Threatened by decency...of course he is sympathetic.

Noam has an excerpt from that interesting GQ interview with Karl Rove: What do you make of this whole

This is a joke, right?  Both on the part of Rove and on the part of Noam.

Does Rove actually believe this? Is this the kind of advice he was giving to W.? Because W. has always been, er,  "full of swagger." Something tells me that it wasn't exactly his highest priority to avoid appearing arrogant or dismissive.

Obama needed a soundbite. He could have said in response, "I believe in hope and change, but the best way to deliver that is as a president, not a vice president." But that's kind of boring. It's not memorable. There's a good chance that wouldn't have been carried by the news networks. The news wouldn't have been "Clinton idea and Obama rebuttal," it would have been "Clinton idea, period."

It's true that this wasn't an Inspiring Obama Moment. But it didn't have to be. All he had to do was make a simple, easy-to-understand argument that would end the Clinton meme.

It's true that Obama loves using his hands to "push down" ideas while he's arguing against them. It's actually pretty funny some times.

Otherwise, this is B.S.

Give me a break, Noam.

Why attribute sincerity to anything Rove says? He's trying to reinforce the idea/frame that Obama is arrogant. That's the GOP line on him: petulant, narcissistic, precocious, arrogant, etc. Obama had to respond to Hillary's #2 idea because the media was having a field day with it. And when he did, it played well, he smiled, people laughed, and the story died the next day.

As a rule, reality tends to be the opposite of what Rove says.

Who gives a fuck what Rove thinks.

well, eharder, given that he's beaten us again and again and again, it might not be a bad idea to try to listen to the man and see if we can evade his snares. For once.

Re. arrogance, as shown so amply by his core supporters' constant and snide dismissals of Hillary's less educated, older supporters, one could make a strong case that Obama does indeed have an image problem with ordinary, non-college educated blue-collar white voters who perceive him as... y'know, kinda arrogant. Also patronizing and given to equating ordinary old white folks, like the woman who helped raise him, with incendiary conspiracy-mongers. For political advantage. Even though he's above politics. Right.

Folks, we've been here before. Mike Dukakis: arrogant, out of touch, easily trounced by a man who was down by 19 points a mere two months before the election. John Kerry - arrogant, out of touch, saw his share of every single core Dem constituency decline compared to 2000, even though he was running against a loathed president whom he should have and could have beaten. And now we have another pol whose candidacy oozes disdain for the kinds of people who vote for... a fellow Democrat.

But hey, go ahead, make Rove's predictions reality. Hillary's a witch! Her supporters are stupid, and they're about to die anyway! (VAcentrist, Stump, 4/2).

The BHO vs HRC angle is beside the point. Off-record, Rove told the GQ journalist that he _doesn't respect_ Obama, thinks he's an arrogant little sh*t. She even begs Rove to say this on the record, and adds, in brackets, to her readers, about Rove's comment, "Yes, it's that good. Sorry."

In the interests of winning this election, in part by putting forth a candidate who can actually connect with working-class Americans and whose campaign and supporters do not ooze contempt for them and their preferences, don't you think it might be a good idea to stop ? He's not Al Gore and doesn't deserve the withering attacks that the press made on Gore (Gore didn't deserve them, either). But could we at least stop idolizing Obama and start critiquing him a bit more, including those episodes where his glibness and undeniable arrogance lead him into outrageous conceits like the one equating his granny with the guy who says the USG is deliberately infecting blacks with AIDS. So that we don't, yet again, get tripped up by our eternal image as out of touch, arrogant elitists.

Mike Dukakis????  Don't put Obama in a tank!

You all should meld the plank comments and the stump comments to both posts. Because it's really the same post.

As I said in The Plank's version of this 'story': Rove is a Republican "Ben" (Lost) and as amoral as anyone can be.  Rove invented dirty politics as we know it today.  Anything coming out of his mouth is calculated to 'win', damage an opponent (real or only perceived), spin gold out of cow flop, and manipulate the listener.  He's extremely intelligent, but that doesn't mean I'd put any credence into anything he says.  

In case no one gets it, Rove's obvious agenda is to have HRC as an opponent, as he knows he can handle her easily.  He isn't part of McCain's staff, but he'll be around during the campaign and I'd just love to know who's funding him.  

Ralphnelle nails it. Rove deserves no benefit of the doubt on this. He has one goal and only one goal in mind: make Hillary the nominee. Any sincere reading of his words indicates a failure to have learned anything over the last eight years.

Tep- you have to keep in mind that Rove can't be trusted to be honest, particularly during our primary season. He's definitely pushing the "arrogance" angle. You seem to buy it. I don't. I'm also not convinced that "arrogance" was what blew Kerry's chances- "out of touch", yes. I think your past posts have been more on target that he's got to really convey some connection with working class whites- arrogance doesn't really enter into it, though.

Particularly given that the real arrogance in this exchange was the Clinton side, cliaming to be able to judge whether the frontrunner is good enough to VP or not or what-have-you.

Agree that Obama has to find a more common touch. but also have to recognize the Rove is literally going to spin anything to fit his story of Obama.

what psantillana said.

Still waiting for someone to ask Obama (and Clinton and McCain) about Pelosi/Germany's Chancellor about the Olympic symbolic boycott.  I understand why he wouldn't want to wade into that, but why is the media trying to help him?

Much as I like Obama, I think it's a little odd that his defenders here seem to have no answer to tep's main point, which I take to be that he has not been able to close a deal with working class Democrats, and is therefore more vulnerable than his enthusiastic college educated professionals and independent 20 somethings care to believe.

I don't think Clinton is someone I could ever happily vote for (although I'll hold my nose and do it), but if Obama can't close the gap with Clinton amongst working class white voters in Pennsylvania, having decided to take a stand there, I think we're in serious trouble in the fall.

That said, tossing around the word "arrogant" with respect to Obama, when the person you're contrasting with is Hillary Clinton is laughably absurd.  He may be intellectual, and a bit aloof; he may even see himself as somehow above the great unwashed masses (although I doubt this), but at least he manages to do so without the condecension of dishonesty.  Clinton, on the other hand, is arrogant in the worst way: she is willing to pretend to be and represent something about which she knows nothing, and cares not a wit, in order to appeal to working class voters.  She doesn't respect them enough to be even remotely honest with them.

