It strikes me so far that policy issues per se aren't his primary passion: tone and methodology are. The way government business gets done seems to be his main cause.

Taxcuts for the filthy rich.

Going after ..a government for the rich and nothing but the rich so help us god....

That's what Obama's going after.

Nothing else matters.

The rich are making out like bandits under King George.

Go populistic economics!!!

Oh, my. I must be a terrorist.

But, but, but the Republicans say he is the most liberal Senator. What is wrong with this picture?

It seems to me that "liberal" is now a brand, not policy.

I wish Obama well, but truthfully I'm not expecting much. Between his centrism, the power of vested interests, and the Republicans, I doubt if anyone could make much progress.

I don't think he'll make all three on your list; I'll be glad if he manages to get us out of Iraq.

Obama's current campaign swing through red states emphasizing ecomomic issues informs that he will increase regulation oversight of financial and other industries and change a bit of the political economy to favor median income earners rather than the top one percent. That is not necessarily left of center, but it is clear Obama understands and wants to deal with troubling domestic issues affecting Americans.

Obama's current campaign swing through red states demonstrates why he is going to annihilate McCain at the polls in November.

And many of us think that this is a good thing. First, the center-left is more often right about policy than the leftier-left. But, even ignoring that most important point, lefty-left policies are just blueprints for GOP victories. This (fortunately) is not a lefty-left country, and pushing such policies does nothing but lose elections and alienate voters.

If he can patch the areas of the Constitution that were ripped up by the Bushies, I for one would be eternally grateful. And if he removes torture from the list of things that are okay if Americans do them, that's another big bonus.

Horatio Parker - exactly, the "advertise liberally" crowd is really just a circle jerk that doesn't stand for anything progressive or liberal. There was a time when economic/political/social issues were discussed in terms of the fundamentals that created problems in the first place.

Now its all about "quick fixes" and that we can somehow buy our way out of problems. It is so stupid - especially the notion that big business and faux "free markets" are somehow going to "fix" the problems they created in the first place.

Just goes to show what an endless set of links back and forth can do - it atrios links to fdl, links to crooks and liars, links to kos, links to carpetbagger, links to blah blah blah blah...

And not one of the whole crowd actually supports anything liberal at all - hell, fdl became a superblog with 24/7 FITZMAS coverage that was wrong each and every day, all of the time!

So now we are not only fighting the repugs, we have to deal with those that have stolen the once proud tradition of progressive/liberal action.

I'll be glad if he manages to get us out of Iraq

I'd like to see him get a blow job from hillary - even bill couldn't get that.

I've never been able to figure out if BO is republican-lite or lefty left-left.

It seems like no one really has a clue as to what he will really fight for. But the 'bots sure have no problems imagining that he is most certainly going to address their personal high priority issues first thing. This is what makes me scared. Cause if he doesn't satisfy the screamers over at the big Orange, they are going to organize and go after him with pitchforks.

Yeah, yeah I am still not 100% on board. Give me time.

good news: It's not 1932
bad news: the public isn't calling out for a complete re-ordering of the political system.

Well, he's already indicated that one of the very first things he's going to do is have his AG go over all of Bush's signing statements, in order to immediately throw out anything that's unconstitutional. (I see toothbrushes & pillows in every Justice Department's office.) But to a large extent, his priorities are going to be shaped by events beyond anyone's control -- oil prices & other economic numbers, and whatever the summer & fall bring in Iraq. They'll also be shaped to some degree by something that he *can* affect (somewhat, anyway), and that's the increased Democratic majority he can help to usher in to Congress. He'll know soon enough how bold his first 100 day agenda can be. Unlike poseurs I'll forgo naming, he'll have a legitimate mandate. My guess his environmental program is right there in the top two of his things-to-do list. Health care would be a little too evocative of somebody else's administration, and I imagine he might be bringing someone like Clinton or Elizabeth Edwards on board to help shape & shepherd that program. That would take time to rework. Just guessin'.

