I believe the proper term in this situation is "phlip-phlops."

What a whore.

California is in the bag.

Yet another reason not to vote for him.

Come on, it's a joke.

Yeah, he couldn't possibly be doing the whole thing even partly in order to get a few votes.
Because he's a new kind of pol.

/rolls eyes

Um, this is silly. But...

On the one hand, FL is more contested right now than PA. On the other hand, Tampa Bay has a smaller fan base than the Phillies.

Also, this is more respectable, baseball-wise-- he's rooting for one of the NL teams, rather than the AL rival that just beat his own team, or the AL rival that his team beat in 2005.

I mean, he could pick the Dodgers, but, as 4 notes, it's in the bag.

Yeah, he couldn't possibly be doing the whole thing even partly in order to get a few votes.
Because he's a new kind of pol.

Is he a whore, or is this unexceptional pol behavior?

What a whore.

Unlike McCain, who said he was a Red Sox fan, because his DBacks were eliminated.

Is he a whore, or is this unexceptional pol behavior?

Um, could you explain the difference?

[M]y campaign manager, David Plouffe, is a huge Phillies fan and, since the White Sox are out of it now, I've got to go with my campaign manager's team.

May this thread die a quick death.

Yeah, if that is the quote, that's pretty cool.


He's still both a whore and an unexceptional pol. Rather, he's an exceptional pol and now that he's moving up to baseball treason we should all have more respect.

Phillie fans boo Santa Claus, showing their hatred of both Christianity and America. Makes perfect sense Obama would align with them.

That's a good 'nuff explanation, clearly not a joke, shoulda read the article.

Which team does ACORN support?

It's sad to think that some people might base their vote on which team a candidate roots for.

Then again, the stupid vote does decide the election.

Pennsylvania isn't a swing state.

what assininity. His campaign manager's from Philly. After the elimination of the White Sox, he's showing some friendship to his CM. NOTHING to do with politics. Think anybody who would vote for Obama would give a rat's ass? He's trying for the positive readings on the IQ scale.

Well, both McCain and Obama should be treating it as one. If election day were tomorrow, there would be no swing states, as the only question would be whether Obama broke 350 or 400 EV. States wouldn't matter.

States only matter in an election decided by less than two points (and still rarely except when it's less than one point). If the election is being decided by two points, both candidates will need to be on the ground in PA. So insofar as swing states - in the sense of states that could swing the election - exist, PA is one.

Some Obama supporters apparently still cling to the notion that he's some kind of new
type of politician; a what...post-partisian healer, as they call it? Please, he's a hack. A hack
that's gonna win, mind you. But a straight down the line, doctrinaire liberal.
Oh well, at least it wasn't the Pear-shaped Battle Axe.

I hope he does a good job. I also hope he governs more centrist than he seems to me to be.

Obama's a down the line, doctrinaire Democrat. Whether he's a liberal is a definitional thing. What I would say is that Obama does not belong to the left of the Democratic party - his health care and trade policies were the furthest to the right of the major Dem candidates, for instance.

I agree that he's not going to change politics very much, and I don't find that airy stuff particularly important. I don't think he's lying - I think he really cares about respectful debate, in the same way I think McCain really cares about honor - but I don't think either Obama or McCain would be able to bring healing or honor to the political sphere in any new, significant way, if elected.

In response, McCain declared that he was cheering for the Brooklyn Dodgers.

I'm considering changing my political ideology to "vote for any candidate that does not harass me with pre-recorded phone calls" even if that makes me wind up voting for the People's Worker's Wackos Party of America or something.

And of course, given that George W. Bush is currently instituting collective ownership of the means of production, labels of left/right, Democrat/Republican may not mean quite what they mean today by the middle of the next president's term.

Am I crazy, or is the world going through a massive realignment and restructuring, basically an economic revolution? This is weird ####.

In response, McCain declared that he was cheering for the Brooklyn Dodgers.

Actually, he's for the Phillies earlier incarnation, the Worcestor Ruby Legs.

I would've guesed McCain to be a fan of the Constantinople Greens.

Nika! Nika! Nika!

I'm considering changing my political ideology to "vote for any candidate that does not harass me with pre-recorded phone calls" even if that makes me wind up voting for the People's Worker's Wackos Party of America or something.

Don't hold my awkward live calls for Obama against me. I didn't know that you've been called every day.

And of course, given that George W. Bush is currently instituting collective ownership of the means of production, labels of left/right, Democrat/Republican may not mean quite what they mean today by the middle of the next president's term.

Am I crazy, or is the world going through a massive realignment and restructuring, basically an economic revolution? This is weird ####.

In this country: I think we're on the verge of the "true, isolationist, non-nation building" conservatives splitting from the "big-government, Bush doctrine" Republicans.

In the world: we could be living through one of those "before/after" times that get BIG chapters in history books; like the Civil War or the Great Depression or WWII/Beginning of Cold War.

