What's the deal with Barack Obama
Via Kevin comes speculation about Barack Obama's odd penchant for using conservative rhetoric--first on social security reform, then on health care universality--to attack Paul Krugman and his campaign opponents:
Obama is trying to win the "media primary"....My suspicion is that Barack is attempting to appease/manipulate the class of establishment pundits, and with them the press corps as a whole....By making noises about Social Security and [healthcare] mandates, Obama is feeding the media beast. Heck, it might even work, if recent polls are any evidence.
Kevin thinks there's probably something to this. To me, though, this all sounds like too much wishful thinking. What sounds more plausible--the Occam's razor explanation--is that Barack Obama isn't as progressive as some might like. Pre-election position on the war notwithstanding, his brief Senate career hasn't been marked by a Paul Wellstone-esque record, and, perhaps more to the point, he has staked his whole candidacy on the idea that he can build alliances with people who lie about policy as a part of a political survival strategy.
When looked at from that perspective, doesn't it seem like a bit of a bankshot strategy for Obama to take essentially illiberal positions on prominent issues in a Democratic primary to win over the national media? Yes. Yes, I think it does.
Comments
"To me, though, this all sounds like too much wishful thinking. What sounds more plausible--the Occam's razor explanation--is that Barack Obama isn't as progressive as some might like. Pre-election position on the war notwithstanding, his brief Senate career hasn't been marked by a Paul Wellstone-esque record, and, perhaps more to the point, he has staked his whole candidacy on the idea that he can build alliances with people who lie about policy as a part of a political survival strategy."
This is a bit uncharitable, no? I'd say his pre-Senate career of being a community activist would give him a bit more progressive cred than, say, John Edwards, who was a trial lawyer and had an unremarkable term in the Senate. Granted, Edwards has become more progressive since leaving the Senate, but he can afford be; he doesn't have to justify votes on anything anymore. And I'm sure you don't believe that Hillary is more progressive than Obama.
And to the last part...um, unless the Dems absolutely dominate at the polls next year, there's a good chance that whomever wins the Democratic nomination (if they also go on to win the White House) is going to have to, "build alliances with people who lie about policy as a part of a political survival strategy." If the stars don't align to give the Democratic president the same first term majorities that Bush had, then this is a pretty terrible way to judge a potential presidential candidate. Like it or not, bipartisanship IS a part of our politics.
And of course...there's always the notion of winning by being less strident about your principles or losing by remaining "pure". If you had a crystal ball that told you for certain that Obama would win the White House (with him being less progressive than you want) vs Edwards losing (and staying as progressive as you'd like)...which would you take?
Post A Comment