If, for example, Obama successfully withdraws from Iraq, passes a climate plan that looks something like his campaign proposal, and implements his healthcare plan, that would constitute a stunningly successful first term

That sets the bar mighty low, Kevin. I'd add an energy policy to the list, as well as some kind of action on immigration, filling a couple of SCOTUS slots, and rolling back the odious executive order banning aid to organizations that provide abortions, abortion counseling, or advocacy for abortion rights overseas.

And that's just for starters.

Off-topic link for any oil- and energy-industry / alternative energy junkies

Kevin,

You should look at the steps he's proposing around increasing transparency in the White House. All the other things you mentioned are important to him, but this is an area where he actually passed some interesting legislation and also offers some sensible policy proposals on his web site.

It's been a while since I read it all, but I got the impression, from it's placement in his policy documents and some of his speeches that this is very important to him.

Sujal

He's just more of the same...no change here folks.

It's been obvious from the beginning that he's center-left.

The question has always been is whether he's there because he's a panderer, a pragmatist, a policy genius, or a polygon/triangulator.

Being a lefty left-left myself (thanks optical weenie, for the phrase), I remember projecting all of my deepest lefty left-left hopes on candidate Bill Clinton in 1992, not realizing that voters in the center, and even center-right, were doing much the same. Many of us came away very disappointed with what we got once he was in office, which was partly Clinton's fault (for being such a canny candidate as to successfully pitch himself as all-things-to-all-voters), but mostly our own fault (or, at least in my case, mostly my own fault) for choosing to believe what our respective hearts told us about the guy, rather than thinking critically about the actual policies he would actually pursue based on the concrete data we had on hand.

If Obama becomes president, I think there's gonna be a lot of similarly disappointed folks. Half the people in that "Yes We Can" video are gonna be sorry they were in it. But oh well, I suppose. That's politics and that's democracy. And that's why I've made the (I think, healthy) choice to stop projecting my inner hopes onto a political candidate. I go into November, and beyond, with what I believe to be clear eyes. I know that President Barrack Obama will not reverse our country's militarism, any more than President Bill Clinton did. President Barrack Obama will not come to the rescue of the apartheid victims in Palestine any more than President Bill Clinton did. President Barrack Obama will not lead the way to single-payer health care any more than President Bill Clinton did. President Barrack Obama will not reduce corporate control of our democratic republic and the elections it conducts any more than President Bill Clinton did. President Barrack Obama will not disavow American empire any more than President Bill Clinton did.

I know that if I want to actually cast a vote for any of the above things in Nobember, I can't fool myself into believing that a vote for Barrack Obama will be such a vote... no matter what my heart may tell me, or how inspired I may be by that "Yes We Can" video. 'Cause it is a pretty good video.

Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA

I think Chris is on to something - Obama's meta-goal is to make government good again, rather than "the problem". If he's successful, that would be a great improvement over the Republican line of "don't trust the government - let us run it" that's been shown to be the real problem.

"...It's not 1932 and the public isn't calling out for a complete re-ordering...".
Sorry, but the "people" weren't then, either. What they wanted was something, anything done that would help the country, and them, get back on its feet. Seems "trickle-down" economics worked then as well as it does now.

Let's not forget that Obama has committed himself to some pretty liberal policies so far. He's the most liberal Democrat to win the nomination in a generation.

Maybe not liberal enough for some, but I don't think he'll be another Bill Clinton. For one thing, he'll have a much more solid congressional majority--I'm guessing 57 in the Senate, 255 in the House. If Obama wins a big mandate, he could set the new political center as being the center-left instead of the center-right, and changing the political gravity in that way would be a big deal.

I haven't come close to losing hope, but I suppose that's because I trust Obama to do the right thing. He's been reasonably honest so far. I suppose we'll see.

"Seems "trickle-down" economics worked then as well as it does now."

Except that FDR's economic policies were the opposite of "trickle-down." He poured money directly on the people through public works projects.

If Obama can clean out the bureaucratic filth, right wing hacks, and nasty booby-traps that Cheney has put in place, it will be a good term.

