Economic Principles of Clinton, Edwards, Obama, and Richardson

by jallen, Sun Feb 25, 2007 at 11:27:09 PM EST

I was in a fairly brief exchange with Shaun Appleby about the underlying ideologies of John Edwards and Barack Obama, particularly on economic issues.  I'm looking at the records of the top contenders, including the two above, Hillary Clinton, and Bill Richardson, and below are my conclusions.
In the exchange I stated that it is fairly difficult to distinguish whether John Edwards or Barack Obama are more "modern" or "welfare" liberals, or social democrats, but that Hillary Clinton seemed to me to be more obviously an economic liberal, like her husband, which is why it would be difficult for me to support her.  There is a lot of talk about how hard it is to distinguish welfare liberals from social democrats, particularly when they are in a legislative role, but as an executive, they are much freer to express themselves in policy, rather than just voting on other peoples bills and compromising in order to pass legislation.  Shaun said that we should review the records, and then compare notes.  Here goes...

Using the website On the Issues (a lot), at www.ontheissues.org, as well as bios, and campaign websites, I've discovered the following.  Keep in mind that some quotes are from On the Issues, some are form websites, and some are from speeches and statements.

1.  Hillary Clinton has a long record.

Record: Hillary voted to restrict bankruptcy rights, voted to repeal tax cuts for outsourcing, and has a 35% record with the Chamber of Commerce.  She supported using money for tax cuts to the rich instead for helping students.  Supports Kyoto, voted for conservation, for alternative energy.  She has a mixed record on trade, voting for trade with China, against it with the Andean nations and CAFTA, but for it just 8 months ago with Oman.  17% record with Cato.  Apparently used the Republican frame that government shouldn't be the solution to all of our problems.  Health care- "provide quality, affordable, universal health care coverage for every single American".  She voted in favor of earned legalization for illegal immigrants (which I support), and in favor of a guest worker program (which I oppose).  Consistently voted for higher minimum wages, protecting ergonomic rules, 85% record with the AFL-CIO. In 2000, she stressed individual responsibility and community, which is incoherent.  In 1999, On the Issues says she "Decried 1980s materialism & excesses of corporate America." Back in the day, 1969, she apparently said that "Humanness goes beyond acquisitiveness." She opposed the repeal of the estate tax.  Opposed most of Bush tax cuts, but supported cuts for students, and capital gains and dividends cuts.  She has stated that those who work should not be poor, and that, according to On the Issues, "community involvement helps, but only in the short term".  Supports tax cuts to promote home ownership and microcredit as a means of reducing poverty.  Strongly opposes school vouchers.

History: Hillary was born in 1947, and grew up in a family in which her father owned a small business.  Her family was conservative, and when she was 17 she volunteered for Barry Goldwater.  She attended Wellesly and was the president of the College Republicans there, but became a Democrat before she graduated with a degree in political science.  As a lawyer she specialized in intellectual property and children's issues.

Judgment: Hillary is hard to pin down.  There is a lot that should make her a welfare liberal, and a lot that should make her a social democrat.  It's often difficult to distinguish, and I probably shouldn't even try.  She has tended to use language and support markets and market-based solutions, although she has also supported some regulation and some government programs.  It could merely be that Hillary is influenced by conservatism than socialism, and that is why it is difficult to tell from where her statements about community and decrying materialism come from, because both conservatives and socialists would say those things.  She does, though, have more of a record of supporting investment and property rights.  It may be that she is consciously trying to appeal to both groups.  It is sometimes hard to tell, but I'm going to say that Hillary is a modern, or welfare liberal.

2.  John Edwards changed a lot in the period of May-July 2003, coincidentally the last time he was referenced as associated with the DLC was in July 2003, and his economic and environmental records seem to have begun improving around then.  "Brothers and Sisters, in times like these, we do not need to redefine the Democratic Party, we need to reclaim the Democratic Party,"- at the DNC Winter Meeting.

Record: He has consistently voted for a higher minimum wage, and expressed concerns about equality of opportunity and helping the poor.  We have a "moral responsibility to help 35 million Americans in poverty." We should "achieve high-speed Internet access for all Americans." Supported tax reductions for paying for college, opposed many of Bush's tax cuts, and supports shifting the tax burden form "work" to "wealth".  Voted against Social Security Lockbox, but has been consistently against privatization and using the surplus for other things.  We need to "fight for values of people and workers over privilege... career spent fighting for the working people".  Apparently he used the Republican frame that "America should be an ownership society", ugh.  He said that of the "Two Americas: one does the work, the other reaps the reward". "We need a new spirit of activism and leadership." He has a consistent rating on working peoples' issues, 100% rating with the AFL-CIO, consistent on rural, agricultural issues, for ag. subsidies, but not for agribusiness.  Strangely supports expanding H-1B visas but opposes guest worker program (Wiki, FWIW), and supports earned legalization.  Good universal health care plan for universal insurance coverage, possible pathway to single-payer, criticized Democrats who talk about "access" to health care, when we need universal.  Unfortunately, early on he had several votes for trade with China, Vietnam, and Andean nations that apparently lacked the standards we might want them to have, but since then has opposed expanding trade w/out such standards, and recently came out against a proposed free trade deal with South Korea.  Good records with Cato and the Christian Coalition: 17% and 0%, respectively.  He has a record supporting increasing CAFE, increasing conservation, and biomass.  "Will you stand up for an energy policy that is not dictated by the profits of big oil companies?" He is in favor of the estate tax.  He is strongly against vouchers and an 83% record with the NEA.  He has a program for paying for college for students willing to work 10 hrs. a week that is already working for some in NC.  Voted to restrict bankruptcy rights. From On the Issues:
"Tax incentives to companies to keep jobs in America. Crack down on CEO pay; and require honest accounting.  Address moral crisis: Shareholder & Worker Bill of Rights.  Rated 15% by the US Chamber of Commerce, indicating an anti-business voting record."

