free market leads to complete economic marginalization of huge swaths of the populaton -- and that leads to the kind of social instability we see all around us.  (The old story comes to mind about the car company executive showing the union rep all the robots that, he said, would soon replace all those annoying union workers: to which the union rep relied, "Try selling a car to one of those robots".)  Greed is still the defining factor in free markets, and it is not a quality we teach our children.  That is the biggest flaw in any free trading disciple's worship -- it relies on qualities we would never want our children to emulate.  We teach our children to share from the moment they can be taught, but then as adults we consider economic sharing to be communist, or socialist, or something, somehow, to be considered evil.

    We are a very screwed up and contradictory species deep in our economic hearts.  

    Do unto others.  Period.  Without it, we will have worse things, ultimately, done to us.

    OT but news? (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 04:45:06 PM EST

    Ok, I admit (none / 0) (#8)
    by JThomas on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 01:55:51 PM EST
    I am a newcomer here so I have to ask; is there some kind of moratorium on critiquing the right wing candidate(McCain) at Talkleft? I know BTD is supporting Obama so I thought maybe once a week or so there might be some critical analysis on McCain and the GOP.  No offense, but it seems like McCain must have some flaws that might be addressed in some fashion. Just asking.

    There are almost daily posts about it. (5.00 / 4) (#11)
    by rooge04 on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 01:58:59 PM EST
    TChris writes a lot of them as well as Jeralyn and BTD.  If you're here long enough, you'll see it throughout the day.  And supporting one candidate doesn't mean not throwing him a critical eye.  Since so many other "left" blogs refuse to.

    Yep (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by cawaltz on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 02:02:40 PM EST
    Just yesterday TChris hit McCain on equal pay.

    Yes (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 02:03:18 PM EST
    There is. We figure the rest of the Left blogs have that covered.

    Let me guess, you want a post about McCain's 7 houses? Two things - one - I think it is a stupid ineffective line of attack. Two, I do not care how many houses McCain has, do you?

    Bush's Third Term is the line of attack on McCain imo.

    When Obama starts hitting it again, so will I.


    nothing new from Obama (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Josey on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 02:11:25 PM EST
    The house meme was used by Obamabots against John Edwards.
    btw - perhaps McCain didn't buy any houses from a controversial figure while he was under federal investigation.

    McCain's campaign has (5.00 / 6) (#37)
    by Inky on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 02:26:38 PM EST
    responded pretty effectively:

    We're delighted to have a real estate debate with Barack Obama," said spokesman Brian Rogers, adding that the press should focus on Obama's house. "It's a frickin' mansion. He doesn't tell people that. You have a mansion you bought in a shady deal with a convicted felon."

    The felon reference was to Tony Rezko, a former Obama friend and financial backer who was convicted on fraud and bribery charges this year. Rogers vowed to intensify efforts to link Obama to Rezko in the coming days.

    "That's fair game now," he said. "You are going to see more of that now that this issue has been joined. You'll see more of the Rezko matter from us."


    Isn't there a proverb that goes: "People who live in big-ass houses should not cast stones"?


    Exactly (5.00 / 4) (#50)
    by swiss473 on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 02:36:48 PM EST
    I dont recall too many dems asking how many houses John Kerry and his Billionairess wife own?

    Gaffer John opened (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by brodie on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 03:31:12 PM EST
    the door, so to speak, on the houses issue first when he said at Pastor Rick's that rich begins at $5 mill.

    Then he said he didn't know how many houses he owned.

    It would be political malpractice for Obama not to make hay out of this -- and thankfully he's picked it up and made it into a solid ad.  

    McCain just looks ridiculous.  And mostly because of the stupid things out of his own mouth.  He needs to be made to pay for it.  That's just basic politics.

    Being so rich as to not know your own home count will be one of those Poppy Bush-checkout scanner moments against McCain that will hit home, so to speak, with ordinary Americans, many of whom are struggling to hold on to the mere one home they currently still have.


    everyone knew McCain was joking (5.00 / 2) (#139)
    by Josey on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 03:57:34 PM EST
    about the $5M. His next sentence began with "seriously" - and he answered the question.
    Obama is playing "gotcha!" over a joke.

    And now the Obama campaign is whining about McCain pulling the POW Card - after Obama has played the Race Card throughout his campaign.


    Uh, who actually owns the McCain residences and (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by jawbone on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 04:30:11 PM EST
    other properties? Jointly? or does Cindy own most everything?

    McSame lists his income as the Senate salary, plus bits of other, right?

    Maybe their situation was to just let her handle the real money, leaving him less open to political accusations of favoring one business over another.

    Just a conjecture--anyone know?


    to know someone is joking (5.00 / 2) (#159)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 04:39:20 PM EST
    one must have a sense of humor.

    Obama will catch up (3.00 / 2) (#106)
    by chopper on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 03:21:26 PM EST
    With all the Lobbyist Millions Obama is raking in I'm sure he'll have his own 10 houses soon enough.

    Especially with the 'creative financing' of Rezko the Chicago crook and Auchi the Iraqi criminal. They both did a good job helping him on his $3M house.

    That Chicago economy is really something.  Even the anti-American preacher got a $3M mansion.


    I care that McCain's image as an (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 02:22:54 PM EST
    everyman is broken down and apparently so does the McCain campaign - looks to me like they are freaking out.