Kinda makes this more laughable:

“I’m mad. I’m really mad, and what’s going to surprise you is it’s not the economy. It’s the socialists taking over our country. [Applause with standing ovation]

[To the crowd] “Sit down, I’m not done….

“When you have an Obama, Pelosi and the rest of the hooligans up there gonna run this country, we gotta have our head examined. It’s time that YOU TWO are representing US, and WE are mad, so go get ‘em!”- Oct. 9 John McCain rally in Wisconsin.

I think you may have to rethink your idea of who's a "socialist", sir.

that reminds me, I need to taunt the talking head that claimed McCain was going to oppose the bailout.

I agree that he's not going to change politics very much, and I don't find that airy stuff particularly important.

Of course not, and anyone who thinks he would is naive. (And I say this as an Obama supporter.) Look, as long as people are voting/not voting for candidates for such "important" reasons as height, how "American" the candidate's name sounds, or whether or not they'd like to have a beer with him/her, then pols are going to do nothing more than tell everyone what he/she thinks they want to hear.

I'll bet secretly Obama, as a White Sox fan, is pleased most with the Dodgers, being the team that knocked off the Cubs, but, whatever. Hillary wore a Cubs cap at Wrigley Field in 1994 and claimed to be a lifelong fan, and then she switched to a Yankee hat in 2000. And Sarah Palin claims to have been a Pittsburgh Steeler fan and then joined a Seattle Seahawk fan club in 2005, just in time to jump on the Super Bowl bandwagon. And considering how SB XL turned out, that's a particularly galling bit of sports bigamy.

Also: of CA, PA, FL, or MA, FL is easily the biggest "swing state" of the surviving baseball teams. And there's no way Sox-fan Obama could stomach suporting the Rays.

States only matter in an election decided by less than two points (and still rarely except when it's less than one point). If the election is being decided by two points, both candidates will need to be on the ground in PA. So insofar as swing states - in the sense of states that could swing the election - exist, PA is one.

Yeah, that's my point. Obama's up by somewhere in the 6-8 point range in the national polls. And he's up by 10-12 in Pennsylvania.

Beyond that, any state that Kerry won is not a swing state. McCain's only chance is to hold onto every single one of the red-in-04 states that are still in play. There's just no way he's going to get a formerly blue state.

Basically, the only way Obama loses Pennsylvania at this point is because that 30 minute ad-buy for right before the election is designed to show his gay marriage to Osama bin Laden.

given that George W. Bush is currently instituting collective ownership of the means of production

Are the banks really the "means of production"?

Oh come on. This is the same candidate who a couple months ago went to Minnesota and taunted Vikings fans about how they were going to get whupped by the Bears. It's not like this is a Hillary Clinton "I love the Cubs, no I love the Yankees" switch of loyalty, it's a "This is the team I'm pulling for this postseason."

Also, I think it'll be very interesting to see how much Obama gets done in his first year.

Depends on the senate.

I also think we are in a "big chapter" in history, but it continues to be the chapter of what happens after the cold war. Not every major change takes place neatly and quickly. In fact, most don't.

Also, I think it'll be very interesting to see how much Obama gets done in his first year.

Depends--will he have 59 or fewer, or 60 or more Senators to work with?

Depends--will he have 59 or fewer, or 60 or more Senators to work with?

i honestly don't think it'll matter that much. he's pretty locked in for 57, and might end up with as many as 61 (not counting Lieberman). There's enough issues that Republican moderates and Lieberman may support on an issue by issue basis that the filibuster won't be usable in all circumstances. The areas where it's most likely, health care, is already going to be a market based solution that involves health insurance companies and won't be as vehemently opposed as the Clinton plan in the early 1990's.

Ok. Obama is NOT a Career, ie, professional Politician. Obama ran once for Congress, failed. State government legislatures are NOT fulltime jobs. Obama spent most of his life as a productive citizen. Burning up Bin Laden's money, slush tank, closet hibernating, whatever, Bush spent his life as a bum. Obama's is a first in the modern era attempt to see if a productive citizen - someone who has spent most of his life as a productive citizen - can outperform Washington-sterilized trash.

Off topic, but that's the nature of the political threads here... from #1015 (MCoA) in the Palin thread:

Um, lots and lots and lots of people are less libertarian than Paul Krugman. Economics is a heavily libertarian discourse in America, taking a set of anthropological and sociological assumptions from 18th and 19th c. Anglo-American philosophy which are also the underpinnings of libertarianism. Krugman is a left-of-center economist, which leaves him far more libertarian than most of the rest of the world.

While I don't disagree with this, its dual emphases on efficacy (as opposed to liberty for its own sake) and equity lead to a fairly healthy liberal strain as well. Accordingly, economists are slightly more likely to self identify as Democrats than the general population and much less likely to consider themselves Republicans (with accordingly much higher numbers of Libertarians and independents).

Obama's a down the line, doctrinaire Democrat. Whether he's a liberal is a definitional thing. What I would say is that Obama does not belong to the left of the Democratic party - his health care and trade policies were the furthest to the right of the major Dem candidates, for instance.

