Obama '08?

[..] Third, this is nothing new, but [this LA Times piece] piece raises an issue I've been meaning to address for a week or two, basically since I promised I would share some thoughts about how Obama should have run his campaign. Here's the relevant graf:

The mantra of change makes its way into every Obama speech. On a chilly evening outside a United Auto Workers hall in Marshalltown, Iowa, he told the crowd that people "want to feel we can still rally together as Americans around a common purpose, a common destiny; that we can solve big problems here in America; . . . that we can put an end to the gridlock and go about the business of changing America. But what we realize is we can't do that just by changing political parties in the White House; we've got to change our politics."

As I said [earlier], I think Obama's changing politics theme is too ambitious, since there's nothing in his resume that obviously suggests he'd be able to pull it off. (That's not to say he couldn't; just that it's not obvious that he could.) The more I think about it, the more I think the way to run would have been to spend a lot of time taking on Bush and the Republican Party--i.e., just worrying about "changing political parties in the White House." Imagine if Obama had directed his soaring rhetoric and youthful energy at the GOP. It would have a.) played to the partisan mood among Democrats, b.) actually been pretty hopeful and forward-looking, because once he got done indicting the other guys he could easily have pivoted to what he would do differently, and c.) actually showcased the contrasts between him and Hillary pretty effectively, since her critique of Bush is more pedestrian and small-bore than his. Here, for example, is how Obama made the case against Repulicans during his 2004 Senate campaign:

One of the things that I have discovered in my years of service and in this campaign, and it has been confirmed again and again - and this is the leap of faith I took when I ran - is that the American people at their core are a decent people. And they get confused some times. They watch Fox News, they listen to rush Limbaugh. Or they read president Bush's press releases. But mainly they're just busy and they're tired and they're stressed and they're worried about how to raise their families and to pay the bills, so they're not paying attention to politics. But if you sit down with them and you ask, you know, what do you expect out of your government. And what do you expect out of life, turns out their expectations are extraordinarily modest. They know they've got to work hard, to raise their families. They know that nobody's going to do it for them. But what they do expect is, if they're able and willing, they should be able to find a job that pays a living wage. That they shouldn't be bankrupt when they get sick. They should be able to send their child to a school that is comparably funded, and when that child is old enough, and they've done the work, they should be able to go to college, even if they don't come from a wealthy family. And they expect that every senior citizen should be able to retire with some dignity and respect. That's it. That's not a lot. And, when you tell them, that we could be delivering those things, just with a slight change in priorities, if we stop just cutting taxes for the wealthy, and try to put that money to expand opportunity. You tell people that there's no reason why working people should be cut out of overtime. When you tell them that we can make better choices, and give a little bit of help to working families, all across this country, and we can make sure that every child in America gets a decent shot in life, if people are vulnerable, somebody's there to give them a hand up, not a hand out, then people respond. They want to hear the truth. And they'll even hear it from somebody who's name they don't recognize. And that's what this race was about. ... We have one candidate in this race who stands four square with George Bush on every single economic policy, who thinks that outsourcing is good, whose main economic idea for saving jobs is cutting and eliminating the capital gains tax, more tax cuts for people who don't need them, and weren't even asking for. And we've got a candidate in this race, myself, who thinks that we can play a role in ensuring that working families get the help they need to raise their families...

I think the Obama campaign has figured out, correctly, that you want to invoke a certain number of general-election themes in the primary, since part of what Democrats are looking for is someone who'll have general-election appeal. Where Obama goes wrong is his choice of general-election themes. I think the 2004 approach--making the case against Bush-style Republicanism--is much better suited to the current moment than the hopeful, new-politics theme.

[OBAMA] It does not mean, I think, changing positions whenever it's politically convenient. And Senator Clinton, in her campaign, I think
has been for NAFTA previously. Now she's against it. She has taken
one position on torture several months ago, and then most recently has
taken a different position.

She voted for a war, to authorize sending troops into Iraq, and
then later said this was a war for diplomacy.


