"A better argument challenging the 'Obama as progressive' stance would be to suggest that Obama's relatively short record can be interpreted as stressing such things as unity, bipartisanship, etc., and that as such we can't be certain that he'll govern as a genuine progressive/liberal. But as for the campaign, it really doesn't tell us much, other than that Obama believes he'll need independent and Republican votes to win in November, and that he believes he essentially has the Democratic nomination sewn up. On the first I'm sure that he's right, and on the second we'll know more on Tuesday."With all the teeth-grinding, hair-pulling over the divisiveness of the primary campaign, I say the real problem is the Clinton attacks on Obama. Is not even suggesting McCain might be better than Obama beyond the pale for Democrats? Check Ruth Marcus'Too Soon To Stop This Movie in today's Washington Post. On the other hand, it might be that I want an Indiana primary to count for something nationally.
The Wyoming Governor endorsed Obama - or so I recall seeing on today's news. Our Lee Hamilton also joined in endorsing Obama. You can read the endorsement here: The Early Word: Hamilton Tilts Obama. That is from the New York Times' political blog The Caucus. If I am reading that article correctly, I think Clinton has realized it is time to hit on McCain and stop the nastiness towards Obama.
Back to an older piece from David Ignatius in The Washington Post, Obama: A Thin Record For a Bridge Builder:
"This is the real 'Where's the beef?' about Obama, and it still doesn't have a good answer. He gives a great speech, and he promises that he can heal the terrible partisan divisions that have enfeebled American politics over the past decade. This is a message of hope that the country clearly wants to hear."
But can he do it? The record is mixed, but it's fair to say that Obama has not shown much willingness to take risks or make enemies to try to restore a working center in Washington. Clinton, for all her reputation as a divisive figure, has a much stronger record of bipartisan achievement. And the likely Republican nominee, John McCain, has a better record still.
***
The Obama campaign sent me an eight-page summary of his "bipartisan accomplishments," and it includes some encouraging examples of working across the aisle on issues such as nuclear proliferation, energy, veterans affairs, budget earmarks and ethics reforms. So the cupboard isn't bare. It's just that, unlike McCain, Obama bears no obvious political scars for fighting bipartisan battles that were unpopular with his party's base.
***
No one who has watched Obama's sweep toward the nomination would say it's impossible that he can be the great uniter. I just wish we had more evidence.
McCain's conflicts are intensified by those of his campaign's general co-chairman and domestic policy adviser, former Texas senator Phil Gramm. The Politico's Lisa Lerer reports that not only did Gramm author the 1999 legislation that repealed Glass-Steagall, the New Deal law restricting the speculative activities of banks, but after Gramm left the Senate, he lobbied Congress on behalf of the Swiss bank UBS when the banking lobby wanted Congress to overturn state laws restricting predatory lending and the issuance of mortgages to prospective home owners who could not afford them. (UBS announced yesterday that it had written down $37 billion in bad mortgage loans over the past six months.) Gramm, Lerer reports, is often a surrogate for McCain in meetings on the economy.I willingly remain trapped in whatever delusional state I must be in (after all, none of the pundits agree with me) and still believe that an Obama/Clinton ticket remains our best bet, that we need look at who will pull in more Democratic voters for the down ticket races, and put the Republicans out of power.
Comments for this post