    While Obama has been hanging around with these U of C economists talking theory, McCain has been making himself look like the regular guy who is going to help people through something other than "market forces" which let's face it are why we are where we are today.

    Finally, today, Obama has caught on to the fact that he's got to look like the guy who is going to help folks and destroy McCain's image as an average American.

    McCain not knowing how many houses he has - his spokesman coming out and saying that it is "only four" not like ten (LOL) is good for us.

    Now it is Obama's job to make an emotional connection with voters while McCain is back on his heels.  He's starting - now let's see if he will follow through - that will however mean that he has to leave these economic theorists at home for a while and start to speak to folks who have rightly lost a lot of faith in power of the markets.

    And by the way, I am an economic populist because I believe that the balance of power between American citizens and the Multi-National Corporations is completely out of whack.  I believe in trade, but I believe in trade that benefits our country.  I don't believe in underwriting trade or businesses that do not provide the American people some sort of dividend for their investment.  I think that is a fair and busniess savy way to enter any deal - there has to be a pay off - Bush's policies have not resulted in a net gain for Americans - anything but imo.


    Oh please (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Upstart Crow on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 03:01:19 PM EST
    I just don't believe this.  Everybody knows that Cindy McCain has megabucks.  If they didn't know, they knew when a big fuss was made about her not releasing tax returns.  

    This is like the meme that HRC couldn't identify with the common folk she was pretending to because she, too, had megabucks with Bill.  It's not income, it's attitude. Everyone with an IQ in the high teens knows this.

    And everybody knows people with the McCain kind of income flip houses. If he'd said five houses, and it turned out to be six, people would accuse him of hiding one. If he said five, but it was six, people would accuse him of having Alzheimer's. So "I don't know" probably was the best answer. There are probably rentals, or houses sold, or houses they may partially or not totally own, etc., in the mix.  So what?


    People of McCain's age and generation ... (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by RonK Seattle on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 03:19:25 PM EST
    ... even those who are comfortably retired but not not well-to-do, very often have seasonal or vacation places (some humbler than others, some financed via casual rentals) ... income properties (how many of John/Cindy's are tenanted?) ... residences owned for benefit of adult children ... property "in transition" from deceased family members. Do mobile homes count? Time shares? Stakes in graduated care "adult communities"?

    Those a little bit upscale may have small condos in locations "near the children", or near business interests etc.

    Senators - with few exceptions - have more than one residence (again, some humbler than others).

    Many of the folks on stage in Denver will have "counting problems", and the RNC will make sure everybody hears about it.

    All this comes out ... and sucks wind out of the Veep-launch sails. (Maybe that's a good thing?)


    So what is this: (5.00 / 0) (#110)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 03:22:24 PM EST
    The guy's got so much money he can't remember how many houses he has.

    Not an average American.

    And a lot of people do not know that about him and that is an advantage to him.


    Oh please. Part II (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by Upstart Crow on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 03:43:12 PM EST
    NONE of these guys are Average Joes. Not McCain, not Clinton, not Kennedy, not Romney, and especially not Obama -- as the McCain team was quick to point out. (I like that: "People in big-ass houses shouldn't...")

    McCain has been "outed" on this issue so many times it's a real non-starter.

    If a voter doesn't know this, he's not smart enough to be able to vote.


    According to John McCain's... (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 03:56:05 PM EST
    ...own definition of what constitutes wealthy, Obama is solidly middle class.

    That IS a great point (5.00 / 0) (#147)
    by cawaltz on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 04:03:44 PM EST
    and I am betting anyone with 10 houses in their asset portfolio qualifies as wealthy. That said, Obama would do better to point out that McCain was cheerleading when Bush was spending money like a drunken sailor on Iraq AND cutting taxes.

    There are SO many (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by brodie on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 04:09:43 PM EST
    possible avenues for attack against McCain.  You mention a few.

    I'd like to see TeamO, now that they've put out an effective ad on McCain's too-numerous to count homes, continue along this path and generally begin to define McCain on more than just the usual list of public issues but in ways that hit home for the average person.

    McCain should not be allowed to attack O's character (rich celeb ad, patiotism) while Dems predictably and maddeningly place St McCain's own character off limits.


    I'd take this house thing and (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:04:39 PM EST
    talk about taxes - talk about how Obama is going to raise taxes on people like John McCain who can afford to keep seven houses and going to deliver a tax cuts for people who can't.  I'd suggest to my audiences that John McCain's opposition to my tax plan is self-serving if I were Obama.

    I'd also probably talk about homeless veterans and the horrifying conditions in which returning wounded were living at Walter Reed.

    And just to add some street cred here, I'd talk about working to pay off my student loans if I were Obama.


    Here's McCain's reply (5.00 / 3) (#95)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 03:10:57 PM EST
    to Obama's gaffe -- um, I mean very hard-hitting attack:

    "Does a guy who made more than $4 million last year, just got back from vacation on a private beach in Hawaii and bought his own million-dollar mansion with the help of a convicted felon really want to get into a debate about houses? Does a guy who worries about the price of arugula and thinks regular people 'cling' to guns and religion in the face of economic hardship really want to have a debate about who's in touch with regular Americans?"

    Um, how do YOU think that worked out.  The only place where that story has any legs is on DailyKOS.