Not that the American People will understand or appreciate it.

And Obama's a liberal, not a leftist. He believes in the free market, but not so much that he thinks that it's enough in and of itself.

Who cares who he appoints as his advisor, so long as he drags the miscreants to justice, eh friends?

"Let's not forget that Obama has committed himself to some pretty liberal policies so far. He's the most liberal Democrat to win the nomination in a generation."

What are some of those liberal policies? Seriously, I'm not trying to be combative, I'm just trying to get a handle on the actual, concrete, specific, sincerely liberal policies that Barrack Obama has committed himself to.

"I haven't come close to losing hope, but I suppose that's because I trust Obama to do the right thing."

See, there's where you and I part company. It's not because I think Obama's a bad guy (he seems like a really *good* guy), and it's not because I don't *want* to trust him (I really, really do). But I trusted Clinton to do the right thing (or, at least, what I imagined the right thing to be), and he did the wrong thing at almost every turn (from my point of view). As a lefty left-left in 2008, I'd like to trust Barrack Obama to restore our nation's social safety net, re-establishing our government's no-longer-existent guarantee that no child will go hungry in this, the world's richest nation. But then you've got Andrew Sullivan, a centery center-right who'd like to trust Barrack Obama to further hack away at federal entitlements, and tear even larger holes into that safety net. We can't both be right. We can't both be happy. At least one of us is gonna end up sincerely disappointed.

Truthfully, I think there's a lot of that in today's Obama voter: a sense of trust that, if elected, Obama will do the right thing ("right" being defined by what we all, respectively, wish to see happen). But we're not all hoping for the same things (many of us are hoping for diametrically-opposed things), and so lots and lots of us are gonna be severely disappointed.

Again, though, I suppose that's how democracy works, and I should stop peeing in the punch bowl.

Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA

"so long as he drags the miscreants to justice"

Hear hear!

If they escape, they'll be back and will cause even more death and misery...

What I like is Obama seems reasonable--presenting of sound thought, coherent and persuasive.

Then there's McCain, an ideologue, rather incoherent, certainly immoderate--and not always within the dictates of reason--in fact, speaking with great foolishness half the time, and forever tied to Bush, a study in abject failure, irrefutably linked to manipulation, fear, propaganda, lies, and subversion.
When I see Mc Bush I think of mushroom clouds, with intelligence and facts being fixed around the policy, along with the total squandering of our treasury, death and destruction.

Did I hear McCain say he did not care how long troops remained in Iraq--that it was not too
important?

Maybe this is OK, but I wonder: Then how come Obama has "the most liberal voting record in the Senate"? Is it because, the ratings (subjective as they must be) of "liberal" are too heavily weighted towards "social issues"?

And many of us think that this is a good thing. First, the center-left is more often right about policy than the leftier-left. But, even ignoring that most important point, lefty-left policies are just blueprints for GOP victories. This (fortunately) is not a lefty-left country, and pushing such policies does nothing but lose elections and alienate voters. Posted by: Winston Smith on June 11, 2008 at 6:27 PM

Not sure how the lefty-left can be substantively proven to be wrong, since IMO they really have not ever been in power. Or at least, what I would consider to be lefty-left.

I do consider myself lefty-left of course, and think it unfortunate that this country is not. I also recognize how much of a minority I am. But I truly wonder, since this country has not ever really been lefty-left, if we might not be in a much better position (locally, globally) if we were. One might certainly argue that the centrist/right bent has contributed substantially to the morass.

If, for example, Obama successfully withdraws from Iraq, passes a climate plan that looks something like his campaign proposal, and implements his healthcare plan,

I think that's exactly what he'll do, or at least what he'll try. I don't really get what Kevin is doubting.

I would also second what Patrick said above about expectations. Getting rid of Bush/Republicans and replacing with only viable alternative (Democrat).

Check.

re-ordering of the political system

It needs to happen -- but I cannot see it with Obama. My biggest expectation with Obama is really to stop the bleeding.