That this is true seems patently obvious and yet unbelieved by most people I know (regardless of affilation).

***

I (well, my employer) was protested by ACORN the other day - not something I'm accustomed to. Their signs were kinda stupid.

When I told a colleague I thought Obama was a pretty regular Democrat he accused me of believing he was, in fact, a Muslim terrorist. One of the smartest guys on campus, this was. I really couldn't believe it.

Obama seems pretty middle-of-the-road among Democrats to me. I'm always amused by the people who act like he's some kind of ultra-lefty; they've obviously never heard of, say, Bernie Sanders.

The people trying to paint Clinton as a liberal are even funnier. As if she'd ever sublimate her own ambitions or desires in service of an ideology.

To be clear, National Journal (to site one Obama is the most liberal senator listing) is a legit organization - I just think their methodology is flawed.

As opposed to the National Review, which has one contributor arguing that Bill Ayers wrote Dreams of My Father for Obama.

Obama is your basic mainstream Democrat, who can be a bit boring and wonky at times. Which is why all he has to do is get on stage with McCain and come across as that wonky mainstream pol and totally destroy the perception that he's a radical firebreathing anti-American Islamist. At least, to most people. The folks who go to McCain rallies are a sad sight.

But scott, I think even a lot of democrats see him as something other than a mainstream wonky dem. The guy I was talking about is a lefty and thinks Obama is, essentially, our savior and some sort of new ideal amongst pols. Hell, I may very well vote for Obama, but he is, as you say, a pretty mainstream figure. My point is that it isn't just the folks on the right who see him as something other than that.

In this country: I think we're on the verge of the "true, isolationist, non-nation building" conservatives splitting from the "big-government, Bush doctrine" Republicans.

They may try that, but it's going to be a pretty poor group. Where is an isolationist Republican going to get financing? War and intervention makes a lot of money for a lot of people.

I think even a lot of democrats see him as something other than a mainstream wonky dem.

This is definitely true, and I think comes from, among other things, skin color and background. In Massachusetts, Deval Patrick had a real liberal following in Cambridge and Somerville, despite the fact that he was as mainstream as it gets. It's basically a projection of lifelong liberals who just assume that the past liberal support for African-American causes will be reflected in the candidate.

Edit - Also coming from the fact that almost all of the first, post-civil rights, generation of African-American democrats *were* liberal.

That makes sense, padraic. I think also every candidate is a bit of a projection. It isn't as if we actually get to meet these people and truly get to know them.

When I told a colleague I thought Obama was a pretty regular Democrat he accused me of believing he was, in fact, a Muslim terrorist. One of the smartest guys on campus, this was. I really couldn't believe it.

This deserves further explanation Bunyon, I'm curious about more details.

Obama is your basic mainstream Democrat, who can be a bit boring and wonky at times. Which is why all he has to do is get on stage with McCain and come across as that wonky mainstream pol and totally destroy the perception that he's a radical firebreathing anti-American Islamist. At least, to most people. The folks who go to McCain rallies are a sad sight.

Ironic given the 'celebrity' idea, but I actually agree. He IS a wonk. Personally, I find it refreshing to have a candidate that doesn't shy away from intellectualism.

Attended the MSU-NU game yesterday and chatted with a classmate who went to law school at U of C and actually took Obama's course there. She's a relatively moderate Republican, the type that supported McCain in 2000. She's supporting Obama this year and specifically cited intellectualism as a reason. "He's very good at playing devil's advocate" - the exact quote.

I think a really interesting question is how well that will serve him in the Presidency because, let's face it, our recent history isn't kind to Presidents that were wonks... Once upon a time, it worked - even with history's sometimes overly kind lens, I think it would be fair to paint the Jeffersons, the Lincolns, and such as first class minds of their times.

What gives me hope is that he has run a nearly flawless campaign - and while plenty of credit goes to Axelrod, Plouffe, and company - the buck still stops with the candidate. Running a campaign is different than running the executive branch, but there are basic executive principles that apply to both.

My point is that it isn't just the folks on the right who see him as something other than that.

I have mixed feelings about Obama, perhaps best exemplified by this t-shirt. I really do think that he could be an excellent president, and I'm very excited about what he might be able to accomplish. I also think that he does come across as different than most pols, and that it's one of his strengths that he doesn't immediately tack towards the most politically safe waters (from addressing the Wright issue directly in the Philadelphia speech, to refusing to Sistah Soulja John Lewis today, to sticking to his guns on the need to meet with people we don't like very much, to refusing to conflate wearing a flag pin with patriotism) even if at times his actions disappoint me (his vote and lack of support for a filibuster on the FISA bill, most notably).

Also, I don't think you can deny that the guy IS a liberal. He's certainly not a blue dog Democrat, and the bigger worry for liberal Democrats is whether Obama will be able to effectively enact policy once in office, something that his friend Deval Patrick has found surprisingly hard despite his landslide win in MA. The worst thing that could happen in an Obama presidency is an inability to lead legislation that enacts all the myriad goals that progressives and liberals have been dreaming about since 1994, from health care to energy independence and environmental policy to the right to work act, etc. He's lucky that he's (likely) going to win at a time when people are newly open to government solutions to problems, and that his party is going to be in a very very strong position in the Congress, but that still won't make it easy as pie if his leadership ability ends up being less than advertised.