Finally, with respect to his grandmother: politically, everything tep says about his remark may be true.  But having grown up in a family that started the 1950s as casually racist as Midwesterners who rarely met an African American could be, even though their basic approach to individuals was generous and encompassing, I can say that it rings absolutely true.  To white Americans, I can see that his "outing" of her may seem gratuitous and cruel, but on the other hand, it may just be the sort of thing we have to all say out loud in order to move beyond the past.

Sdemuth:

I'll accept that Obama has some work to do in closing the deal with white working class voters. But I don't accept that McCain is going to have an easy time with them either. To the contrary, I think he has much more work to do. I liked and admired McCain very much when he ran in 2000, but his embrace of Bush and Bush's policies are going to be an enormous albatross for him, especially as the economy continues its freefall and Iraq begins to spin out of control. Obama has seven months to capitalize on this while also reintroducing himself to these working class voters. It's not going to be a cakewalk, but I'd much rather be in Obama's shoes than McCain's.

Obama doesn't connect with the college educated private sector professional class either, in the way that Clinton did. Only academics and public sector professionals. His latest ad attacking big oil was pure demagoguery. But, then again, Hillary's message is no better. So much for the "New Democrat" movement. With bith Hillary and Obama tacking left, McCain sounds like the Centrist in this election cycle who will connect with the Independents.  

sdemuth- well said on all counts.

r-ennis- RIIIIIIGHT- there's nothing more risky or politically tin-eared than attacking oil companies.

Noam, hate to say it bro, but you are the one who took the bait on this one, reposting Rove's story as if it were a sincere observation and possibly true.

Attacking big oil may rouse the left wing base of what is left of the Democratic Party, but will hurt him with Independents who are mostly conservative on fiscal matters and liberal on social matters and do not depend on the government or a university for a pay check and who are comfortable in voting Republican.

So, yes, it may help him get the nomination. Pure demagoguery is an accurate description. I do not see much "change" there. Bill Clinton's candidacy in 1992 promised real change and he delivered. Now the left wing disowns him.  

Here's how to tell when you can't take what Rove is saying at face value:

If his lips are moving.

Rove's an idiot.

He's the architect of Bush's second term domestic policy, which started with social security privatization and continued with a disastrous immigration reform attempt that backfired (the GOP brand is WORSE with latinos after that debate).

Why wouldn't Obama step up and hit a softball out of the park? I know Rove wants a surrogate to take it on aggressively....but every Democrat I know was outraged when Hillary floated this. No reason for Obama to let surrogates push it. Obama guaranteed press coverage with his statement.

This whole thing plays into the HRC arrogant pursuit of power meme...it's an easy fit...

Perhaps. Then again, in this case Rove refused to put his most inflammatory remarks -- his "bait" if you like-- on the record. If he wanted to boost HRC and provoke Obama he could have done so much more effectively by explicitly attacking BHO rather than doing so obliquely, gently, and saving the harsh stuff for off the record remarks.

"Attacking big oil may rouse the left wing base of what is left of the Democratic Party, but will hurt him with Independents who are mostly conservative on fiscal matters and liberal on social matters and do not depend on the government or a university for a pay check and who are comfortable in voting Republican"

Ummm....no. Attacking big oil works with pretty much everyone....including conservatives....and ESPECIALLY the populist reagan-dem types. It's a great hit, even if it's a bit simpleminded. Record oil profits + consumer pain = easy hit

How many other sectors can get away with record profits following a huge price spike? The input costs of oil should be HURTING oil companies, not helping them. I understand that demand for gasoline non-elastic...but it's still a bit shady.

Lymon -

Obama addressed the Olympic thing on hardball yesterday at the townhall meeting.

I think he said something about the Olympics being about unity.

miceelf and sullydog are correct - Rove is being transparently disingenuous. Its obvious that the Rs want to run against Hillary. She will do the work of uniting the Rs behind McCain in a way that even Rove couldn't manage. However, the bit of useful information in his interview is that it tips their hand as to how they will run against Obama (arrogant, etc.). The Obama campaign can use this to begin planning a counter strategy now.

So he's against Pelosi?  If so, I'm hardly surprised -- it's consistent with his windsocking.  Also not surprising that Samantha Power would continue her sell-out by staying silent -- amazing that the politicians are more vocal than the self-described "Genocide Chick" -- but her friends in the media will cover for her.  I'd also wouldn't be surprised if he wasn't pressed on the specifics (was he asked about a complete boycott or just ducking the opening ceremony -- if the former and not the latter then Matthews was "softball").

Real Clear Politics today has Obama losing to McCain in Ohio/Penn/Florida (I think he's tied in one of those) and Clinton beating McCain in all three.  These polls fluctuate wildly, but given the number of times people have argued "Obama will win the states we need to win and Clinton can't" it seemed worth mentioning.  

Here's Senator Courageous (1 of 3 -- I'll make McCain 2 and Hillary 3):

"Barack Obama has criticised China's policies in Tibet and admitted that he was "in two minds" about the role America should play in the Olympic Games in Beijing in August.

Mr Obama, the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, said: "On the one hand, I think that what has happened in Tibet, China's support for the Sudanese government in Darfur, is a real problem. [But] I am hesitant to make the Olympics a site of political protest because I think it's partly about bringing the world together."

Surprise, another non-answer with something for all sides to spin.  And of course no follow-up (why not compromise like Pelosi did between repeating Munich and a complete boycott by the President (like Germany is doing)?)

Lymon -

I can't not sure what his position was. He didn't really say much. I think the question was on the more extreme side, from a college student, "should the US boycott the olympics" or something, not the opening ceremonies. Is that the Pelosi position? The opening ceremonies? I haven't been following this thing.

"given that he's beaten us again and again and again," yeah, Rove the super genius. Great idea to send Bush to California in 2000, and if it wasn't for that confusing butterfly ballot in Florida and screwed up recount Gore won, and handily. In 2002 Bush just ran around saying 9/11. In 2004 Democrats nominated a twit who seemed to want to lose the general. In 2006 he was thoroughly trounced (not saying it was HIS fault, his job was impossible). Roves enduring Republican majority lasted 4 years. Some genius. Rove is a skilled operative for the Republicans, but I am not going to treat any of his words as divine revelation, especially now.