I can't imagine this country passing some "single-payer" or nationalized healthcare system. Even with the right person selling it, spending his political capital, using his charisma, whatever.... I think it'll take 20 years to pass something like that.

Which could make it a plus that Obama's healthcare proposal is the least revolutionary.

But to me, healthcare, while the most important domestic issue, takes a backseat to foreign policy (starting no more wars)... so I came around to supporting him.

Robespierre's Ghost: so long as he drags the miscreants to justice

Don't hold your breath. Obama by his own statements, and like Big Bill, is more interested in making nice than making waves.

Remember Lawrence Walsh's ongoing investigation into Iran-Contra? Quashed in 1992 by Clinton and the Dem "leadership" in Congress. I don't like witch hunts or mudslinging, but when you've got a serious investigation into serious law breaking, don't quash it. Justice, or at least revealing the truth, is more important than conciliation.

As long as Obama deals with the resonant themes of Main Street--we can address specifics as time progresses. Social problems will be addressed.

All we've heard for 8 long years is Rovian opportunistic bullshit about freedom and terrorism and neoconservative foreign policy.
I for one will await the specifics of Obama's thoughts on social policy

Good one, Kevin. Now that the primary's over "maybe we'll start to find out" what Obama's really passionate about. Some of us tried to find out, you know, BEFORE the primary was over.

I have no idea what he's going to fight for either. Does anybody?

All I know is that whatever he fights for will be post racial, post feminist, and bipartisan.

So count me in!

Nobody knows what Obama may do as president, including Obama. He's a lightweight with a good speech that makes his audience believe in him because it hears what it wants to hear. He may be a good medic, but he's no doctor, which, under the circumstances, wouldn't be a disappointment.

You have a centre-left and a left? I thought you just had a centre-left, a centre, a centre-right, a right, a right, a right, a right, and another right.

First, ain't gonna happen.

Second, re the housing/mortgage industry, I think a lot of people DO want an overhaul. Of course, Congress didn't provide one.

Third, if too many sheeple aren't calling for reordering the system, with a minimum of public financing for Congressional elections, including third party candidates on a viability threshold, that shows just how much is still wrong with too many of the sheeple, right?

Should Obama's anticipated victory be matched by further consolidation of Democratic control of Congress, as most suspect it will, one would like to think that a President Obama would force Congress to take back much of the power it has ceded over the past eight years to the White House, and become more than a rhetorically co-equal branch. Seems to me the current administration will have left a big enough mess by then that there will be more than enough work to go around. But that's probably just the kind of change we can only hope for.

WTF is with the Ann Coulter ad on the website?

I agree with Chris and David W above; It seems to me that process matters more to Obama than policy. When he talks about getting all the players together to negotiate a health-care solution "with the negotiations broadcast on C-SPAN," I think it's the idea of that kind of political process that turns him on more than a devotion to any particular policy outcome.

This could be a good thing; if it actually leads to persistent engagement in the political engagement by a broader public, I think we'll all be better off (and I believe we'll end up with more progressive policies). On the other hand, the president's job often involves just making the call rather than building consensus, and I think a lot of people are rightly concerned about Obama's chops in that respect because he's relatively untested.

Then again, when it comes down to it, every president is "untested" in the respect before taking office. It's always been a crap shoot, and it always will be. Obama seems smart and reasonable, and he professes to values I respect and (mostly) agree with. Given who the competition is, that's more than enough to win my vote.

And of course much of what he can do, which will generally prescribe what he will do, depends on the overall results of the election. I.E, what Congress looks like and what the margins of victory were.

I hope he spends a lot of time on the mechanics of government as others above have noted.

Unlike some, I think good things are in the works. If he is smart, he will keep his grass roots organizations hot and running, and as needed get them to focus attention on the issues that need movement.

Ms Weenie calls them 'bots, but I hope they are citizens who have had a taste that democracy is no longer just the domain of the big boys and the very serious people.