Still makes me damned happy to vote for him, though.

Edit: I'm also overly enamoured of empirical data and intellectual debate when discussing the course to take on any single issue. So I have a kindred spirit in Obama, who has absolutely massive cadres of advisers, and has been remarked as someone who really cares what the research actually says. So long as he isn't bogged down by the sheer number of voices who have his ear, this would be a marked improvement from the insular nature of the most recent administration.

our recent history isn't kind to Presidents that were wonks...

what about Clinton? He was, but all accounts, the biggest wonk in the world; remember those bullet-point ridden State of the Unions?

Clinton, like Obama, has the ability to come off as non-wonky. Obama because he can go with the preachervoice, Clinton because he can go Bubba. So the fact that they're two of the nerdiest people in the country doesn't Adlai Stevenson them. As opposed to Al Gore, who was terribly served by his campaign staff that knew they had a wonk and weren't able to find a way that made him come across as authentic because they were too busy worrying about him coming off as too smart next to the affable cowboy.

Also: of CA, PA, FL, or MA, FL is easily the biggest "swing state" of the surviving baseball teams. And there's no way Sox-fan Obama could stomach supporting the Rays.

Or, conversely, root for that Massachusetts-based team the folks at White Sox Interactive derisively call the "Red Cubs."

One wonders if Biden is a Phillies fan, as he grew up in Scranton and now hails from Delaware (WDEL radio in Wilmington has carried Phils baseball since the Connie Mack Stadium days).

I don't think that Obama is a wonk. Reading his books, Obama's much more interested in democratic theory and in the day-to-day practice of organizing on the ground than in policy specifics. I think this is reflected in his campaign - he tends to work in broad, theoretical outlines, and he devotes incredible time and resources to building a community-based organization. In the financial crisis, he laid out goals for the bailout and worked the phones to get it passed, but he didn't write his own policy.

The Clintons are wonks, Gore's a wonk, Obama's really not a policy guy.

In terms of my feelings about Obama, I think this post by Kathy Geier sums it up pretty well.

The bottom line with Obama is, he's someone those of us on the left can work with. Given the right circumstances -- a strong and revitalized liberal activist base, public sentiment moving to the left, bad economic conditions, a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, or close to it -- we may be able to get some important things done.

I caught a bit of the McCain rally nutballs on the radio.... could they be DNC plants? That would be nice twist on the agitators that used to get planted at peace rallies...

So long as he isn't bogged down by the sheer number of voices who have his ear, this would be a marked improvement from the insular nature of the most recent administration.

the New Yorker had a very good article in the last issue comparing Obama's foreign affairs philosophy with McCains; one of the most startling differences the author discovered was Obama has built up an advising corps of something like 400 people (some Clinton Administration veterans, some outsiders); McCain has only a handful.

I caught a bit of the McCain rally nutballs on the radio.... could they be DNC plants? That would be nice twist on the agitators that used to get planted at peace rallies...

that would explain Mcain getting booed at his own rally

Good quote, MCoA - I concur.

could they be DNC plants?

Occam's Razor says no. Also, damned if that wouldn't be a very very dangerous and very very stupid game on the part of the DNC. As for the Foreign Policy team, there's 392 of them last I checked. His economic team is similarly massive and diverse in its membership, and has something like 3 former treasury secretaries... and has Rubin and Reich sitting next to each other again.

MCoA: I think there are plenty of liberals out there who are looking forward to Obama on a policy perspective. I have plenty of friends in the People's Republic of Cambridge who are all about Obama and who would probably call themselves socialists. I also think that it's not that easy to find positions where Obama is downright conservative in his policies. Further, I'd argue for his wonkishness given the detail in his various white papers on dozens of issues.

I don't think Obama's deeply involved in the detail of those white papers. The sense I get is that he collaborates on goals and outlines, and he delegates specifics to experts he trusts. The difference between Obama's books and those of Gore and the Clintons is really striking - they're constantly going over little ideas and policy papers, and he barely ever does. I don't think he's uninformed or incurious, I just think he prefers to devote his intellectual energies elsewhere, and he trusts his people to get the little details right.

And I mean, I'm looking forward to Obama on a policy perspective. He's certainly well to Bill Clinton's left, and he's an incredible improvement on Bush/McCain. If he wins, he'll likely see a large Democratic majority in the Congress, making this election the best opportunity for leftist reform since 1965.

(By the way, if anyone ever starts talking about how Goldwater and the loss in 1964 "revitalized" the Republican party, point them to the accomplishments of the 89th Congress, maybe 10% of which have been successfully rolled back by Reagan, Clinton, and the Bushes.)