    I watched Ed Henry trying not to (5.00 / 0) (#104)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 03:19:20 PM EST
    laugh today when he reported on the statement - his emphasis was on the fact that the McCain camp is splitting hairs about which of the properties are McCain's and which are "just investments".

    If Ed Henry can't keep a straight face, McCain's got problems.


    I find it hard to believe (none / 0) (#162)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 04:41:21 PM EST
    anyone would care what Ed Henry says or does.
    he is a tools tool.
    no one cares about this.  if they think they can win this way they are misguided.

    they don't care about henry. (none / 0) (#172)
    by hellothere on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 04:54:44 PM EST
    many care about how mccain came across on the spiritual debate in california. and that is what has the obama campaign worried. who would have thought-a teflon mccain.

    It is gaining traction at places other than DK. (5.00 / 2) (#111)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 03:26:07 PM EST
    A small example...

    'Here's a fun little find that is likely to give Dems more ammo to blast away at John McCain's number-of-houses gaffe.

    It turns out that a few months ago, a McCain family corporation closed on a second multi-million-dollar beach condo in the same building in exclusive Coronado, California -- at around the same time that John McCain offered his somewhat tone-deaf observation that struggling homeowners were "working at second jobs" and "skipping a vacation" in order to make mortgage payments on time.

    Cindy McCain discussed the timing of the second condo purchase in a June interview with Vogue magazine (not online) that's newly relevant in light of the explosive controversy over John McCain's inability to recall how many homes the McCains own.

    And in another fun fact that could pour fuel on this controversy, Cindy told her interviewer that the reason they needed a second beach condo in the Coronado building was that the first was too crowded because her kids were staying there and as a result she "couldn't get in the place."

    Cindy continued: "So I bought another one."'



    Wow. TPM. (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by tree on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 03:33:17 PM EST
    The next thing you know it will be all over Americablog. That's some traction there. The usual suspects.

    Wow... (2.00 / 2) (#132)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 03:47:49 PM EST
    ...perhaps you should read more than the "usual suspects".  Expand your horizons a little.  

    There's a post up on this at nearly every blog I've read today--and I don't even bother to read Americablog or DK.  

    Oh--what am I saying!  You just don't want to read anything critical of your boy JSM3.


    Look, if you want to claim the (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by tree on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 04:08:45 PM EST
    story is "gaining traction" outside of of the DK-o-sphere then it behooves you to point to source other than the usual suspects that inhabit that sphere.

    And, really, McCain is "my boy?". Not hardly. Just cuz I don't like Obama as a candidate doesn't mean I like McCain. My world is not binary. There are things that McCain should be faulted for, including his clueless statement about what "rich" is, but its stupid to carp about his houses especially when Obama bought himself a glass one. Yes, lets give McCain a big old opening to bring up Rezko. All the in-blogs are doing it, and they have been so "prescient" this campaign. They are idiotic if they think this will ring with anyone other than their true-believers who aren't voting for McCain anyway.  


    Oh, it "behooves" me, does it? (5.00 / 0) (#154)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 04:21:56 PM EST
    Fine--check out ColoradoPols, Sadly!No or Think Progress.  

    Renzo will have as much effect on the average voter as Whitewater did.  Not an issue.

    The McCain miscues will register with the millions of Americans struggling to pay their rent/mortgages, fighting off the repo man...


    I strongly disagree (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 04:28:35 PM EST
    I almost think this was a rope a dope.
    they wanted Obama to start talking about houses so they could hammer him with Rezko.
    and they will hammer him.
    I just read a new ad is imminent.

    also I totally agree with BTD (none / 0) (#156)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 04:30:01 PM EST
    not one, beyond the HuffPo DKos echo chamber, is going to give a damn how many houses McCain owns.
    everyone already knows his wife is filthy rich.
    no one cares.

    With your stellar record... (3.00 / 1) (#169)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 04:49:10 PM EST
    ...I guess you must be right.  

    By the way, how's that whole BO planted the prayer in the Wailing Wall thing going?  


    It helps to read the opposition (none / 0) (#176)
    by Upstart Crow on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 04:57:37 PM EST
    From the National Review:

    McCain Fights Back on Housing   [Byron York]

    Yuval makes an excellent point about what McCain actually said to the Politico reporters. From the transcript that is available, it is not at all possible to conclude that McCain either forgot or didn't know how many houses he and his wife own. It seems to me that the fairest reading of it is that he didn't want to talk about it. I mean, why would he want to say, "Let's see, we've got the big condo in Phoenix, the ranch in Sedona, Arlington..."? It's the classic kind of question that a politician will refer reporters to staff.

    A few minutes ago, I talked to someone in the McCain camp about this. "John McCain never said he didn't know how many houses he and Mrs. McCain have," the person told me. "That is clear. He referred the questioners to his staff because this is a question that has been debated at the staff level with some reporters who, based on an inaccurate reading of Senate disclosure forms, have reported more homes than the McCains actually own, and some press reports that have indicated fewer homes than they actually own. So, by trying to avoid a debate about the holdings of the Hensley Family Trust, he simply attempted to move on to the next question."

    My source expects McCain to get roughed up quite a bit in the current news cycle. "The next 24 hours are not going to be rosy," he told me. But Team McCain believes that they can get the long-term advantage by bringing new attention to the Obama-Tony Rezko connection. "We feel like it will sting in the course of the 24-hour news cycle, but in the long run, by Obama's making a flimsy attack about houses, we will get more bang for our buck by talking about Tony Rezko." We shall see.