OBAMA: I don't think that it -- now, that may be politically
savvy, but I don't think that it offers the clear contrast that we
need. I think what we need right now is honesty with the American
people about where we would take the country. That's how I'm trying
to run my campaign. That's how I will be as president.

[OBAMA]But what we cannot continue to do is operate as if we are
the weakest nation in the world instead of the strongest one, because
that's not who we are and that's not what America has been about,
historically. And it is starting to warp our domestic policies, as
well.

We haven't even talked about civil liberties and the impact of
that politics of fear -- what that has done to us, in terms of
undermining basic civil liberties in this country, what it has done in
terms of our reputation around the world.

Well, look, I'm glad that Hillary took the phrase "turn
the page." It's a good one, but this is an example of not turning the
page. We have just gone through one of the most secretive
administrations in our history.

And not releasing, I think, these records at the same time,
Hillary, that you're making the claim that this is the basis for your
experience, I think, is a problem.

Part of what we have to do is invite the American people back to
participate in their government again. Part of what we need to do is
rebuild trust in our government again.

Obama Introduces Iran Measure
Democrat Obama to Introduce Resolution Saying Bush Has No Authority for War With Iran
By NEDRA PICKLER
The Associated Press
WASHINGTON


Democrat Barack Obama introduced a Senate resolution late Thursday that says President Bush does not have authority to use military force against Iran, the latest move in a debate with presidential rival Hillary Rodham Clinton about how to respond to that country's nuclear ambitions.

Clinton's campaign accused Obama of playing politics instead of taking a leadership role from the outset.

Obama spokesman Bill Burton said the Illinois senator drafted the measure in an effort to "nullify the vote the Senate took to give the president the benefit of the doubt on Iran."

Burton was referring to an amendment sponsored by Sens. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., and Joe Lieberman, an independent from Connecticut, that passed 76-22 on Sept. 26 and designates Iran's Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization.

Clinton was the only Senate Democrat running for president to support the measure, and her rivals have argued that Bush could use it to justify war with Iran. Clinton insists her vote would not support military strikes and instead was a vote for stepped-up diplomacy.

Last week, the Bush administration declared the Revolutionary Guard a proliferator of weapons of mass destruction and announced new sanctions meant to isolate Iran. The Iranian government contends its nuclear program is aimed only toward providing nuclear power.

Clinton and 29 other senators wrote to Bush Thursday to tell him he has no congressional authority for war with Iran.

The four Democratic senators running for the White House split over whether to sign the letter. Chris Dodd of Connecticut added his support, while Obama and Joe Biden of Delaware declined.

The letter accuses Bush of "provocative statements and actions stemming from your administration with respect to possible U.S. military action in Iran."

"We wish to emphasize that no congressional authority exists for unilateral military action against Iran," it says. That includes the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, the letter says.

Obama missed the vote on the amendment because he was campaigning. Clinton spokesman Phil Singer said if Obama was so concerned about the amendment, he should have been there to vote against it. Singer said Obama also should have signed Webb's letter and co-sponsored two other pieces of legislation that reaffirm the president cannot use force against Iran without congressional approval.

"It's unfortunate that (Senator) Obama is abandoning the politics of hope in favor of the kind of political games he is so critical of in his book," Singer said. He pointed to a passage in "The Audacity of Hope" where Obama is critical of the tendency to "exaggerate or demonize, oversimplify or overstate our case."

Said Obama spokesman Bill Burton: "With her vote for the war in Iraq and her vote for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, Hillary Clinton has now given George Bush the benefit of the doubt not once, but twice. While she's trying her best to change her position on yet another critical issue facing our country, Senator Obama knows that it takes legislation, not letters, to undo the vote that she cast."

His resolution says any offensive military action against Iran must be explicitly authorized by Congress, and seeks to clarify that nothing approved so far provides that authority.

Biden spokeswoman Elizabeth Alexander said Biden believes the amendment could be used to justify military action.

"He has also made clear many times his view that the president lacks the authority to use force against Iran absent authorization from Congress," she said. "He didn't need to clarify that position. He's been clear from the start."