Whether Obama is a liberal is definitional. He's a mainstream Democrat, smack in the middle of the party, and that might be a perfectly good definition of "liberal". He's no leftist, though. What makes me really optimistic about Obama, in my optimistic moments, is the incredible work he's done to create a grassroots, community-based organization which can be used to push the government toward reforms and policies and practices they might otherwise balk at.

EDIT: on leftist support for Obama, I think the Geier article lays it out pretty well. I think it's perfectly rational to believe in radically left ideals and work hard as hell for the decidedly mainstream Obama.

I guess I'd say that Obama is a much bigger wonk than 95% of Americans, but he's also on a totally different level from the Clintons. Is that fair?

Yeah, that's perfectly fair. Though I do think Audacity of Hope has several wonky parts in it, and generally when making a point he certainly includes statistics to back them up. But it's not the same sort of wonkiness that drives a Gore or Clinton.

I also think it's perfectly fair to call him a liberal and not a leftist. He strikes me as someone who does his very best to consider all angles of a problem, and that while his politics are liberal, his approach tends to be very moderate and aimed at consensus building. A good example of that is his healthcare plan, which is probably the least radical of any of the major candidates from this year.

Also, I don't think you can deny that the guy IS a liberal. He's certainly not a blue dog Democrat, and the bigger worry for liberal Democrats is whether Obama will be able to effectively enact policy once in office, something that his friend Deval Patrick has found surprisingly hard despite his landslide win in MA. The worst thing that could happen in an Obama presidency is an inability to lead legislation that enacts all the myriad goals that progressives and liberals have been dreaming about since 1994, from health care to energy independence and environmental policy to the right to work act, etc. He's lucky that he's (likely) going to win at a time when people are newly open to government solutions to problems, and that his party is going to be in a very very strong position in the Congress, but that still won't make it easy as pie if his leadership ability ends up being less than advertised.

scott, your point about whether the Dems would pick up 60+ in the Senate and how that would affect Obama's agenda was well taken. If he's elected, what do you think he'll work to enact first? What do you think he should work to enact first?

(By the way, if anyone ever starts talking about how Goldwater and the loss in 1964 "revitalized" the Republican party, point them to the accomplishments of the 89th Congress, maybe 10% of which have been successfully rolled back by Reagan, Clinton, and the Bushes.)

I only wish that any wavering Hillary Democrat would take a look at that link, and think long and hard about the implications of her vote.

EDIT: The interesting thing is that if you look at the individual Senatorial makeup of that 89th Congress and take out the Dixiecrats, there's a good chance that the next Congress might approach that one in terms of an effective Senate majority.

I also think we are in a "big chapter" in history, but it continues to be the chapter of what happens after the cold war. Not every major change takes place neatly and quickly. In fact, most don't.

Oh, that's silly. Everybody knows that the end of the cold war was the end of history. This is just like the, the dénouement of history ...

[places inconspicuous brown package on ground]

http://tinyurl.com/3wvez3

[melts away into the crowd]

I also think we are in a "big chapter" in history, but it continues to be the chapter of what happens after the cold war. Not every major change takes place neatly and quickly. In fact, most don't.

I don't understand this. (And I mean that in the truest sense of the phrase; I literally don't understand the point you're trying to make.) The fall of the Berlin wall/abortive Russian coup/switch from Soviet communism to Russian "capitalism" is viewed as a sharp before/after. The state of the world is very different between one with a communist Soviet Union Empire as one of two global superpowers and one with the post-communist Russia as just another "power" with China and the European Union; all of which lagging behind the United States in "superpower" status.

The U.S. panic move of using the temporary "socialist" tactics of the government buying shares in banks is somehow related to the fall of Communism? I don't get it. I think, depending on what happens next, we could be looking back at summer/fall of '08 as a pretty damned big "before/after" moment.

http://tinyurl.com/3wvez3

LOL at title of related video: "McCain - Palin in Strongsville, Ohio: The Place That Evolution Forgot"

re 68 - i simply mean the world is still sorting itself out, not that the current crisis is directly connected to the soviets.

http://voxeu.org/index.php?q=node/2340

We are in the throes of what is almost certainly the most serious economic and financial crisis of our lifetimes. The crisis is no longer a US crisis, or even a US and European crisis; it is a global crisis. It has spread from the financial sector to the real economy. It is not just investment portfolios and retirement accounts at risk, continued turmoil will soon start to destroy jobs.

There is a need for urgent action. The policy response needs to be decisive. It needs to be global.

With this sense of urgency in mind, we have assembled a group of leading economists to offer priorities for crisis response. This is not a homogenous collection of experts. The contributors are from different continents and different schools of thought.
The G7/8 finance ministers meeting: An opportunity

Global economic and financial leaders are convening this weekend in Washington DC for the annual meetings of the IMF and World Bank. G7/8 finance ministers will meet Friday on the sidelines of the Fund/Bank meetings to craft their response. The global financial community will assemble the next day at IMF headquarters. This is a golden opportunity for agreeing a coordinated plan.

The authors of the thirteen essays do not agree on every point (there was little or no coordination among them as this initiative was launched on mid-morning of 8 October). Nevertheless, there is a remarkable degree of consensus on what must be done.