    I guess time will tell (none / 0) (#180)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:01:12 PM EST
    about both.
    and "the" video.

    If you don't know what "behooves" (none / 0) (#177)
    by tree on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 04:58:08 PM EST
    means, I suggest you look it up, rather than put it in quotation marks as if its some foreign word.

    Again, all your cites are part of the leftish blog-o-sphere. It doesn't mean that an attack on MCain is gaining traction just because people that will buy any attack on McCain are lapping it up. If it makes it out of the echo chamber,let me know.

    Rezko had an effect on me, and, while I'm more liberal than the average voter, I think you are mistaken that McCain can't make hay with it. Rezko is bad for Obama because at the same time that he was under investigation for bilking the government and leaving Obama's constituents in cold run-down apartments he was helping Obama buy his million dollar house. Not illegal, but it shows Obama was more concerned about getting his dream house than he was about his constituents. Not good. If the repubs start to clobber him on this, it will effect the more liberal voters who see that as a  defect and not a feature, so to speak.  


    obama's background will become (none / 0) (#179)
    by hellothere on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 04:59:04 PM EST
    an issue when the repub guns start blazing. count on that.

    Actually (5.00 / 2) (#108)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 03:22:20 PM EST
    Obama got walloped on that. It might have dinged McCain on his "everyman" image which I think it did but it damaged Obama more.

    Obama's campaign simply doesn't get it. The smear stuff simply makes him look petty and small. Are we going to say now that Bush was right when he attacked THK for her houses? That's pretty much what he's conceded.


    Having personally spent (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 03:32:40 PM EST
    quite a bit of time with a woman who was a Republican up until 2004 - and the majority of whose friends except me were Republicans - I can tell you that the attacks on Theresa Heinz Kerry's wealth and status were in my estimation actually incredibily effective at alienating people from Kerry - and casting doubt on his sincerity.  Like it or not - these paper cuts work over time.

    Did (none / 0) (#121)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 03:36:03 PM EST
    you see McCain's response about Obama buying a house with a "convicted felon"? I think that's a lot more damaging than what you are saying. It's one thing to have lots of mansions and it's another thing to have one but it's one that was obtained with the help of someone like Rezko.

    I did see that. (5.00 / 0) (#127)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 03:42:10 PM EST
    Did you know that John McCain has plenty of history with convicted felons?  Abramoff and the Keating Five come to mind right off the top of my head.  He doesn't want to go into whose got more convicted felon friends and if the Obama campaign is smart they will tell everyone exactly why.

    But did (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 03:59:55 PM EST
    they help him buy a house? The Keating Five is a nonstarted. It was investigated and he was cleared. John Glenn got caught up in that one too. It's old news and I don't think it has much traction.

    Did the Keating Five help him (5.00 / 0) (#153)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 04:17:20 PM EST
    buy a house?  Maybe.  Cindy and her father were investors in Keating's empire.  McCain had the most substantial relationship with Keating by far.

    Keating 5 (5.00 / 2) (#158)
    by JThomas on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 04:34:35 PM EST
    is still very relevant...it required a 250 billion dollar bailout by taxpayers(sound familiar) and cost real people their savings.
    McCain was censured for ''bad judgement'' by the House Ethics committee(sound familiar) for his involvement with keating including many free vacations worth close to 20k and the 112k keating gave his campaign.

    It all smacks of the current ''culture of corruption'' albatross that abramhoff put around the GOP and of huge bailouts to failing banks due to unregulated securities and mortgage businesses. The S&L scandal was the result of Reagan era de-regulation of Banking..and our current housing woes are a result again of de-regulated big business under the GOP. Common thread is the GOP in charge. When they are in charge..deregulation follows ,then big business getting fat, then disaster, then taxpayer bailouts.   Voters might reject more of that pattern.


    The problem with that argument is (none / 0) (#186)
    by tree on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:07:17 PM EST
    that 4 out of the 5 were Democrats.

    After a lengthy investigation, the Senate Ethics Committee determined in 1991 that Alan Cranston, Dennis DeConcini, and Donald Riegle had substantially and improperly interfered with the FHLBB in its investigation of Lincoln Savings. Senators John Glenn and John McCain were cleared of having acted improperly but were criticized for having exercised "poor judgment".

    And then there is this:

    The Ethics Committee ruled that the involvement of McCain in the scheme was also minimal, and he too was cleared of all charges against him.[18][17] McCain was criticized by the Committee for exercising "poor judgment" when he met with the federal regulators on Keating's behalf.[6] The report also said that McCain's "actions were not improper nor attended with gross negligence and did not reach the level of requiring institutional action against him....Senator McCain has violated no law of the United States or specific Rule of the United States Senate."[14] On his Keating Five experience, McCain has said: "The appearance of it was wrong. It's a wrong appearance when a group of senators appear in a meeting with a group of regulators, because it conveys the impression of undue and improper influence. And it was the wrong thing to do."[6]

    Several accounts of the controversy contend that McCain was included in the investigation primarily so that there would be at least one Republican target.[21][22][23][9] Glenn's inclusion in the investigation has been attributed to Republicans who were angered by the inclusion of McCain, as well as committee members who thought that dropping Glenn (and McCain) would make it look bad for the remaining three Democratic Senators.[21][23] Democrat Robert S. Bennett, who was the special investigator during the scandal, suggested to the Senate Ethics Committee that it pursue charges against neither McCain nor Glenn, saying of McCain, "that there was no evidence against him."[22] The Vice Chairman of the Ethics Committee, Senator Warren Rudman of New Hampshire, agreed with Bennett, but the Chairman, Senator Howell Heflin of Alabama, did not agree.[9]

    Regardless of the level of their involvement, both senators were greatly affected by it. McCain would write in 2002 that attending the two April 1987 meetings was "the worst mistake of my life".[24] Glenn has described the Senate Ethics Committee investigation as the low point of his life.[7]


    Keating Five is not a winning argument.