If Obama is able to keep them/us energized enough to weigh in as needed, he may actually get a few things accomplished.

canuck: I thought you just had a centre[sic]-left, a centre[sic], a centre[sic]-right, a right, a right, a right, a right, and another right.

If you think that we have a center-left, then you either don't follow American politics or you belong to the Canadian Reactionary Party.

We do, however, know how to spell.

Aaarg! 10:07 was moi.

Don't go pissing off the Canadians, Alex. We might need a favour, someday. Like, a place to run to?

Just when you think you are out of the Clinton thing, they drag you back in. This guy is a disciple of Rubin, the best thing about the Clinton administration. Its all good to me. Obama has never been a lefty. He is a centrist all the way. How on earth do you achieve grand compromise with the other side and unite everyone if you arent centrist?

he won't be getting out of Iraq - only you idiot liberals still believe in such silliness - of course your Chosen One is a very big, bent liberal, but he will soon be straightened out by the facts once he takes the oath. Healthcare? He's not gonna get his plan past Hillary so there'll be some back peddling there. Climate change? He'll have to make big compromises: GOP will want to make his life very difficult on this matter.

"He's consistently solid in almost everything"? My god you people are deluded.

Hell, if Obama can walk and chew gum at the same time, he will be a vast improvement over the retard currently occupying the Oval Office...

An Obama victory would put the neo-cons back in their tank. And thats enough.

"He's consistently solid in almost everything"? My god you people are deluded. -Oddlong

Well, thats an opinion, you running around bleating what you think is a fact...thats more than just deluded.

Obama is not going to pass any sort of capntrade, his economic advisers will point out the impossibility of having the federal government try to micro manage oil consumption. They will point to research that shows unequivocally that the transactions costs of the federal government would be so high that oil woulds be used with greater inefficiency.

I will get the research articles for you. But you can be sure the jig is up on this, it has been exposed as a legislative windfall and will be rejected.

Come to think of it, those that listened to the smaller government claim voted for a bigger government guy that created the nanny state Dept of homeland security and even bigger deficits.

How do you square with that obtuse..urr oblong?

the public isn't calling out for a complete re-ordering of the political system.

Speak for yourself.

Kevin,

Just why the hell are we paying you to punditize for us, if now, long after you endorsed Obama, and now after all his competition drops out, NOW you confirm you have no idea what the fuck he plans on doing in office?

Oh well, at least you're more honest than the peers on your blogroll. In the meantime, I wonder how you picked Obama, his good looks? You imagined yourself drinking beers with him?

Jebus, I hope BTD doesn't read this post of yours.

Yes, that was a well thought out endorsement of yours, wasn't it? You really looked him over closely first. Or rather, looked over the way the internet winds were blowing -- Obama himself obviously didn't enter into the calculus much.
The people writing for blogs are just as lazy, dishonest, and useless as the mainstream media now. It's astonishing.

Oh, and what's Obama "passionate" about? Getting elected, of course, while continuing to fit into a more or less Democratic mold. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but the fact that you have to be told that is. You have, in the past year, sunk down to about the level of Drezner as a blogger, but every once in a while you produce a nifty chart or some such to keep you a data point ahead of him. Maybe a data point, as Drezner's dumb as a pulverized rock, but will at least take a stand on something every once in a while without sticking his finger in the wind first.

Well it appears there's ONE thing Obama doesn't have on his front burner (since he couldn't be bothered to show up to vote on the proposal):

The Republicans blocked a Democratic energy package that would have imposed a 25 percent tax on any "unreasonable" profits of the five largest U.S. oil companies, which together made $36 billion during the first three months of the year. It also would have given the federal government more power to address oil market speculation that the bill's supporters argue has added to the
crude oil price surge.

The Republicans blocked a Democratic energy package that would have imposed a 25 percent tax on any "unreasonable" profits of the five largest U.S. oil companies, -everyman

I would think it should not be a taxcut but a reduction of 25% of the subsidies they get from the taxpayer when they have such enormous, record breaking profits.