Policy makers must move boldly to stabilise the financial system. The basic elements are:

* A quick bank recapitalisation with global coordination
* A guarantee of deposits and/or loans with global coordination
* Further, coordinated macroeconomic stimulus.

All the authors agreed on the first, many on the second and a good number on the third.

to read the essays

http://www.voxeu.org/index.php?q=node/2327

[places inconspicuous brown package on ground]

http://tinyurl.com/3wvez3

[melts away into the crowd]

As much as I'd like to say the opinions voiced in the video are unusually ignorant (or, in deference to my more generous colleagues, unusually "low-information"), they're perfectly consistent with my experience of talking with voters of all ages and backgrounds. Voters typically use less reasoning in choosing and have less information about (and almost certainly spend less time and money on) their preferred candidate than they do for their preferred sports team.

If he's elected, what do you think he'll work to enact first? What do you think he should work to enact first?

My guess is only as good as anyone elses, I'm hardly in a position to know his legislative agenda, but my guess is that shortly after taking office he'll probably move quickly to implement a drawdown of forces in Iraq, with some redeployment to assist the Karzai government in Afghanistan and increase pressure on the Taliban in SE Afghanistan and coordinating an effort with Zardari against militants in the Waziristan region. He can do that without congressional approval, and it's one of his key focuses of the campaign (indeed, his stance on Iraq is perhaps the single greatest reason why he beat Hillary Clinton in the primaries).

I'd also expect him to be working since before his inauguration with congress to create a pretty big economic stimulus/reregulation/bailout plan. I don't know what form this will take, especially given that the original 700b authorized has yet to disburse at all and the form that bailout will take hasn't even been decided on, but chances are we'll see a significant tightening of regulation upon things like derivatives. The real question here is whether that regulation will go as far as Depression era regulation or merely a stronger form of the types of regulation we saw in, say, Sarbanes-Oxley.

Beyond that, he's likely to propose his plans for energy policy and his National Infrastructure Bank early. The cost of the two as planned would be 210 billion over 10 years, which seems like tiddlywinks compared to the bailout, which may make passage easier. Still, it's a Keynesian priming of the pump that the economy will need while we face a recession, and if anything it might get bigger in an effort to reverse an economic slowdown.

Likewise, he's probably going to move quickly on health care if he wants to pass any type of sweeping change in the system, but as mentioned before his plan is not exactly universal and far more pragmatic (and therefore more likely to pass) than those described by any of the other candidates for presidency this year even going back to the primaries. McCain's plan, by comparison, is a total overhaul of the system that would certainly get bogged down in congress even if somehow his party retook the majority.

In the middle of all this he'll also have to find time to schedule votes on things like the Employee Free Choice Act, which would be the single best piece of legislation for unions in a half century, and various other Democratic initiatives that have been bottled up due to the composition of the house and senate and presidency, and at the same time he'll probably have 2 SCOTUS nominations in his first term to deal with as Stevens and Ginsburg step down to assure themselves of a sympathetic replacement.

I cannot stress enough how important his first year will be. If we get to early 2010 without major legislation being passed, he's going to be impotent until the 2010 elections are a referendum on his presidency. He cannot afford to be bogged down in nomination fights, or really on everything. He'll need to juggle quite a few major goals at the same time, which will require excellent judgment on who to delegate authority to, as well as firm prioritizing of his goals and close work with congressional leaders to push through his agenda.

edit: This election is economy uber alles. For every "low information" holler I hear from a McCain or Palin rally, I hear from various friends that someone they canvassed said "I dunno about that n-word, but I think I'll probably vote for him" because they're so worried about their personal financial situation.

Thanks very much for your thoughtful and comprehensive reply, scott.

If we get to early 2010 without major legislation being passed,...

I will be surprised if this happens, though I'm certain one Republican strategy will be simply to obstruct any and every item on Obama's agenda. I don't see Republicans caving in and going along with Democratic measures the way Democrats caved during Reagan's Presidency.

I'd be surprised too. But at the same time, Obama has a lot to do in a fairly short period of time. Also, in rereading my posts, I am a minor lord of the runon sentence. Thank you for your indulgence in reading them.

Basically everything scott said in 73, I agree. I think that's pretty comprehensive - though he keeps talking up education, that seems like the most likely thing to get bumped.

What makes me really optimistic about Obama, in my optimistic moments, is the incredible work he's done to create a grassroots, community-based organization which can be used to push the government toward reforms and policies and practices they might otherwise balk at.

He strikes me as someone who does his very best to consider all angles of a problem, and that while his politics are liberal, his approach tends to be very moderate and aimed at consensus building. A good example of that is his healthcare plan, which is probably the least radical of any of the major candidates from this year.

I'm also overly enamoured of empirical data and intellectual debate when discussing the course to take on any single issue. So I have a kindred spirit in Obama, who has absolutely massive cadres of advisers, and has been remarked as someone who really cares what the research actually says.