    The (none / 0) (#196)
    by JThomas on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:22:24 PM EST
    bigger theme that ties to Keating is that under GOP rule(reagan -80's,Bush 2000's) deregulation  is pushed thru that then causes scandal and collapses in major sectors that then require taxpayer bailouts.

    Yes, 4 of 5 involved in Keating 5 were dems..but none of them are running for another GOP presidency to continue the ''culture of corruption''

    This can be fertile. People losing their homes while Fannie Mae is bailed out rubs voters wrong.


    It would have been more successful (none / 0) (#197)
    by tree on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:34:35 PM EST
    if Obama hadn't already gone out of his way to praise Reagan, and McCain hadn't become the public financing "maverick" since Keating. Keating didn't hurt McCain earlier and its not going to hurt him appreciably now. Certainly not with Obama as the candidate running against him.  

    yeah (none / 0) (#141)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 03:58:32 PM EST
    and now we're on to Ayers the unrepentant terrorist. McCain is starting to let the oppo research out now.

    I doubt if Tony Rezko (5.00 / 2) (#131)
    by brodie on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 03:47:45 PM EST
    is going to hurt O even half as much as McCain not knowing the # of houses he owns.  TR is a bankshot semi-complex story that is at one remove compared to the direct story line about McCain, out of his own stupid mouth, not knowing how many houses he has.

    We're getting into Poppy/supermarket checkout scanner, ridiculously out-of-touch in a country club Republican way territory here.  

    No wonder the Repubs responded to the Obama ad with such thinly veiled hypersensitivity.  

    This, and related (extra Coronado condo, $520 McCain loafer habit) is the sort of stuff which permanently etches an image in the public's mind about a certain Republican candidate and his too rich to care/qu'ils mangent de la brioche attitude.


    comparing obama's association with (none / 0) (#189)
    by hellothere on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:08:25 PM EST
    a felon and how many houses mccain has doesn't even compute. it is the stuff of late night jokes trying to compare the two.

    I Think the Seven Houses Thing (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by creeper on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 02:56:37 PM EST
    is a non-starter, just like "Bush's Third Term".  There's so much fodder to support a "cranky old fart" argument that they ought to be hammering that daily.

    And where are the references to the Keating Five?  Geez, that one's a gold mine but they're leaving it strictly alone.  Could it be that they're living in a glass house?


    Well now you show your hand (none / 0) (#78)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 03:01:08 PM EST
    In your mind, no lone of attack would be effective, the personal does not work, the issues don't either.

    Kind of pointless to discuss it then right?



    I have (5.00 / 4) (#113)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 03:28:51 PM EST
    a "lone line of attack" that would work. Leave personality out of it. Hillary was very smart when she said "If you get in a war of personalities and character with John McCain, you are going to lose." It's this losing strategy that Obama and his campaign keep employing.

    The effective line of attack is "conservatism is the problem". Conservative ideology is what has brought us to where we are today. Bush is old news. That stuff only works with Obama's current supporters. McCain has effectively stuffed him in the background. Saying that McCain is Bush's third term is only effective when you tie it to the whole problem of conservatism. Obama has completely ceded this issue and it's why he's looking more and more likely to lose in Nov. Why vote for someone who is a "Univ of Chicago Milton Friedman" apostle when you have the real thing on the other side? It's why the conversation has been controlled a lot by McCain and why it keeps getting focused on national security even before Georgia.


    I Gave Two Examples (none / 0) (#92)
    by creeper on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 03:09:24 PM EST
    of lines of attack I believe would work.  Is it "pointless" to discuss them because they are not the same ones you advocate?

    BTD, I wish I knew what my hand was.  I'm sitting out here in the state that's responsible for this disaster, looking at one candidate I know too well to vote for and another who offends me at almost every turn.  Pray tell, what IS my hand?  


    Keating 5 will work but 7 houses won't? (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 03:42:03 PM EST
    How many people even know who Keaing is? Come on. Besides, McCain's reform conversion came after KEating.

    This could be a very stupid argument (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by Bluesage on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 03:53:53 PM EST
    To hit McCain with.  All he has to do is say he didn't buy a one of them with a sweetheart deal from a convicted felon.  

