Obama '08?

Sen. Barack Obama on Monday refused to rule in or out the possibility that he might end up on a 2008 Democratic ticket with Hillary Clinton.
[...]
"I consider Hillary Clinton a friend," Obama said. "I don't see her as a competitor, potentially, but rather an ally in the process of moving this country forward. I think there's going to be a terrific debate. . . .

"There's no doubt Hillary Clinton will be an extraordinary candidate -- as will many of the other people who've already announced. Bill Richardson announced. He's got an unbelievable resume and is an extraordinary talent. So there are going to be some terrific folks for the Democrats to chose from, regardless of what I do."
[...]

(by the by...great piece by Krugman on Freidman's work and legacy in the latest NYRB).

You math people! Always trusting that some algorithm will clarify the misty air and illuminate the path ahead.

blatham wrote:

(by the by...great piece by Krugman on Freidman's work and legacy in the latest NYRB).

Link please!

Who Was Milton Friedman?
By Paul Krugman
Milton Friedman played three roles in the intellectual life of the twentieth century. There was Friedman the economist's economist, who wrote technical, more or less apolitical analyses of consumer behavior and inflation. There was Friedman the policy entrepreneur, who spent decades campaigning on behalf of the policy known as monetarism?-finally seeing the Federal Reserve and the Bank of England adopt his doctrine at the end of the 1970s, only to abandon it as unworkable a few years later. Finally, there was Friedman the ideologue, the great popularizer of free-market doctrine.

In his New York Times column of the day, Paul Krugman puts his finger on a point that makes me skeptical of both Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton:

American politics is ugly these days, and many people wish things were different. For example, Barack Obama recently lamented the fact that "politics has become so bitter and partisan" ?- which it certainly has. But he then went on to say that partisanship is why "we can't tackle the big problems that demand solutions. And that's what we have to change first." Um, no. If history is any guide, what we need are political leaders willing to tackle the big problems despite bitter partisan opposition. If all goes well, we'll eventually have a new era of bipartisanship ?- but that will be the end of the story, not the beginning. Or to put it another way: what we need now is another F.D.R., not another Dwight Eisenhower.

Full article

While I don't share Krugman's admiration for FDR, I thoroughly endorse the principle he is arguing for. The partisanship in today's America is not some baby boomer fad that your nation can overcome by electing a post-boomer president. Rather, it comes from ideological and social conflicts that are real, deep, and important. These conflicts have to be argued and fought out. They shouldn't be band-aided over with conciliatory rhetoric from the next president's warm, throaty bass voice. What Democrats need are candidates who take a stand on principle; who own the "extreme liberal" label when O'Reilly sticks it unto them, rather than shying away from it. (Republicans need candidates like that too, but that's not the issue of this thread.)

If Sozobe can't support Russ Feingold for president, maybe I will. Or maybe Bernie Sanders can run for president? Please?

If Sozobe can't support Russ Feingold for president, maybe I will. Or maybe Bernie Sanders can run for president? Please?

One thing that has struck me though as I make my way through "The Audacity of Hope" is that Obama is getting a bum rap about being too general (platitudes issued in a resonant bass voice) when the book is actually chock-full of specifics.

Thomas, please tell me you didn't say that. Bernie Sanders especially.

blatham wrote:

You math people! Always trusting that some algorithm will clarify the misty air and illuminate the path ahead.

To mutilate an Isaac Asimov quote: If there's a problem with principled and analytical thinking, it isn't through opportunism and fuzz that we will solve it.

Don't you miss that guy?

okie wrote:

Thomas, please tell me you didn't say that. Bernie Sanders especially.

I'm sorry, Okie, but I did say that, and I stand by it. I may be a libertarian, but I'm easily corrupted by personalities. In particular, Feingold and Sanders are two non-libertarians who succeeded at corrupting me. Obama may well pull it off too, despite what I say in this thread. Politics is too interesting to let ideology keep me from appreciating thoughtful positions, candidly expressed. This is why the politics of my avatars have ranged from Paul Krugman to Antonin Scalia, and why socialists like Orwell and Shaw are likely future candidates.

You must be swayed by personalities a great deal, wow. Sanders is about as far from Libertarian as you can find here in this country.

okie wrote:

You must be swayed by personalities a great deal, wow. Sanders is about as far from Libertarian as you can find here in this country.

Not so far from those of us who think the greatest imminent threats are currently to civil liberties, not to economic liberties. I can't speak for all of us, but six years of Bush have brought this libertarian to a peculiar point: At the moment I can easily live with a president who raises taxes, if only he refrains from starting gratuitous wars, cuts back on Patriot Act powers, quits imprisoning Americans without a trial, and closes down Guantanamo Bay and its cousins around the world. Given where America is at, Bernie Sanders and Russ Feingold fit this libertarian's preferences better than many Republicans who sling around the word "freedom" while subverting its substance through their votes.

(PS: Sadly, Wikipedia tells me that Feingold decided in November 2006 not to run. <sigh>)

You have to understand most of the controversy around Bush is nothing but Democrats being mad about losing the Whitehouse.