And what is this shit about Obama being aloof. The worst you can say about him is that he is glib, but he sure as hell is approachable, even his reaction to that photographer stalker shows him to be far more in touch because his reactions were genuine. "you are wearing me down" and he even told the guy why he was annoyed that the guy had previously jumped in on him when he was talking to kids. If anything, he is too approachable. McCain is stiff and earnest, but approachable too. Hillary is the aloof one.

lymon, the elections are in November, polls change. 7 months ago Hillary had double digit leads everywhere over Obama. EVERYWHERE. We saw how that held up. So no, it isn't worth mentioning now.

Oh and if you don't mind - what's the chinese connection to darfur? Are they supporting the government with contractors there? Or is it more direct? I'm not really familiar. Or is this about Tibet? I have no idea.

RCP polls are not surprising. What you're seeing is a combination of (a) Obama not winning all of the democratic votes (those fall into "undecided") and (b) Hillary benefiting from her Florida gambit. Obama will have to spend time courting his base for a bit after the primary. That much is clear.

I've always thought that Hillary's aggressive Florida push is really just a way to depress Obama's poll numbers so she can argue for electability. Since the only way she wins is by convincing supers that Obama is unelectable, this makes complete sense.

Here's a hilarious take on the Florida/Michigan situtation:

www.youtube.com/watch

How does Obama close the gap among working-class white voters? How does any Democratic presidential nominee close the gap? How does any Republican do it? By telling them what they want to hear is how most have done it. A politician is as much a product of their formative university and early working years as they are a product of the political working class.

Americas long standing political & presidential history has been built by those "East Coast" upper crust society, blue blood elites that the Republicans were/are much a part of as the Democrats. The Republicans were successful in maneuvering themselves as the party of the 'average man' by crafting myths as the party for the working class only in the last 30 years! You know, those Reagan Democrats everyone likes to salivate over as the defacto demographic deciding the elections. Only in the last 8 years has the general public realized that the GOP doesn't represent the interests of the working person but is more vested in the interests of big business, corporations, K Street lobbyists and Wall Street. Just as Democrats are associated with ivory tower, Ivy League elitists, high-tech entrepreneurs, Hollywood stars and BoBos of NYC but in reality actually do share the socio-economic concerns of the general population on many levels.

The fact that many blue-collar, working class Americans have a general disdain for moneyed, white collar corporate elites, as those elites have for blue-collars. It's a socio-economic and education level thing. Tep keeps bringing up the point that Obama needs to bridge the gap but at the same time tells us to stop expecting Obama to be the savior of the world. This reflects the inherent contradictions of us all who, by the mere fact that the politician has taken it upon themselves to "represent" the people, we keep "hoping" that they actually are representing the people.

The rhetoric that a politician uses is as much, if not more important, than the platitudinous actions they  do to "prove" their ordinariness. Ever wonder why a "working class' guy or gal hasn't become President? Ever wonder why even those Presidents that appear to be most ordinary have had the highest levels of education and connections? Those working class politicians, who went to a state college, worked a local university or some unknown law firm that make it at the national level tend to reach a glass ceiling because Americans want a person of "high class" to represent America while at the same time harboring a complete dislike for those very people.

Obama can only make an honest attempt to make inroads with older, white blue-collar working class folks by doing it at the local level and talking to them and laying what he can *try* to do as President that would benefit them and the rest of the country. Is this any different than what McCain does by visiting diners or Hillary going to a auto-plant? No. It's what every POTUS seeking politician has done because we expect them to.

Here's the thing that some people will feel uncomfortable accepting but many working class folks won't vote for a working class president even though they disdain an elite. Why? Because they view the working class nominee to not be as qualified for the job. It's perception and it's socio-economic bias. They want that politician to be as regular as them but not too regular. Bush won because he played off the west Texas drawl and gosh-shucks I'm a working man on my ranch routine despite being a product of the East Coast elites he despised. Just like many Af-Americans were hesitant to vote for Obama because he had to "prove" he was viable and not another 'crazy brutha' that would get their hopes up.

So either Obama pretends to be a regular guy (whatever that is supposed to mean) or be honest about who he is and make a genuine attempt to connect with those who distrust him as elite, exotic, arrogant, black, secret muslim, etc. and get them to understand him. But putting on welding goggles for a photo-op is as disingenuous as it is for any politician.

Noam links to an interview with Karl Rove, and notes that "Rove is pretty down on Obama, and actually

Rove "beat" Gore in 2000, after the incumbent president was impeached and mired in a sex scandal. Hardly the masterpiece that everyone assumes. Then 9/11 and the inevitable rallying around the president psychosis.

He's hardly the genius everyone claims him to be, with the exception of Swift-boat.

Michelle Obama considers Americans nasty, Obama's minister visits Libya, accuses the US of spreading AIDS, embraces Farrakhan, and Obama wants to "cut and run" in Iraq and fold on Iranian nukes.

That is a fairly accurate description of what the Republicans will say about Obama. He had better have a great story on the economy and his promise to institute a windfalls tax to hurt big oil is not it. It will be seen as the job killing hatchet job it is.

Rove worked to elect the worst president in American history. He failed, twice, but through cheating his candidate is in power.

He completely mismanaged the mid-terms, failed, but unable to cheat the results, he was exposed as the most over-rated "genius" in American political history.

He has been intimately involved in domestic policy - virtually all failed (fortunately).

He has been a principal architect of the secrecy that will take years spent in court to unravel and will likely lead to indictments throughout the federal government.

In his new role, as a Dick Morris-like pundit, he's boring.

Let's hope the GOP keeps believing in his magic.

VC -- Pelosi's position is that President Bush should boycott the opening ceremony as a symbolic protest.  The Chinese are the Sudan government's chief enabler at the United Nations -- they have contracts for Sudan's oil and make any security council action a nonstarter.  The most recent protests are about Tibet, though France's President has threatened similar action because of Darfur.

Blackton -- I could have sworn I said that these poll numbers fluctuate wildly and I only put them up to show that it's no slam-dunk that Obama is a stronger candidate (at the flashpoint moment of these polls).  Oh wait, I did say that.  

Tep-I don't know that saying "I could say a lot worse about him, but I'm not going to" is particularly gentle.