    He just did say that (none / 0) (#161)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 04:40:58 PM EST
    personally (none / 0) (#164)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 04:42:48 PM EST
    I think that was the point.
    I smell rope a dope.  they wanted to start talking about houses.  and they are.  and will continue to.
    Obama will rue the day he broached the subject.

    like I said . . . (none / 0) (#166)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 04:46:35 PM EST

    For once (none / 0) (#174)
    by CST on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 04:56:22 PM EST
    I think this isn't McCain's win.  He has no choice but to go here.  I just don't think it will resonate with voters as much as what McCain said about not knowing how many houses he owns.  Think about it, which sounds worse to a struggling, middle-class family.  "Obama makes shady deal to get discount on house" or "McCain is so rich he can't count his houses".  Frankly, the first one seems like something people may even sympathize with.  Here's a guy who couldn't afford his house so he got a discount.  Really doesn't seem that bad.  And given that he didn't actually do anything "illegal" the character attack won't stick quite as well.

    This isn't to say McCain shouldn't make this argument, it's the only one he's got.  And it will probably help a bit.  I just think Obama's argument is better in this case, as far as your "average voter" is concerned.


    maybe (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 04:58:48 PM EST
    but how long has it been since americans have not been used to having a zillionaire president?
    people are smart enough to know you dont get to be president unless you are rich.

    Exactly (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by creeper on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:05:48 PM EST
    Saw a wonderful line on another blog today...
    "Criticizing Republicans for having money is like criticizing a cat for having fur."

    Sure (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by CST on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:07:21 PM EST
    But when the other side is trying to paint you as an "out of touch elitist who snubs people at country clubs while eating arugala" you go with what you've got.  And when the economy is hurting, and a lot of people just lost their first home, this resonates even more.  People KNOW a president is rich, but they still want them to "feel their pain", and McCain saying stuff like this, or like $5 million makes you middle-class, I think it does make him seem more "out of touch" than say, a Clinton who is rich.
    Also, Obama is rich (not by McCain standards) but he certainly isn't a zillionaire, so I think he can make this argument a lot better than say, John Kerry could.

    Rephrase that to be (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by tree on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:12:22 PM EST
    "Obama makes shady deal to get discount on house with a slumlord friend who bilked the government of millions and left Obama's constituents out in the cold" versus "McCain is so rich he can't count his houses". Do you really think that Obama sounds more reassuring to the struggling, middle class family now?  

    Yes (none / 0) (#195)
    by CST on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:18:29 PM EST
    because I remember that one and not the other.  And the Rezko one requires explanations and fact checks, and is nuanced.  McCain is a "sound bite".  I hate "sound bite" politics, but they work a lot better than "nuance" as was discussed here at length the other day.

    Disclaimer, I personally don't care at all about this stuff and find it pretty petty.  I just think it will "resonate" in a similar way to the "celebrity" ad, for example.  


    The rezko story only has nuance when (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by MarkL on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:36:58 PM EST
    you are trying to defend Obama. It's a straight shot as the subject for an attack ad: Obama buys his own home with help of felon.

    You remember the one and not the other (none / 0) (#199)
    by tree on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:38:50 PM EST
    because the repubs haven't started their attacks yet. I think that will change. I guess we'll have to wait and see.

    while obama talks about houses, (none / 0) (#181)
    by hellothere on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:01:54 PM EST
    the repubs are talking about lots next door. it might be best to go to meat and potatoes issues. you know get off your duff and get out there shaking hands with ma and pa america. i bet that would be a better defense against an attack than some of the other. it worked for bill clinton.

    That's important too (none / 0) (#190)
    by CST on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:10:08 PM EST
    But why not both?

    well personally i want to hear obama (none / 0) (#192)
    by hellothere on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:13:22 PM EST
    talk about what he is going to do for my country and how to fix the problems. i want to see him out with the common people. i want to get an assurance that he does care about them and respects them. you see i don't want to hear the exchange of he said this and ole so and so said that. it is silly and a waste of my time.

    They Don't Have To Know (none / 0) (#200)
    by creeper on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:48:49 PM EST
    How many people even know who Keaing is?

    We have to teach them.  

    Republican corruption is a gift to Democrats.  Why would we not use it?


    They Don't Have To Know (none / 0) (#201)
    by creeper on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:49:22 PM EST
    How many people even know who Keaing is?

    We have to teach them.  

    Republican corruption is a gift to Democrats.  Why would they not use it?


    The houses thing is silly (none / 0) (#35)
    by SueBonnetSue on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 02:24:53 PM EST
    I don't care how many houses anyone owns.  Or how many ponies either.  

    When might Obama begin attacking something substantive again?  He's over played the VP thing.  Everyone I know is sick of it.  How about he present something that HE supports?   How about Obama tells us something about his views?   <tapping foot, waiting impatiently>  


    How many houses has Kaine? Biden? (none / 0) (#81)
    by RonK Seattle on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 03:02:10 PM EST
    Whoever else?

    For a bruising factcheck, how many residences has Obama?


    Uhhh (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by CST on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 03:44:45 PM EST
    "For a bruising factcheck, how many residences has Obama?"

    One... sorry to disappoint.


    Uhhh, wrong. (none / 0) (#134)
    by RonK Seattle on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 03:51:15 PM EST
    Which is going to get him clobbered.

    The old devil in the details.


    What are you talking about? (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by CST on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 04:00:58 PM EST
    If you know something specific please link.  Obama says he has one house, and the GOP hasn't called him on it.  I seriuosly doubt they would let that one pass given the current atmosphere.

    dream on? americans want to know what (none / 0) (#182)
    by hellothere on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:02:45 PM EST
    these guys are going to do about saving their homes.

