OBAMA, RHETORIC AND CHANGE
In the closing days of the campaign in Iowa, Barak Obama is being criticized on the left for campaigning from the right, particularly because of the following statement:
The funny thing is, more then not, I'm with Obama on these things. I think when he rants about starting off 'with half the country already not wanting to vote for Democrats' he's not proscribing Lieberman like capitulation, but is dealing from a position of strength and arguing that Democrats have to be able to go to the other side's home field and sell their policies. It is a dearth of ambition that goes into a campaign like this and presumes the redstate/bluestate divide is set in stone and is willing to do battle over the same six 'swing states.'
I also think it is a legitimate criticism of his primary opponent, Hillary Clinton. Her high unfavorability ratings would almost definitively prevent her from aggressively appealing to a supermajority of the country.
On the particulars I am split - I disagree with Obama that social security faces a 'crisis' and think his rhetoric on the manner is unfortunate (although I think his policy solution is elegant), but I agree with him on health care mandates. Not only would they be likely to kill a bill entirely, but the costs of such mandates fall most heavily on the poor. I agree with Obama that the solution is not to require people to pay for healthcare but to make healthcare affordable - and once that happens, people will buy it on their own.
As someone who has argued for more partisanship, I am discouraged by the response to Obama. Superficially too many of the critics make similar arguments to ones I have made, but I feel they fail to distinguish either between (a) rhetoric versus policy and more importantly (b) compromise versus persuasion.
""I don't want to go into the next election starting off with half the country already not wanting to vote for Democrats. We've done that in 2004 and 2000. 47 percent of the country on one side, 47 percent of the country on the other . . . We don't need another one of those elections." (source)This dovetails with several other areas in which Obama has come under fire from the left (Paul Krugman has seemed to be out on a mission against him). The big ones: Obama said we need to 'save' social security (which gives credit to a Republican frame that is not terribly accurate - social security does not need saving) and health insurance (Obama is against mandates requiring everyone to purchase health insurance).
The funny thing is, more then not, I'm with Obama on these things. I think when he rants about starting off 'with half the country already not wanting to vote for Democrats' he's not proscribing Lieberman like capitulation, but is dealing from a position of strength and arguing that Democrats have to be able to go to the other side's home field and sell their policies. It is a dearth of ambition that goes into a campaign like this and presumes the redstate/bluestate divide is set in stone and is willing to do battle over the same six 'swing states.'
I also think it is a legitimate criticism of his primary opponent, Hillary Clinton. Her high unfavorability ratings would almost definitively prevent her from aggressively appealing to a supermajority of the country.
On the particulars I am split - I disagree with Obama that social security faces a 'crisis' and think his rhetoric on the manner is unfortunate (although I think his policy solution is elegant), but I agree with him on health care mandates. Not only would they be likely to kill a bill entirely, but the costs of such mandates fall most heavily on the poor. I agree with Obama that the solution is not to require people to pay for healthcare but to make healthcare affordable - and once that happens, people will buy it on their own.
As someone who has argued for more partisanship, I am discouraged by the response to Obama. Superficially too many of the critics make similar arguments to ones I have made, but I feel they fail to distinguish either between (a) rhetoric versus policy and more importantly (b) compromise versus persuasion.
Combine that with the possibility that he radically increases black turnout, and I think a lot of Southern states could be in play.
I also think the electoral map helps him and that he can speed up existing Democratic trendlines in states like Virginia, Colorado, Nevada and Ohio.
Neither Clinton nor Obama appeal to moderate Republicans and both will undoubtedly greatly assist the Republicans to get out their votes.
We (and hopefully I will be living in the US before this election) need this one won convincingly.
No messing, no Democrat poster child, a strong experienced Democrat with a wide power base in both houses running the show so government looks joined up and competent.
My belief is that is John Edwards.
I think Edwards has some limitations. His economic policies will play well with Democrats but alienate other groups. I have doubts about his message resonate in Republican areas. Also he has so little money I don't think he could actually stand up to the Republicans.