Rather, it suggests a good horror movie director's trick- let the mind imagine the horror. Whatever Rove claims to have wanted to say, but off the record, it can't compete with the horrors that folks will conjure up. Plus, he gets to say "see, I was being gentle with him".

Pfft.

Whatever Rove's genius in getting W elected twice (and I think much of it is attributable to dem clumsiness and Nader), it seems to be on the wane. He didn't do swimmingly in 06, the "real math" aside.

"And now we have another pol whose candidacy oozes disdain for the kinds of people who vote for...a fellow democrat."

Tep, what world are you living in? Give me some actual evidence of this, i.e., not Rovian over-interpretation of Obama's hands, and not more riffing on your single objection to Obama's race speech (his "outrgeous" comment that his grandma is human and suffers from human insecurities, fears, etc.).

Your comment fits Hillary much more accurately. She has done nothing but bash the states and voters who have decided not to support her. She's bashed the democratic process, and she's alienated African-American voters with shameless race-baiting.

Good luck winning the general without the black vote.

Ralph - I didn't vote for Hillary. I don't support Hillary. Got it?

Obama's arrogance -- slickness is more apt, or what Wieseltier called "suavity" a while back-- consists mainly in thinking that people who feel passionately about burning issues will support someone who speaks out of both sides of his mouth on those issues. He's a liberal! He's a moderate! He's the scourge of Wall Street, and the darling of the hedge fund gazillionaires! He's post-racial, he's multi-racial, he's the Black Power candidate all in one, the man who will cut the gordian affirmative action knot by being both for a-a (to his BP audience) and against a-a (to his post-racial audience) at the same time!

Sooner or later, smart GOP operatives will make mincemeat of BHO the way they did Kerry and Dukakis. You find it annoying to be reminded of this? Me, I find it annoying that I have to remind us of the tried-and-true means of defeating every Dem presidential candidate, bar one who shall nto be named, going back 20 years.

Let's be smart about this, for once.

Rove's is a counsel of unreal perfection.

Obama, who is tremendous pivoter, is pivoting nicely from transcendent inspirer to regular fight-it-out politician while still retaining some rhetorical claim to a new kind of politics. There may be a tactical call as to whether the vice-president issue should have been left to a surroagte, though I think it was fine for Obama himself to join that issue. But the prescription that he ought not besmirch by doing regular pollitics--one that I subscribed to for a time--has become both precious and stale.

blackton - I never said "aloof." I said GLIB-- yeah, and then some. ARROGANT-- your view may differ, but I think his cynical treatment of his poor old grandmother, for goodness's sake, to defend a transparently cynical political relationship with Wright, strikes lots of ordinary folks not besotted with rhetoric as, well, arrogant. And his use of windy rhetorical BS to cover such an obvious political ploy is SMUG.

We've been there before. The Repubs know how to play this game. Do we? Will we ever learn?

What teplukhin2you said. Your comment reminds me of how, on one hand, Geraldine Ferraro invited vigorous denouncements for suggesting Obama was favored by his skin color but John Kerry, on the other hand, found no trouble avoiding the media storm when remarking that the race of his preferred candidate had placed him in a unique position to bridge religious extremism in the world. As Kerry put it, the fact that Obama was black signified that he had experienced repression and could, as such, wield unique influence over foreign leaders. Nothing wrong with the argument - except that I find it quite paradoxical that we should, you know, vote for Obama because he is black while simultaneously sneering at those who point that fact out.

OK, single, I'll bite on this one: "Tep keeps bringing up the point that Obama needs to bridge the gap but at the same time tells us to stop expecting Obama to be the savior of the world."

No, he needs to show some LEADERSHIP, which means neither a) raves with Scarlett J nor b)   milquetoast goodguy blandeur that his staffers wrote a la What, You May Ask, Were the Consequences of Repeal of Glass-Steagall....

Here are a few suggestions-- maybe they're dumb, maybe not, but they're real, they're fresh, and they truly would move us beyond the "old politics"  that Obama likes to decry.

1) Scrap race-based affirmative action. Let the states replace it with income-based affirmative action.

2) Buck the NEA while supporting more money for teachers. Support means-tested vouchers in poor urban districts (read: help urban minority kids pay for big -city Catholic schools that way outperform their peers).

3) Make the case against continued involvement in Iraq (which I support, btw) a FISCAL one, and promise a two-fer: promise that the deficit will be reduced  by the same amount, dollar-for-dollar, saved annually by withdrawing from Iraq.

Notes to the above:

1) this issue is so blindlingly obvious, and easy, for Obama that his failure to champion it tells me he's not exactly the fearless leader he's touted as.

2) a lot tougher than #1, but Obama's in the clear now and doesn't really need the NEA's support. Plus, I thought he was the pro-religion liberal. Surely he understands the extraordinary impact that urban Catholic schools have on afr-amer achievement and opportunity? Again, this one should be his. Call it a civil rights issue if you like.

3) OK, so progressives won't like the deficit reduction angle, but man, would this ever drive a knife into the heart of the McCain coalition. For every blue-collar Dem tempted by McC, you could win over two  ChanRobt / Butchie B fiscally-conservative, rational GOP moderates. Game over.

How's that, single? Better?

Your turn.

Tep- Not sure what "be smart" means in this context. your primary objections to Obama seem to center around pretty subjective judgements of his character and approach (admittedly, many people's support for him comes from a similarly subjective place). You voted for him- why? And you want him to do a variety of things that he has or is already doing. ("renounce racial identity politics!" "talk to blue collar workers and take them seriously!" "be less glib!")

To me it feels that you want to be made to feel better about Obama, and are dissatisfied because you don't. But it's not clear what the solution is because it seems as if your problems with him are largely subjective ones, or based (or at least consonant with) the Republicans' emerging storylines about him. Which they were going to do anyway.

I'm not sure what you want, beyond a more critical look at Obama from TNR. (fine and good, but not sure how that will affect dems' prospects this fall one way or the other).  The rest of your complaints seem to be based in your perceptions of him, which are likely to be devilishly tricky to change and in good part in your control.