    Must stay awake.... (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by sarahfdavis on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 02:12:24 PM EST
    There is an infinite number of sites that have taken handfuls of O-percodan and will slam McCain all day long. Unfortunately, most of those sites howled hypocritical and vicious smears against Clinton in the primary (and foolishly continue to trash her and her supporters to this day).
    Talk Left is a small group that keeps drinking pots of coffee and pinching itself to not become become dazed and sucked into the Obama party. It's too dangerous to fall asleep.
    Do the few sites in the sea of Obama adoration really bother you that much?

    The difference (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 02:13:14 PM EST
    is this site isn't awash in blind Obama-love.  Go to the Great Orange (DailyKOS) if you want the blindness.

    Jeralyn was a Hillary supporter in the primary.  Now she's an Obama voter, but not blind.  The "not blindness" is a way of being unique, rather than being an Obama-widget-seller that the other blogs have become.

    In a market as big as the internet, you HAVE to be unique.

    She does passively (and not by choice) attract the folks that have been repulsed by the "Obama Magic" (me for one).

    It's okay here to be a true yellow-dog, real, genuine, "good" Democrat and not support Obama.  I can't say the same for any other Obama blog.  If nothing else, you'll have to admit the perspective is refreshing.


    Here's the thing: we already know (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by Anne on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 02:38:27 PM EST
    what McCain's problems are, that he's on the wrong side of pretty much all of the issues that matter to us.  

    I think the reason you see so much criticism here for Obama is that it's our way of holding his feet to the fire, even if Obama himself is not reading our comments.  For may of us, Obama-as-nominee is a symbol of what is wrong with the Democratic party, and we are not just going to roll over and pretend that we are happy the party is being re-made without our consent.  It's finally dawned on us, after the less-than-satisfactory performances of Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004, and especially of the post-2006 Congress, that if we want a better party and better candidates, we aren't going to get them if the only standard we have is a (D) after their names.  

    We need more.  We deserve more.  And if we can raise the expectations and standards by which we judge candidates, we really ought to, don't you think?  


    Since you are a newcomer (3.85 / 7) (#14)
    by Democratic Cat on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 02:03:12 PM EST
    Maybe you should read through the archives before shooting your mouth off.

    Unnecessarily Nasty. Have a 1. n/t (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by creeper on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 03:00:27 PM EST
    Eh (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by Democratic Cat on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 04:16:10 PM EST
    It was a passive-aggressive slam on the site's hosts and incorrect to boot. I stand by my comment, even if it was harsh.

    do you propose a moratorium on critiquing obama? (none / 0) (#53)
    by Ford Prefect on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 02:37:57 PM EST
    Are we electing a president that eventually has to do a bunch of things that we want for us, or is this an exercise to just do a rah-rah for someone with a (D) beind their name? If the latter, how is it any different from what the right did with Bush and got us into this mess in 2000. If a few who supported McCain in 2000 (perhaps in FL) had critically questioned their nominee's ability to run this country and affairs in the world, we wont have the mess today in our hands. You dont think whoever it is, dems, repubs, indep or anything else, it is important to ask critical questions of the candidate who could eventually be making critical decisions for this country and other countries inthe world? Sure, we should ask the same and more questions to McCain and it is being done here and elsewhere. In fact if anything Obama is getting a much easier shake in the press than McCain. But we should be asking our nominee these critical questions as well and judge his ability to make critical questions and run the govt.

    No, not suggesting (none / 0) (#109)
    by JThomas on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 03:22:24 PM EST
    that Obama should not be critiqued also.

    Anyway, asked and answered, thanks.


    Since Bill Clinton (none / 0) (#18)
    by jtaylorr on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 02:06:48 PM EST
    ran on a Populist platform but turned out to be the most capitalist Democrat in decades, maybe Obama will turn out to be a Populist.
    I can only hope.

    however he managed it (5.00 / 4) (#60)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 02:44:47 PM EST
    the results were populist in quality and quantity.

    That those results were achieved in the private sector and not imposed on the private sector by the public sector is the demarcation line between idealogues and pragmatists, in my view.

    It appears to me that some refuse to recognize populist results that are achieved without expanding government.

    What happened drove both the left and the right crazy because both paradigms were subverted all at once.  One might have called it transformational.


    Krugman will love this (none / 0) (#49)
    by catfish on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 02:36:02 PM EST
    Not that he didn't know it already.

    Obama doesn't have a clue (none / 0) (#57)
    by chopper on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 02:40:20 PM EST
    I can't imagine what kind of economy Obama hopes to produce since he put down Clinton's Greatest Economic Expansion in History.

    I thought that was pretty stupid of him to debase the greatest economy this country has ever had.

    I hate to think about what he may propose.

    I just had my car cleaned and like most (none / 0) (#65)
    by Teresa on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 02:49:18 PM EST
    places in Knoxville, Fox news was on the TV. Obama said he wants a fighter for the middle class and a sparring partner for VP, not someone to just agree with him. Fit anyone we know?

    He is bring up the middle class a lot this week. I hope he really does pick that fighter. I guess he could mean Biden too but I hope not.

    You think it's still possible? (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by SueBonnetSue on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 02:57:24 PM EST
    That Obama has seen the light and can put his ego aside and do the right thing?  

    Me neither.  


