The Line In The Sand
May 24th, 2008 at 5:32 pm by Susie
Why, I remember when the liberal blogosphere used to attack people like this instead of embracing them. Guess I’m getting old!
…Three academics — Austan Goolsbee, 37, a University of Chicago professor and columnist for The New York Times, Jeffrey Liebman, 39, a pension and poverty expert at Harvard University, in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and David Cutler, 41, a Harvard health economist — form the core of Obama’s economic team….
Liebman, an expert on Social Security, isn’t easily pigeon- holed either. He has supported partial privatization of the government-run retirement system, an idea that’s anathema to many Democrats and bears a similarity to a proposal for personal investment accounts that Bush promoted, then dropped in 2005.
“Liebman has been open to private accounts and most people in town would say he’s a moderate supporter of them,” said Michael Tanner, a Social Security expert at the Cato Institute in Washington, a research organization in Washington that advocates free markets and often backs Republicans.
In a 2005 policy paper Liebman, along with Andrew Samwick of Dartmouth College in Hanover, New Hampshire, and Maya MacGuineas, a former aide to Senator John McCain, advocated a mix of benefit cuts, tax increases and mandatory personal accounts to shore up the system, which will begin paying more in benefits than it takes in through taxes by 2017 under current actuarial estimates.
Obama has called Social Security’s problems “real but manageable” and has pledged to preserve what he’s called the “essential character” of the pension program.”
Obama promises to preserve the “character” of Social Security, well, except for that public government part—MANDATORY personal accounts?
Remember? Remember when Atrios, and Josh, and Matt, and Bowers and a whole host of other prominent bloggers said this is the line in the sand, the thing we absolutely couldn’t let them do - frame this as a major problem? Remember the “There Is No Crisis” banner flying proudly on every left-wing blog?
Funny, that. Apparently now it’s a problem.
Funny how this corporate-friendly senator appeared out of nowhere, pushing “clean” coal, nuclear power and privatized Social Security accounts - and coincidentally, hefty donations of startup cash from people in those industries.
I’m sure there’s no connection. None at all. Look, over there! Hillary Clinton just sneered at Obama!
Susie–remember: we’re all post-ideological now. Clinton Derangement Syndrome has replaced all other meaningful political commitments and goals.
I understand politically why Obama had to convince people of the historically dubious notion that the Clinton years were just like the Bush I and Bush II years–it was the only way to knock Hillary Clinton off of her game by framing her as part of “more of the same,” while branding himself the agent of “change.” However, I’ve never respected the misuse of history for any reason. (Professional hazard.)
I was not initially a huge fan of Bill Clinton, but I would describe him as a very good conservative president. He did an extremely admirable job considering the hand he was dealt politically (losing congress in 1994, the ongoing scandal manufactories in the right-wing and mainstream press, and finally impeachment.) I just don’t get why so-called Democrats want to embrace this post-ideological, post-partisan movement, when it seems that the only people who benefit from it are Republicans. It’s giving them an easy way out after 8 years of Bush’s disasters, enabled by a craven Congress.
My support of Obama (I wouldn’t go so far as to call it an “embrace” ^_^) comes from my impression that he can win in November, and that he will be less damaging than the other available options. He’s a corporate candidate, as is Hillary … that’s what we got at this point folks. His staffing and statements regarding Social Security are indeed worrisome, and have always been to me the biggest negatives about him as a potential president. On the other hand, he hasn’t declared outright that he’ll bomb Iran, and didn’t vote to launch the Iraq invasion, as did Hillary. So he’s got that goin’ for him.
So … ya know … they’re both a mixed bag. Ya pays yer money and ya takes yer chances. I put my money on Obama … “7 come 11 baby, Papa needs a new pair of shoes!!”
…and if Obama tries to do something stupid to Social Security, we’ll be there to stop him.
*shrug*
OB “knocked Clinton off her game”??? Hardly!! She did that all on her own (with bill’s help too…and geraldine…and penn…)
All he did was organize a good plan, energize volunteers and get in front of people and NOT TELL OBVIOUS LIES! You know, kind of a classic, well-run campaign.
so know we hear complaints he’s has ideas that may not shuck and jive well with classic progressive ideals?? well, last I looked congress will have to approve this idea…you know congress? hrc works there…
“All he did was organize a good plan, energize volunteers and get in front of people and NOT TELL OBVIOUS LIES!”
Is this “damned by faint praise?”
And like I keep saying; Kennedys are an old established political family.
But anyway; back to the article. Isn’t this an archaic reference to something known as “issues” and “policies?” That is so old school. This is the modern age.
Except he’s less likely to win than Hillary. That’s what looking at the electoral college voting shows. And voters are getting buyers’s remorse. Obama wants to claim victory on the basis of a good first half. Doesn’t work that way — though Obama’s working the refs brilliantly, trying to get the game called on account of bullshit.