Short of a time machine, I'm not clear on how he makes you feel better. He's more charismatic than our recent losers. He's probably somewhat less substantive, at least on a couple of fronts. Beyond that, you've seized on "arrogance" most recently- and before that it was "racial identity politics"

I feel as if we're reliving the episode of the Simpson where Mr. Burns tells Don Mattingly "trim those side-burns!!"

You suggest specific areas he should talk about (often things he already has or is), but I don't see how a more detailed economic plan will satisfy you that he's being "less arrogant"

Oh, yeah, a personal favorite: show that he can say f-you to the lobbyists he derides by

4) proposing legislation that will tax all carried interest at teh maximum personal income tax rate, AND publicly return all campaign contributions originating from hedge fund managers.

He's got no shortage of money, so the second half of this is easy. The first part should have been done years ago. Batter up, Barry.

Again, Tep, one would have to be unaware of the last month of politics to think Obama isn't more capable than Kerry and Dukakis to respond to the GOP's tired and broken "mincemeat" strategy. As Brooks argued last week, the Wright scandal *should* have been a disaster for Obama's campaign. But it wasn't. Why not? Because he knows how to play this game a whole lot better than you and Wieseltier are willing to believe.

Clearly, you don't like the grandma line. Is there anything else, because that particular example is feeling stretched a little thin at this point. Not only that: to call it arrogant is a category mistake. It might have been opportunistic, or exploitative, but it wasn't arrogant (I tend to think it was just an attempt to say that all of us, even our grandmothers, harbor racist feelings and beliefs, but that doesn't mean we're monsters, as the GOP and some here would have us believe).

David Brooks? giggle. He's a nice guy. He's not an operative. It's not just Rove btw but lots of (even) nastier GOP operatives who think Obama's a fat target.

Also, there's utterly no need for the GOP to jump on Wright now. Obviously, they're going to keep their powder dry for the fall. (Remember, DUkakis was up by 19 points going into Sept '88).

If BHO did the 4 things tep suggests, he'd win in a landslide.  Many independents and moderate GOPers would at least give him a chance.  But let's face it:  the first 2 are Souljah moments.  A Dem candidate can no more call for an end to affirnmative action AND buck the NEA than McCain can call for higher taxes.  Won't happen, tepster.

And I'm glad to see that someone suggests that if we "save" money by withdrawing from Iraq, let's apply it to the deficit the Dems are always decrying, rather than spending it times over, as they suggest in their stump speeches.  Can't have it both ways, folks.

Now, I'm a national security Republican, and BHO is too green for me in that area, so I'm for McCain.  But I suspect that there are plenty of independents who would vote for BHO if he took the positions tep suggests.  Lucky for my guy, he won't.

In other words Tep, for him to get your support, he has to run as you. I am not saying your ideas are bad, I agree with some of them, but centrist Democrats don't win primaries, and he has to win the primary first. Afterwards he can go to the center. Hell, even McCain has to pander to the Republican base. "I will make the Bush tax cuts permanent." Um...no you won't. And even if you wanted to you know you can't.

And as I said on another thread, give me a break about his Grandmother. Suddenly you are worried about the reputation of a woman you never heard of? This is so precious, precious beyond belief. You are using her far more as a political football than he did. It is his family, not yours. I can make jokes about my mother, but if you try it, watch out. And you are going to tell me if one of your future grandchildren contrasted one of your faults (and speaking a bit off color hardly ranks as anything but a minor one) you would storm out of your home and say. "Yes, I said it, but it was private so don't vote for my grandchild?" Or, of course, far more likely you would be the one suggesting the lines out of love and pride in your own flesh and blood.

mice - here's the crux of my BHO problem. A guy who inspires great fervor in both Louis Farrakhan and Marty Peretz ( or Charles Murray and Alice Walker!) is not, shall we say, on the level. I'm sorry, but one, or both, of these admirers is projecting something that's just not there. [DISCLAIMER: I'M NOT FOR HILLARY]

Now, what's being projected? Is it some vaguely inspiring air of leadership? Well, that's my second problem with Obama, and with those Obama fans among my fellow TNR-niki. His leadership promise is mainly in his mouth. He has no battle scars. No searing experiences. [DISCLAIMER: I'M NOT FOR HILLARY. I DON'T WANT TO VOTE FOR McCAIN.]

Maybe it's just my sad professional experience (long story) I can say that glibness and rhetorical flourishes are vastly overrated as indicators of executive promise. Good chat doth not a leader make. I really don't think we need "dialogues" now, either at home or abroad, and I myself am not attracted by Obama's peculiar talent for saying nothing substantial. [DISCLAIMER etc]

Combine the above and I think this charming, smart, clearly attractive (personally) man is a very vulnerable candidate in a general election. The kids won't determine this one. The old folks and the hispanics will, esp those in the southwest and FL PA OH MI MO. They're a lot less excitable than Messrs Farrakhan and Peretz.

best,

t

blackie - the granny gambit tells us the guy is just. a. politician.

Not J.H. Christ but Brian. ("He's not the Messiah, he's a very naughty boy!" -- Grandma)

As a still unconvinced Democrat from a very red state, I will vote for whomever emerges as the nominee.  But, it's important to set the record straight about the Rev. Wright. The Clinton campaign DID NOT bring up the issue initially. However, it must also be said that it was a godsend to the Dark Lord and will be used very effectively by the Swift Yacht Whores for Bush. Believe me. We haven't even heard the first volleys of this attack. It will be a very big issue in the GE and it will be very effective with right-leaning independents (the majority, despite what they claim) as well as working class Democrats.

Everybody feels uncomfortable around the the guy (or gal) who has the radical, anti-American, hate-spewing "friend", even if they like the guy or gal personally. This is especially true of working-class and lower middle class people, regardless of their ethnicity or religion.

We need to be very careful about fooling ourselves into thinking Obama has talked his way past this issue. I can hear the Repugnant smear-and-fear machine sharpening their knives and drooling at the prospect.

Speaking of Obama lack of leadership:

www.slate.com/.../2188010

PS -- Paul Vallas was the best governor Illinois never elected.

Butchie - what in your opinion would be the likely independent and GOP moderate response if Obama delivered on 3 of the 4-- say, vouchers, Iraq/Deficit reduction, and sock it to the hedgehogs?

What about 2 of the 4 -- Iraq/deficit reduction and either vouchers or income-based aff action?