To be completely politically ignorant, can someone list examples of specific things that Obama well do that could be considered championing the left, liberal or democratic cause? Maybe I'm not properly valuating the consensus building or the grassroot part, but at the same time, I cannot pinpoint something to say Obama is my man (like say Kerry and his anti death penalty stance, or Hillary with her universal healthcare stance).

If Obama wins, Iran will attack Isreal.

That will depend more on Israel's behavior than anything else.

If Obama wins, Iran will attack Isreal

Right, because 1) an Obama administration would sit back and do nothing if that happened, and 2) Israel has absolutely no means of striking back or protecting themselves

I really don't get how anyone can possibly think something like this. To believe this, you would have to believe that Iran's leaders and all their top military personnel are actually suicidal

If Obama wins, Iran will attack Isreal.

Sure, but they'll have to wait until SPECTRE has deployed its satellite-based "laser" beam, and that could take a few months.

Right, because 1) an Obama administration would sit back and do nothing if that happened, and 2) Israel has absolutely no means of striking back or protecting themselves

Not to mention that 3) the other nations of the world would sit back and applaud while Iran launched a nuclear weapon (I assume that's what we're talking about here).

Also not to mention that Obama, whatever his desires, would probably be valuing doing stuff domestically and would know that if he didn't retaliate forcefully none of it would get done. Of course, if you're in favor of hitting Iran, you could hope for nothing more than their attacking Israel. If that happened, no matter who was president (including Kacinich, Nader or Barbara Streisand) Iran would quickly cease to exist (again assuming a nuclear attack by Iran).

As for Obama and his "leftist" agenda, if he does pursue a bunch of stuff that the left really wants and the economy continues to be in the toilet, the Democratic ascendency will last two years. The US is not a leftist nation. He can be a leftist all he wants, but if he doesn't bring the people with him, it won't matter a lick. And he won;t bring them with him if he goes far to the left. He needs to focus on what he can actually get done, rather than what the dream of the left is. Bill Clinton wasn't a good enough pol to do that; I hope Obama is. (Or, rather, I don't hope he is - but I hope he's a successful president as we do have a lot of problems facing us and, selfish though it is, I don't want to live through the upheaval of any sort of revolution, Depression or World War.)

So, you don't have the Lib dream of an inert presidency? (I agree with the entirety of #83.)

What a whore.

Why'd you pass on this one bunyon? 'Cause tfbg9 is a fellow rightie? ;-

. TWO!-OH!-OH!-OH! CLAP!-CLAP!-CLAP!CLAP!CLAP! Posted: October 11, 2008 at 06:02 PM (#2977852)

Phillie fans boo Santa Claus, showing their hatred of both Christianity and America. Makes perfect sense Obama would align with them.

BTW, this guy is another of the non-existent rightwingers at BTF, I believe. He once said he would rather "cut off his hands" than vote for Clinton or Obama. He can join the recently declared delorians, AROM and misirlou among the many rightwingers here who don't exist.

The US is not a leftist nation.

You are correct. It is, ultimately, a centrist nation. Clinton understood this. We shall see, it seems, if Obama does.

If Obama wins, Iran will attack Isreal,

As I have said 3 or 4 times, and as the wise and realistic bunyon said above, those who are worried about Obama's being "soft" can take a rest. Given Obama's background, the main thing he will have to do is show that he can be "tough." Any hint of handling things otherwise will hurt him very badly politically as president.

Whoever wins, Iran will attack Israel.

Whoever wins, Iran will attack Israel.

Do you actually believe this? The only way this claim makes any sense is if you assume that Iran's leaders are completely irrational and suicidal. What evidence do we have to support this assumption? In any event, how exactly would Iran "attack" Israel? There's no evidence that they have nukes now or are a close to getting them, and a conventional attack is improbable if not impossible.

I have to agree with Yeaarrgghhh. The day that Ahmadinjehad attacks Israel is very likely the last day of his life. Ahmadinjehad is essentially an international troll.

The day that Ahmadinjehad attacks Israel is very likely the last day of his life. Ahmadinjehad is essentially an international troll.

keep in mind that Ahmadinjehad is essentially a figurehead - the theocracy is the real power in Iran, and, if anything, they are more protective of their own power than he is.

Ahmadinjehad is essentially an international troll.

Then ban him. After all, you did it to kevin and the G8 did it to Putin.

I would be stunned, to put it mildly, if Iran attacked Israel.

If Obama wins, Iran will attack Isreal.

I worry more about this scenario- Obama wins- and Israel attacks Iran while Bush is still in office- because Israel is worried about how an Obama administration would react- as compared to Bush's administration.