    Probably not, but the person he described fits (none / 0) (#86)
    by Teresa on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 03:04:47 PM EST
    her better than the rest. Not Bayh or Sebelius for sure...I can't see them sparring with him. I could Biden but just the way he said fighter and sparring partner made me think Hillary. I know, I'm dreaming.

    Obama (5.00 / 3) (#120)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 03:34:13 PM EST
    is all bluster when he talks about a "fighter". He said he would fight against telecom immunity and in the end he didn't. He's shown time and again it's all just hot air.

    i think who he picks will have no (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by hellothere on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:15:12 PM EST
    comparison at all to that fantasy he painted today. naw! reality versus what we keep hoping for in him are two different things. look at his track record for heavnen's sake.

    It sounds like Hillary to me! (none / 0) (#168)
    by Dr Molly on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 04:48:56 PM EST
    Fight for the middle class.

    Ready to be President.

    Work on economics.


    I'm hoping Capt Howdy is right and we all have to buy her/him a beer!


    it (none / 0) (#171)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 04:54:35 PM EST
    have to buy IT a beer.
    I like that.

    although (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 04:56:30 PM EST
    I have to say, as the day wears on, . . and on, . . . and on, I am becoming less and less confident.
    I think if it was her we would know.
    if he waits past today its because it doesnt want it to be a new story that will overshadow "him".
    but I still cling.

    Don't cave on me now Capt! (none / 0) (#183)
    by Dr Molly on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:02:54 PM EST
    the new ONE ad (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:07:26 PM EST
    that facta non verba linked to in the end of the open thread uses Kaine.
    maybe they know something we dont.
    its pretty funny too.  so let it be written, so let it be done.

    just watched it (none / 0) (#194)
    by Dr Molly on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:18:28 PM EST
    that was indeed a strange and gratuitous use of Kaine in the middle of the ad - don't know it it's significant.

    OK, it (none / 0) (#173)
    by Dr Molly on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 04:55:56 PM EST
    And well said! (none / 0) (#117)
    by fafnir on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 03:32:25 PM EST

    Someone in Obama's camp (none / 0) (#130)
    by Bluesage on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 03:45:36 PM EST
    Has been reading the blogs.  I actually heard him use Bill Clinton's name today when talking about the economic success of the 90's and the fact that people's earnings went up $6000 during that time and down $1000 during Bush's term.  I've never heard him use Clinton's name when making that point.  Is that progress?   Or does he just know he's in trouble and now wants to cuddle up to the Clinton's and their success?  Maybe he will be smart enough to ask Hillary to be VP.

    Yes, I think he (none / 0) (#160)
    by JThomas on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 04:39:31 PM EST
    started using Bill Clintons name on this theme recently and it is effective.
    I doubt he will pick Hillary but would be fine if he did. I just do not think she wants it.

    How much will their gamble lose? (none / 0) (#204)
    by bluejane on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 08:55:37 PM EST
    I cannot for the life of me understand why Democratic bigwigs run away from Clinton's record. (BernieO)

    I think they like Bill Clinton's record and refer to it often without naming him. But underneath this I believe a deeper motive was at work when Dean, Brazile, Pelosi and other Dem poobahs in a collective fit of self-righteousness viewed Bill Clinton as a moral stain on the party and sought to redeem the Dem party by running an African-American for prez to associate Dems with an image of "moral courage" (in their eyes) and an image of "true progressive values," sort of a reverse twist on moral redemption from sexual sin via racial equality (They couldn't try to redeem the party in terms of sexual morality without becoming a bunch of evangelicals -- although there's a trend of that going on among Dems as well), so the racial avenue was ideal new territory to "renew" the Dem Party). How "courageous" this move was could be debated given they probably figured (cynically) they could succeed with an AA candidate largely because of Bush's dismal poll ratings, and (as we saw play out) political correctness would make criticism of BO difficult lest people be tagged with racism (this along with race-baiting was widely played upon, as we all saw, to defeat primary opponents, especially the least racist among them, Hillary Clinton). Little did the poobahs (or we) realize the Great Black Hope would turn out to possess little moral gumption politically, being a panderer in fact, with a curious lack of center while clamoring to the Center, thus losing -- oops! -- the progressive Democratic base and rapidly losing his lead. Bizarre.

    If BO loses the election, Dem leaders might have lost a big gamble not only by losing the White House -- yet again -- but by throwing out Bill (and Hill) with the bathwater, all going back to the puritanical streak of moral judgment (and cowardice) of Dean, Brazile and Pelosi who exercised piss-poor political judgment.

    Even Bill would reform his policies at this stage and move beyond rank corporatism. There's always the problem of jobs but fair trade, not free trade and globalism, is a better course if we use innovative imagination. See Bill Moyer's interview with Andrew Becevish (prof of history and international reletions, Boston U, Colonel US Army retired) for a sharp critique of globalism by a self-styled "conservative." Also (obviously) see Naomi Klein and her "Shock Doctrine."

    Andrew Bacevich (sp correction) (nt) (none / 0) (#205)
    by bluejane on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 09:03:22 PM EST

    From one Blue to another - (none / 0) (#206)
    by Bluesage on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 10:11:32 PM EST
    You are spot on with your analysis.  Fools, all of them are damn fools and have done so much damage to our Party.

    You're fine with the Milton Friedman school of (none / 0) (#207)
    by masslib on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 11:33:49 PM EST
    economics???  Yikes.