Tep:

Regarding obama's arrogance.

It's interesting - some people react strongly to it and tell me about it. others don't see it at all.  Either way - the press has wind of this meme.

It kind of reminds me of the Al Gore "exaggerations" and the John Kerry "flip flopping". It's a pretty important issue. I hope we discuss it more.

butchie -- I'd apply the money saved in Iraq to retraining troops and hiring more police, resupplying the military and homeland security surveillance.  Security-for-security.  As much as I'd like to see deficit reduction (and think there are ways to accomplish it), the #1 duty of a President is national security (and I like to think the #2 duty of government in general is domestic security).

tep...

I'll try to respond to your points..

1) I don't think Obama has ever said he's for or against affirmative action. Asking him to step up and call for the end of AA achieves what exactly? And how do we define AA? Is it just applicable to higher education where Federal dollars are at play or is it also Federal contract bidding process given to minority owned/women owned businesses? If by ending AA will translate into winning older, white working class voters is what you're after I'm not sure how that plays out. Does AA apply only African Americans or is the perception that it does the issue here?  If we're talking about ending AA for higher education I agree. Again, AA is applied state by state at the University level and Obama can certainly say "Federal funding for merit based instead of AA" for higher education. AFAIK...State U's don't get much Federal funding these days so I wonder how you do the carrot/stick routine. Perhaps why you think Obama should make this bold move is because he can make a more forceful argument than Hillary or McCain because why? I'd say it carries more weight coming from a black Democrat than a white Republican. Hillary could equally do this as well being a woman.

2) How does that play into primary and secondary education and vouchers?I do recall that he has spoken to the effect of education and teacher pay based on merit based performances. In fact I seem to remember that he'd indicated that at the state level for Illinois. I believe Obama has actually come out in support of vouchers in certain instances and does support merit based pay. But do the vouchers apply to just Catholic schools? I don't see any one passing a Federal mandate for vouchers unless you also take a look at how to revamp the public education system in such a way that States fund schools equitably instead of punishing poorer school districts for underperforming students. It's like me giving you a list of groceries and $50 to get them. You come back with two-thirds of the list and spent all $50. So I give you $30 the next time and the same list of groceries and expect you to do what you couldn't do with $50.

3) Obama has indicated in speeches and debates that with the drawdown in Iraq, that saved funding is put into infrastructure and reducing the debt. I don't think he's spelled out a dollar-for-dollar exchange though. And he's the only candidate I've heard so far to actually tie the fact that funding of Iraq has taken away critical funds that could be put to use in America. Hillary hasn't said that and certainly not John "Stand by my man Bush" McCain.

4) The lobbyists...that's an easy one.

But I ask you this and it's just an honest question to you based on my reading your posts. Is the fact that you post about Obama needng to show more leadership and specificity by making these point-by-point statements because you see him as the most viable of the three to achieve these actions? Or do you think that Hillary and McCain have clearly stated their positions on these issues already and don't need further clarification?

Does McCain get a pass on thinking both this specifically and 'big picture' about the complex socio-economic matrix that is our current situation because he's a ex-Naval officer and it's ok that he make passing remarks about the economy as long as he talks about his military background?

What about Hillary? She really hasn't gotten that specific either on these issues because she's a Clinton and ipso facto she's already progressive policy minded when she's shown otherwise the past 6 years?

I agree that Obama should be critically asked questions about these issues and what he would do. I'd like to hear his "What I plan for the first 100 days" speech without calling it that. Because then of course he'd be called presumptuous or pompous. But he does have to take the reins and get out front of both McCain and Hillary and do it now.

I'd like to see the Dems nominate a candidate that wont' hand the election to an under-qualified Republican. I'd like to see another Democratic president lift the nation up by it's collective boot-straps and get people inspired to think about the country collectively to dig ourselves out the financial and foreign policy messes that Bush Administration has dug us into.

lymon1...if all that money is spent solely on security at the expense of bread and butter issues - crumbling infrastructure, poorly funded primary and secondary schools, inadequate investment in domestic manufacturing sectors that aren't off-shorable, etc and these are falling apart then what exactly would you be defending then?

Defense for defense sake isn't defense. It's simply justifying the spending of money on  DOD pet projects sounds like a Potemkin Village. I support the adequate funding of our defense and military. I've had many family members serve (myself not included) so I understand what the military does and thank them for it. But I also think a blank check leads to waste. Rethinking the military's policy of out sourcing critical but mundane duties like supply lines or security to private contractors is absurd considering it costs more and achieves less for the military but hey...I'm sure the Repubs, KBR and Blackwater love those bloated 'private' contracts of market inefficiency.

It's one thing to retrain active troops and quite another to fund National Guard bases for homeland duties (of which they're not able to meet because they're in Iraq.) We should bring back NG guys now and get them back into normal life again.

I don't think the question is taking away money from the baseline DOD budget but instead rerouting all those "supplemental" blank checks the Bush admin got to fund their war. That's the money that can be reinvested into the country.

Tep- no need for the disclaimers for my benefit. :-)

I believe you when you said you voted for Obama (but you still haven't said why- was it because the only other alternative was HRC?). I think the suggestions you have are good suggestions. I'm not sure they're entirely feasible to execute in the primary season. But I hope he does at least 2 of the 4 sooner than later.

Part of the problem, IMHO, with the self-definition of Obama is that he simultaneously has to defend against HRC who is attacking him from both the right (affirmative action, not fit to lead, etc.) and left (soft on abortion rights, too praising of Reagan) simultaneously. Simply responding to each of these scattershot charges is bound to make someone look a little twisted.