Lambert: Except he’s less likely to win than Hillary. That’s what looking at the electoral college voting shows. And voters are getting buyers’s remorse. Obama wants to claim victory on the basis of a good first half. Doesn’t work that way
Lambert, I’m sure I’m not the first person to point this out to you, but here goes nothing. Any analysis of who is more likely to win is firmly rooted in a host of unknowable issues, but anyone who claims that Clinton is more likely without addressing the damaging effects of her only remaining path to the nomination just isn’t acting rationally. If you think women will be disappointed by a Clinton loss, how can you ignore the impact on African-Americans, young voters, and Obama supporters generally of a superdelegate decided nomination? If you think that FL/MI creates a legitimacy problem, you ain’t seen nothin’ yet.
And voters are getting buyers remorse? I’ve read your post, and count me unconvinced. It’s said that you can prove anything wih statistics, and yet you have failed to do so! You showed that Obama’s support since March 4th has declined, mostly amongst white voters. I think it’s pretty well documented that the Appalachia contests were no more skewed then the parts of Appalachia that voted earlier. Did you even convince yourself?
Finally, if you want to divide the primary in half, shouldn’t you pick a point that is in the middle? Maybe after half the states, or half the population, or half the pledged delegates? No, you arbitrarily choose the point after which Clinton won 7 contests to Obama’s 6, and racked up a whopping 15 pledged delegate lead! I’ve heard a lot of stupid spin this primary, but this first half/second half studd has got to be some of the dumbest.
What’s most puzzling to me is why you spin so pathetically. Trying to curry favor for the next conference call (as if the senator reads Corrente!)? Is this all performance art? Are you going to post a big “Gotcha!” on June 4th?
the odd thing about this posts, and others like it, is that it neglects to mention that obama strongly opposes creating private accounts for social security. his position on the issues is crystal clear, he’s spoken about it several times , his social security plan on his campaign web site expressly rules out private accounts and yet i keep seeing pro-clinton bloggers trying to paint him as a pro-privatization guy because he used the words “social security crisis”. i wish he hadn’t used those words, but obama’s solution to the “crisis” is essentially a progressive solution: raising the cap on the social security payroll tax so people earning more than $97.5k have to pay it. i think that pro-clinton bloggers have been extraordinarily dishonest about this issue.
it’s unfortunate that susie would fall for such demogoguery here. and it’s unfortunate that pointing out a very well documented and public position of barack obama like this can get you accused of having “clinton derangement syndrome”
Noz, I don’t pay that much attention to what a relatively new politicians claims he’ll do. I’m a big believer in the “dance with them that brung ya” school of politics - and he’s been dancing with Wall St. from the very beginning.
Plus, politicians don’t actually formulate their policies, their advisers do. Yes, politicians have input - but the fact that he’s surrounded himself with such conservative economic figures tells me he’s looking for “bipartisan” solutions - that kind that Grover Norquist colorfully but accurately described as “another name for date rape.”
And that’s my comment for the day. Have a nice holiday!
he’s surrounded himself with a variety of advisors with different views from each other as well as having public disagreements with obama himself. but so what? so does clinton. the bottom line is that when obama himself has repeatedly and unambiguously ruled out private accounts, then that is clearly his position, even if he has some econ advisors who like private accounts, it’s the candidate who ultimately decides policy. besides, by your logic you shouldn’t criticize obama for not proposing universal health coverage, because some of obama’s advisors want single payer. personally, I think that’s crazy. obama’s health plan is on his web site, that is clearly what his plan is. but likewise obama’s SS plan is just as clear. which means turning him into a private account candidate is just as crazy.
how can you ignore the impact on African-Americans, young voters, and Obama supporters generally of a superdelegate decided nomination?
Newsflash: we already have a superdelegate-decided nomination, because Obama will not have enough pledged delegates to put him over the top.
“Newsflash: we already have a superdelegate-decided nomination, because Obama will not have enough pledged delegates to put him over the top.”
Neither candidate will be able to make it over the top solely through pledged delegates and so ultimately the super-delegates will decide the election. However, if the overwhelming majority (75% or more of the ones still outstanding) of super-delegates intervene to give the nomination to Clinton despite Obama’s advantage in pledged delegates, despite his superior fundraising prowess, and despite his obviously better-run campaign, and solely because of his perceived electability problem, i.e. the fact that lower class white racists in Appalachia and certain portions of the South will refuse to vote for him because of skin color, then I see no way Hillary can win in the Fall even if she gets the nomination.
Obama currently draws a 95+% turnout from AA voters, much better than Kerry’s turnout which was itself historically very high (88%, IRC). I think the best case scenario with Hillary is that AA support drops to around 70-75%, Religious Right turnout goes through the roof, Hillary loses to McCain, and we lose all our close down ticket races. Worst case scenario? AA support craters, Hillary’s negatives go even higher than their already very high numbers, and huge crowds of NY blacks picket Bill Clinton’s Harlem offices throughout the summer with constant media coverage of how the Democratic Party has stabbed its African-American constituents in the back. Hillary gets crushed in November and we lose ground in the House and possibly the Senate.
And on a purely personal note, Travis Childers and Ronnie Musgrove go down in flames in North Mississippi and I lose my last best chance to have Democratic representation in Congress unless I move to another state.