Seriously, none of us here (by that I mean us Primates) actually knows what Iran intends to do- most of what we hear could just be bluster. Of course countries (or their leaders) do make catastrophic mistakes from time to time.
1941: Japan attacked the US- in 20/20 hindsight the attack was completely irrational- we had twice as many people, our industrial base was 4 times larger, we had greater and much easier access to raw materials- plus their reasoning was inconsistent- they really wanted to go east - they attacked us to keep us from interfering- but we would NOT have militarily interfered with their plans had they not attacked us-
so they attacked us to prevent us from militarily intervening in their expansion plans- and decided it was safe to attack a much bigger adversary because we didn't have the stomach for a fight- well if we didn't have the stomach for a fight their was no need to attack us in the 1st place.
1980s- Argentina's junta seeking to divert the country's attention from a faltering economy sought to "retake" the Malvinas (Falklands) from Britain. The personal secretary for one of the Junta leaders later admitted that his boss was convinced that Britain would pout but would not try to retake the islands by force- not because it was logistically difficult- but because the British were cowards... Now, as an Irish Catholic I can think many bad things about the English- but cowardice under fire is not a national trait I'd ascribe to them.

1990- Sadaam really thought the rest of the world would do nothing as he invaded an oil producing country- and threatened another- threatening to put a majority of the World's international oil supply under his control.

The worst mistakes are made when a country's leader assumes an adversary will act in accord with what such leader subjectively believes the adversary's national CHARACTER to be. Combine that with a misreading of tactical/logistical concerns and...

Iran and its leaders may think all sorts of bad things about Israel's national character - BUT there is no way that Iran thinks or will think that Israel will not respond to an attack. In fact, for better or worse, Israel almost always responds with greater force than what was originally applied against it- no one has to guess how Israel will react to an attack, no one will look at it and parse Israel's psyche and say, gee if we punch them really hard here they will or will not do this... We, they, everyone knows what Israel will do (or try to do).

So Iran will only attack Israel if they:
1: Completely misjudge Israel's physically ability to counterattack; or
2: Their leaders themselves are suicidal.

I don't buy #2, because Iran's actual leaders are as rapaciously corrupt as they come- any group of people that is that dead set on retaining power and all the benefits (money etc) that flow from it- are not suicidal.

It's worth emphasizing just how badass Israel's deterrence structures are. They have multiple nuclear subs on the ocean at all times, including at least one in the Mediterranean and one in the Persian Gulf. Even if Iran were to acquire a nuclear capacity akin to that of Pakistan's or India's - which they definitively do not have, and are not particularly close to acquiring - which could threaten Israel's land-based deterrent capabilities, the Israelis would still have multiple nukes trained on Tehran in the worst-case scenario.

The mullahs have been in control of Iran for over thirty years now, and have never demonstrated a risk-taking tendency in terms of running up against a nuclear deterrent.

EDIT: it seems most likely to me that Iran's interest in nukes is also focused on deterrence. From the Iranian perspective, there's an unfriendly country to their west with nukes, and an unstable (and not necessarily friendly) country to their east with nukes, plus Russia to the north and India further to the east. That's a scary place to live, and one where you'd like to have a nuclear deterrent capability.

Then ban him. After all, you did it to kevin and the G8 did it to Putin.

Out of our jurisdiction! If he registers for BTF and threatens to nuke GGC, then that will be grounds for banning.

California is in the bag

And bunyon passed up this one.

If he registers for BTF and threatens to nuke GGC, then that will be grounds for banning.

Or claims he likes Star Trek V.

From the Iranian perspective, there's an unfriendly country to their west with nukes, and an unstable country to their east with nukes, plus Russia to the north and India further to the east. That's a scary place to live, and one where you'd like to have a nuclear deterrent capability.

I'd like to re-state my position that fighting is for imbeciles and I want off this planet and into the cosmos.

It's actually France that has massive nuclear attack sub capability (100s of warheads). Isreal might have a couple, but they hardly need it.

EDIT: it seems most likely to me that Iran's interest in nukes is also focused on deterrence. From the Iranian perspective,

Sadaam would still be in power if he actually had WMDs instead of claiming he did....

From the Iranian perspective, there's an unfriendly country to their west with nukes, and an unstable country to their east with nukes, plus Russia to the north and India further to the east. That's a scary place to live, and one where you'd like to have a nuclear deterrent capability.

conversely, just that insecurity may also be an incentive to play nice with the US - considering that we are strong allies with two of those nuclear powers and nominal allies with the other two, it might be beneficial to normalize relations (they have been collaborating in Iraq, very quietly)

conversely, just that insecurity may also be an incentive to play nice with the US - considering that we are strong allies with two of those nuclear powers and nominal allies with the other two, it might be beneficial to normalize relations (they have been collaborating in Iraq, very quietly)

Agreed (and in re: Iraq, not all that quietly, at least in terms of the Sadrist truce). I expect that the next five years will see either significant movement toward normalizing relations with Iran, or significant Iranian development of nuclear capacity. The only certainty is that the status quo is very bad for Iran. I would bet strongly on "movement toward normalization", and I'd take odds.

EDIT: Look at me being even-handed! The bipartisan support for letting India take a hot stinking dump all over norms of non-proliferation, and for expanding NATO into the freakin' Caucases, is going to make the process of bringing Iran out from the cold, and away from their nuclear ambitions, a lot more difficult than it ought to be.