I would like him to be more proactive. I'm more sanguine about his odds, primarily because of my experience of him in the state and how he has weathered the Clinton-generated storms. I agree that the GOP scruples are less than those of the HRC partisans (not her run of the mill supporters, but her operatives- to be clear). But not by much.

sgl - last q's first. I DO NOT SUPPORT HILLARY. I do not want to vote for McCain. I want to vote for Obama, and like it. At this point, I'm a very reluctant BHO supporter because I just don't see much "there" there. He's not much of a leader in my book. Neither is HRC, and McCain's moment IMHO passed years ago, but well, you go with the [Democratic liberal] candidate you have, not the [Democratic liberal] candidate you want to have. Mistah Candidate Biden, he dead. tant pis

Re the other q's re my 4 Point Plan for Wellness and Co-Prosperity In Our Day:

1) just education. all race-based numerical preference programs. does not include "outreach" or other special efforts to increase minority enrollment. if replaced with income-based aa, it achieves a ton. as opposed to the status quo, which has had almost no effect on increasing opptys for impoverished afr-amers

2) school funding's a separate issue, can be addressed simply at state level by mandating funds be spread out across state inst of locally. the means-tested vouchers issue is all about freeing poor minority kids from urban hellhole schools. yes, the alternative school is almost always a Catholic school which, without cherry-picking, achieves far better results with far less money (hint: discipline, rigor, real authority for principal and teachers).

3) this is designed to lure moderate, fiscally-responsible non-neocon GOPers and independents. You'd lock up all the Paulies for starters (and they should be locked up!). I don't know whether it would require legislative real teeth and what the lefislative mechanism would be, but I'm assuming a healthy Dem congressional majority, so that's not at issue.

"I believe you when you said you voted for Obama... "

That's mighty post-racial of you.

"(but you still haven't said why- was it because the only other alternative was HRC?)"

yes.

Agreed re the DOD whack-a-mole game. More like a black box. Get the money out of DOD. Cut down on graft and boondoggles to free up needed funds for Afghan enhancements, higher recruiting bonuses, benefits, etc. As a certain courageous and public-spirited Senator did recently when he voted to award a massive contract to EADS rather than to the (vastly more expensive) hometown son, Boeing....

Oh God - more Tep thread hijacking/goalpost moving.  Snore.  Been reading it for 15 months.  Whatever.

Geez, tep, I was just trying to say you didn't need the disclaimers for my benefit. Honestly.

mice - just taking the piss out of ye, as Iggy Pop would say. Wake up, Jill!

Ya, one person on these boards has been consistently wrong about Obama, and his username starts with tep. You'd think that being wrong so often would inspire a bit of humility.

Everything about this race, including the increasingly mindless chatter here ("gasp, apparently Rove really doesn't like Obama"), absolutely needs to end.

Having ridden W's coattails to two presidential victories, and encouraged millions of Americans to vote against their economic interests, Rove knows as well as anyone that these elections are not about ideas or policies or plans. W's success is decisive proof that presidential elections are about personality more than anything.

Tep...no need for disclaimers. I didn't think you were for Hillary. I like that you stir the pot and take Obamaniacs to task for not questioning their faithful leader. I just wanted to know why you were being so hard on Obama but now I know you were just being 'Cruel to be kind' (for those Nick Lowe fans). I agree that BHO doesn't have the depth of executive experience that we wished he had but then again, Hillary doesn't necessarily have it (she's just older) and McCain's time has passed although I think he's got some positives, his negatives for me outweigh those. Biden...wishing won't make it so. Just like I pined for Jerry Brown at one point (I know, I know, I was young, foolish and idealistic and one of those active youth voters you claim don't show up on election day).

1) I'm with you on the merit-based and economic-based AA aspect.

2) I agree about the pub-ed issues. My big pet-peeve about vouchers sometimes is that (the right) use it as a back-door way of divesting in public education at the expense of tax payers in the name of choice. It begs the question of how do you fix public schools so that the underfunded poor neighborhood schools have the same access to courses and resources that upper-class neighborhood schools have. And this speaks as much to parent involvement as any. The fact that a poor parent actively chooses to send a their kids to Catholic school for education also means they're involved whereas many poor kids regardless of ethnicity have parents that aren't involved at all. And rural schools suffer the same fate as inner city schools. But rural schools have a bigger hurdle...no close proximity to catholic schools as a choice, dearth of qualified teachers who want to teach in east Kansas or central West Virginia, and parents that have time to invest in their child's education after they've worked two shifts that day.

3) Agree that this gets centrists and soft-GOPers on board. Spell out where that money will go and would add that with the money and troops we bring back, we reinvest them into communities and infrastructure.

5) Obama challenges the US  to be completely foreign oil/coal/gas independent by 2020 and 90% of the energy is renewables with homes and commercial structures, cars, etc. get retrofitted and built as forward-efficient as possible. Obama give a Kennedyesque speech about America becoming the world leader in sustainable and renewable technology and pledge that wind, solar, hydro, geothermal and even nuclear are given priority over coal, nat'l gas and oil. This means a federal push for private tech companies and manufacturers to ratchet up R&D, and you've got an almost endless supply of work for retrofit and upgrades to implement renewable and green technologies in the building stock. Factory workers retrain in building components, the building trades (as blue collar as ever) expand services and growth for a labor pool of skilled kids that don't want to go to college.

As part of this pledge he ends methanol subsidies, putting that money into food production and sustainable farming practices by revamps farm subsidies to go to organic and independent farmers and coops that aren't part of the Ag Corporations or ties to Monsanto or Cargill. Revamping the irrigation and best management practices for ag that ensure cleaner and more efficient water uses for downstream users and the environment.

Instead of an ethos of wants and waste, the US emerges as the most efficient, sustainable, livable country of the 21st century.

5) sounds great, sign me up. Good stuff.

Ralph - what are you on, now? "Absolutely needs to end." wtf? getting a little jacobin, are we?

single -- Well, I'm not in favor of a "blank check" and I certainly wouldn't be torn-up if Iraq savings $$$ went to infrastructure.  But isn't it generally agreed that the war has damaged our millitary and that it is in need of repair?  Forget about pro-active war, weakness will invite goodness knows what.  As for domestic violence, I just think we've become numbed to how bad violence is in our inner cities and while many things contribute to that, the immediate way to qwell some of that violence is giving those areas the police levels they need (if these were white areas in the burbs suddenly beseiged by crime, people would be calling for martial law, let alone more cops).  And I think it's a good move for Obama politically: I'll use the money in Iraq to make you more safe, McCain will leave you alone in the parking lot at night.  Just a suggestion -- Obama can suggest just about anything constructive to do with the money and he should score points versus McCain.

I'm going to paste my grandmother analysis here from another thread. I never do this, but the grandmother thing is out of control. It keeps rising up like the terminator:

First, this bit about his grandma was in his first book - and if you really want to flesh out who he is on this, I recommend it very much - it won't be a chore, it's a page-turner. But he didn't "throw her under the bus" for a political point. And how would that even work? Who out there was stomping feet and pounding table for granny's blood?