Even though Dodd shares that view, he signed the letter because "we felt that it was necessary to make it clear that this administration cannot take military action against Iran without the express authorization of Congress," said Dodd spokesman Hari Sevugan.

MISCELLANEOUS CHARTS....The Project for Excellence in Journalism released a report a couple of days ago showing that so far during the 2008 campaign season, Democrats have gotten more favorable coverage than Republicans.

Now, maybe you believe this and maybe you don't, but what caught my eye was the reason Democrats got such favorable coverage. Two words: Barack Obama.

The chart [below] shows the results for each of the six leading candidates, and Obama's coverage is almost stratospherically laudatory. So I grabbed the raw data and removed Obama from the analysis entirely to see what would happen. Answer: the positive vs. negative coverage was virtually identical for Democrats and Republicans.

Bottom line: the press isn't in love with Democrats, it's in love with Barack Obama.

I question the assumption underlying the study: That each party and each candidate ought to receive equally favorable coverage. Bullshît! If one party presents notably weaker programs, less honest arguments, less persuasive candidates and so forth, then this is what excellent journalists should report even if the result is an unequal distribution of brownie points. Any other approach to reporting is affirmative action for bad politics.

Unequally favorable coverage, then, is not by itself evidence of bad journalism, or of political bias.

Look at the Democrats here, for example. We're talking three candidates who share roughly the same political orientation - we're not talking former facsists or postcommunists here - and it's not like there's a crook or genius among them either. Just three mainstream candidates with nuanced differences in approach and policy.

We're not talking some abstract requirement that journalists should precisely lot out equal numbers of positive and negative stories about each individual candidate here. When one candidate is given such overwhelming preferential coverage over his nearest rivals, something has gone seriously amiss.

(Sunstein) As a law professor I would say, If you think there's nothing to be learned from Justice [Antonin] Scalia's opinions, then there's a real problem. Because some of his opinions are really good. And some of them are even right. And those that are wrong, you improve your thinking a lot if you grapple with what he has to say.

(Interviewer) You're sounding a bit like Barack Obama. He was your colleague for a while, right?

(Sunstein) Yes, 10 years. And I'm an informal, occasional advisor to him.

I'll tell you what I like about Obama, which is connected with the book. He really doesn't like to surround himself only with like-minded others. He really is someone who has never lived and wouldn't live in an echo chamber. His great skepticism about the red state, blue state divide is just the thought that no particular party has a monopoly on wisdom.

"He has," Lake says, "the kind of mind that works its way through complexities by listening and giving some edge of legitimacy to various points of view before he comes down on his, and that point of view embraces complexity." This awareness of complexity felt like a kind of politics itself and a repudiation of the Bush administration's categorical thinking.

"John Edwards, specifically, as well as the press, would never attack Barack Obama for two hours they way they attacked her," said Geraldine A. Ferraro, the 1984 vice presidential candidate who supports Mrs. Clinton. "It's O.K. in this country to be sexist," Ms. Ferraro said.

Dumb, dumb move by Hillary's camp, I think. They're not beating up on her because she's a woman, they're beating up on her because she's the front-runner. Really odd time to be breaking out some sort of fragile flower thingie.

As I think I've mentioned earlier, I used to really love listening to Scalia argue in a large roundtable discussion which used to run on TV every sunday.

Bill Clinton's suggestion that his wife faced a Republican-style "Swift boat" attack during and after the last Democratic debate drew a rebuke yesterday from Senator Barack Obama, who said, "I was pretty stunned by that statement."

The comments by the former president, at a postal workers' convention in Nevada on Monday, came as he discussed efforts by the moderators and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton's Democratic rivals at the debate on Oct. 30 to get Mrs. Clinton to give a quick and clear answer on the issue of driver's licenses for illegal immigrants.

blatham wrote:

As I think I've mentioned earlier, I used to really love listening to Scalia argue in a large roundtable discussion which used to run on TV every sunday.

You did mention it, yes. And, just to share the love, I have a weak spot for Justice Breyer myself.