First term Must Do list
War

First term TODO list, any 3 of
Restore American Freedom(s)
Energy
Health care
Climate
SocialSecurity/Medicare/Fiscal sense

Second term
Stuff that has popped up
Left overs from first list

-r

I don't see why the oil companies should be charged a "windfall profits tax" on 10% margin. Why not tax MicroSHAFT which makes 50-70% profit margin on their products? At least the oil companies provide lifeblood to the economy, MicroSHAFT software is pretty much useless.

Somebody at Kos took the time to look at which bills he sponsored while in the Senate. His range of concerns was gratifying and, even in that context, his interest in education stood out.

According to the Kos diarist, who said there were too many to list, he introduced about nine bills on it. So I'm thinking if he has a pet interest, that would be it.

come on Kevin, I thought you were smarter than this crap.
BHO is moving center for the general election.
Y'know? Go to the fringe for the primary, rush to the center for the general.

If you go around using your platform to paint Obama as "not leftie enough for your taste" now, you might as well vote for McCain.

You are letting your princlples get in the way of winning a really important race.

**BTW: BHO lost New Hampshire because all his supporters were told he was going to win by double digits so they relaxed and stayed home. Meanwhile Hillary's folks were so scared from the Iowa loss they got off their ass and voted. My point, does BHO's chances of winning improve or worsen with media coverage saying he is doing well? NO.
Democrats are only motivated from a position of the underdog. The fight motivates them. Use that from your platform.

I think he's been pretty clear that the big three, probably to be pursued simultaneously, are Orderly Withdrawal from Iraq; Major Climate/Alt Energy Initiative; and Health Care. Obviously the timing and pacing will depend on "facts on the ground" in Jan 2009, including state of economy and what happens in the Senate Races.

Another major initiative will be what might be called DeBushification -- greater Exec Branch transparency; shutting down any archepelago of off the books prisons that may exist; withdrawing a bunch of crazy administrative orders.

Well, the wingnuts have certainly gotten their General Election Talking Points Memo No. 1, haven't they?

The most LIBERAL Senator (gasp). The most LIBERAL nominee (gasp). Except for the last nominee, of course. And the one before that. Then there was Clinton, who proved to be a DINO (and some of that pixie dust seems to have landed on Hillary, too). Then there was the nominee before THAT. But I guess when we get back to Carter and McGovern, we're back in ancient history.

the center-left is more often right about policy than the leftier-left

Since leftist policy solutions have not been tried since the end of the 1930's, claiming more centrist policies have been more correct is untrue. The lefitist policies instituted in the '30's, like Social Security and Unemployment Insurance, have been hugely successful and popular. Leftist policies seem to be unpopular with the electorate because of the continuous propaganda onslaught from the corporate owned media and corporate owned politicians of both parties have persuaded voters leftist policies lead to dictatorship and totalitarianism. If Americans understood how much better off their counterparts in other developed nations with liberal social democracies were, they would adopt similar policies. The lies from the media and the politicians prevent this recognition.

It's much easier to resolve Obama's politics if you accept that a) to the extent he has any convictions at all, they are well to the left of anyone else in the Senate and b) his speeches and current policies are written by other people. He just reads what's on the teleprompter.

Obama's politics are moderate. He does not advocate for universal healthcare. He wants to spend as much on the military as Reagan. He wants to give Israel whatever it wants, including Jerusalem. He buys into the neo-conservative themes about the threat of Islamic terrorism, threatening to nuke Pakistan and Iran. He will not undo Clinton's dismantling of welfare.

Really, Kevin, if I didn't know any better, I'd assume you were attempting satire with this post. NOW that the primary is OVER we are going to find out what Barry stands for? If you didn't know what he stood for, why the hell have you been jocking him so hard for the last several months? Remember when you "voted Hillary off the island?"

For the last half a year, anytime someone here tried to point out that Obama has refused to offer any policy specifics, and has no record of accomplishment at all, you and a chorus of culty Barry worshipers attacked them. Drink another glass of the kool-aid "Mr. Moderate." I'm embarassed for you.