He brought her up as someone who loves him times a thousand, and vice versa, and here she is saying stuff that hurts him, very likely based on her age and culture, and of course he's not going to kick her to the curb. Or throw her off a bus. That's a given. And in the same spirit, he's viewing Wright's hurtful comments in context, rather than just pushing the trapdoor button because the comments were not pc.

And no, he wasn't equating the two in terms of the "hate level' of the speech, but it wasn't about hate level - white women don't culturally or historically have much bitterness against black people, or much reason for it - it was about stuff you grew up with. She grew up viewing black men as menacing until proven innocent, and Wright grew up marinating in white racism and real violence directed at black people in a way that subsequent generations just did not. We can get all mad about Emmett Till in retrospect but Wright was Till's age and race, possibly saw the open casket himself at that funeral in Chicago, and saw how the jury acquitted the killing in record time - you can't know what that's like, and how hard that is to exorcise from your limbic brain. So no matter how off-base the stuff he said was, understand where it comes from, and disagree with him but don't just demonize the guy.

I feel like you are demonizing Obama in just this rigid way and it's off-putting.

Not following, tep. You never use hyperbole? My point: I couldn't be more bored with all of this. In my view we've hit rock bottom when Karl Rove's bullshit analysis of Obama's hands produces 70 replies.

Tone gets lost in blogese translation, I guess.

Ralph is right.  But then, of the 70, a third were Tep's comments, and they amount to a single truism: Republicans are nasty badasses and there is a question whether Obama is up to fighting them, and the shit they are about to throw out, in the coming year.

Blackie and the other Rove-denigrators: you are of course right; I have never thought of him as a genius and a realignment that collapses after two elections - one that was bought by a fraud, no less - is not a sign of political or any other genius.  HOWEVER, there is no end to Rove's, and Repubicans', cynicism.  And it is not at all clear to me that Obama is up to the challenge, or that the American people has the filter necessary to separate the shit from the good.

The sad fact is, that  Republicans don't really win elections,  Democrats lose elections by letting the Republicans definition of our candidates govern our feeling or reason for voting for the Democratic  nominee.  It always happens that Democrats let Republicans divide and conquer our party.  They will do that regardless of who the nominee is, be it Hilary (an untrustworthy, ball-bustering, racist, do anything, shrew) or Obama (an arrogant, unpatriotic, racist, elitist, liberal).

But it is up to us as Democrats to not allow the horrid rancid stench of the Republican machine (Yes I mean you Karl Rove, Fox, et al..) to hinder us from winning the election in November.

By shear numbers alone, if we stand together as one party, we can't lose.

Webster's definition of arrogance is  "an attitude of superiority manifested in an overbearing manner or in presumptuous claims or assumptions "

Given that definition, what has Barack Obama himself (not his surrogates, the man himself, his words, his actions) done that makes him seem more arrogant than Hilary Clinton or Bill Clintion or any other politician for that matter.  Is it that he is the leader right now, is it because he  is a man? Maybe.

But I'll tell you what I think, it all in the connotation of Rove's statment and attitude, and the percentage of voters he's trying to subtley target.  Being born and raised in the south (New Orleans to be exact), and as an African American, I'll tell you what first crossed my mind: "code" talk.

The "code" (to a % of the population, not all, but a percent) as they like to call it in southern circles is as followed:  

"He's ARROGANT";  Translation: who does this uppity, "so and so think" he is"  , "how dare he look down his nose at those of us who have had to actually work hard to get someone where."  

I can tell you that I'm not alone in my reasoning.

lamh31 is right. When you are looking at an objectively superior person, and you need something to sneer, you say "he's a superior s.o.b." Especially if you're a worm like Rove.

Lamb31 makes an excellent point.  I was trying to figure out what it was about the whole thing - the "arrogant" characterisation, the VP proposal, that bothered me so intensely (I am not American and not really an Obama supporter, for that matter, hence my surprise at the intensity of my reaction).  Reading Lamb's comment brought back twenty years of buttiung heading against "the Establishment" and the observation I have made over the years that the same statement, delivered in the same tone by the same level of experience and competence, elicits vastly different reactions depending on the colour/sex of the person delivering it.  

Now, this might appear a truism about sex-based distinctions (you know, he is "assertive" and she's a "bitch"), but less has been said about the race/ethnic-based distinctions. (In my case, it is that Whitey's "assertive and has muscular proposals", whereas I am being aggressive and not Canadian enough - I've heard it so often that these days, I only reply, "good thing Canada is a multicultural society and we change the definition of what is 'Canadian' all the time".  I'm still considered "uppity" and "arrogant", but I sleep better at night.)  Of course, I'm not suggesting that all who consider Obama "arrogant" are racist - one thing that bothers me about Obama is his breezy confidence - but that the characterization may well have deeper resonance on historical race-based grounds than has been acknowledged so far ...

But then - and here is the benign explanation - after eight years of Bush's tax-breaks to the rich and funding a war on the back of Chinese-bought bonds, and eight years of "I feel your pain", and twelve years of Reaganite "shining city on the hill", is it any wonder that the candidate who asks the people do actually do something about their lives (instead of "understanding their pain" and relieving them of their burdens) would be considered "arrogant"?  Who's he to tell us to get off our asses?

Republicans don't win elections?  Damn.  Reagan '84?  Nixon '72?

tep, if BHO came out for income-based aff action, a LOT of indies would reconsider.  As for education, I know he went before the NEA convention, mentioned merit pay for teachers, and was roundly booed. Haven't heard a word about it since.

To all- can any of our MI friends tell us how the public education system has fared since MI went to a sales tax to fund it, and spent the same per pupil across the state?  Seems to me that way is the best way to solve the problem of school funding based on property taxes, which screws poor districts.

I laugh when people decry vouchers as "taking $$ away from the present system."  First, a voucher program can be structured that doesn't do that.  Second, the present system is a DISMAL FAILURE, and it fails worst for the very people you Dems claim to care about most - the poor and lower classes.  As opposed to us stone-hearted GOPers, I guess.  But why should we reinforce failure, and give more $$ to big-city systems t