History: John Edwards was born in 1953, son of a father who worked at a textile mill (whose job surely no longer exists in America) and a mother who was a postal worker.  He was the first in his family to attend college, attending Clemson University, NCSU (bachelor's degree in textile technology), and UNC at Chapel Hill for law.  Of his four children with his wife, Elizabeth, their first, their son Wade, died in a car accident in 1996, which has been cited as his reason for getting into politics.  In 1998, he defeated an incumbent Republican Senator by 83,000 votes, 51.2% to 47%.  He ran a campaign for president in 2004 on a similar theme, focused on economic issues like trade and poverty.

Judgment: From his background, from his language in speeches, from his record, I would be willing to classify his ideology as a weak social democrat.  He stresses things like compassion, equality, and social and moral responsibility to each other, which are principles based on a social ideology.  "We need to be patriotic about something other than just war,"- One Corps National Day of Action.  John stresses a certain nationalism and sense of social responsibility, which are common to both conservatism and socialism, but his background makes clear which he is.  He stresses compassion and brotherhood, which are both strong socialist principles.  He seems to stress a social responsibility in foreign policy as well, that we have a responsibility to help those in other countries, not just those who are poor, but we must fight for their human rights.  I'm not sure how broadly he defines his vision of equality, but from his discussion of economic inequality, it seems he is closer to a socialist than a liberal on that as well.  Although I wasn't at first, I am now fairly confident in defining John as a social democrat.

3.  Barack Obama has been accused of having little of substance, but we shouldn't mistake that for a lack of it.  Remember, FDR was called "shallow", and was weak on specifics when he first ran.  Barack has a longer record than John Edwards, and a longer period as a leader and a community activist.  We have more to draw on than many think.

Record: Apparently, in the 2004 campaign, he declared support for federal programs to protect rural economies.  He said there should be tax incentives for corporate responsibility.  He said we should close loopholes that allow companies to relocate overseas, and reward companies that create jobs in the US. He voted to repeal the tax incentives to outsource.  He voted against the bankruptcy bill (Yes!).  Supports charter schools and private investments in schools, and has supported free college for students that have at least a B average.  He has a strong record on conservation and alternative energy, and this seems to be a major focus for him.  He insists we should have better labor and human rights standards in trade agreements, voted against CAFTA, for free trade with Oman.  Health Care: "Promoting affordable, accessible, and high-quality health care is a priority for Senator Obama."- from his website.  Supports earned legalization for illegal immigrants (which I support) and supports a guest worker program (which I oppose).  Consistently he has supported raising the minimum wage.  He said that tax cuts for the rich do not create jobs.  He stated that America's race and class problems are intertwined (duh, but appreciate it).  He stated that the "poverty of political organizers was proof of their integrity."- from On the Issues.  He voted against tax cuts for capital gains and dividends, against repeal of the estate tax.

History: Grew up in Indonesia and Hawaii, IIRC, and became a community organizer in Chicago after college, rather than going to law school or working on Wall Street like his friends.  He went to Harvard Law, and was the first Black president of the Harvard Law Review, and afterward went back to Chicago where he led a voter registration drive that registered something like 150,000 voters, and he was a civil rights lawyer.  He taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School.

Judgment: I can confidently say that Barack is at least a weak social democrat.  His record on the economy is little different from John's or Hillary's, and when I have heard him, he hasn't used populist or socialistic language, but I stumbled across a few things, including something from a speech to Campus Progress:
        "... we live in a culture that discourages empathy. A culture that too often tells us our principle goal in life is to be rich, thin, young, famous, safe, and entertained. A culture where those in power too often encourage these selfish impulses.
        They will tell you that the Americans who sleep in the streets and beg for food got there because they're all lazy or weak of spirit. That the inner-city children who are trapped in dilapidated schools can't learn and won't learn and so we should just give up on them entirely. That the innocent people being slaughtered and expelled from their homes half a world away are somebody else's problem to take care of.
        I hope you don't listen to this. I hope you choose to broaden, and not contract, your ambit of concern. Not because you have an obligation to those who are less fortunate, although you do have that obligation. Not because you have a debt to all of those who helped you get to where you are, although you do have that debt.
        It's because you have an obligation to yourself. Because our individual salvation depends on collective salvation. And because it's only when you hitch your wagon to something larger than yourself that you will realize your true potential - and become full-grown."

Empathy is a socialistic principle.  The sense of mutual obligation, community, and interdependence could be conservative or socialistic, but his record, past statements, and the insistence that people can change for the better clearly make him more of a socialist.  God, I wish he were more vocal about it.  I want someone who uses a lot of populist messaging, which he doesn't.  He usually comes off, to me, as more of a progressive, but it is clear now that he is a social democrat.

4.  Bill Richardson seems to be one of the more "New Democrat"-ish candidates.  Is he?  I don't really know, that's really just from what I've heard.  He has the hair of John Edwards, although he has a few pounds on John.

Record: Bill supports a balanced budget amendment, and has insisted on "conservative" spending policies, and has supported the idea of a small, effective government.  Not only supports higher pay for teachers, but substantially increased the pay of teachers in New Mexico.  He supported school vouchers first, then changed his position when he ran for governor, and supports charter schools.  He has a record for conservation and alternative energy.  Supports free trade, said NAFTA was critically important to both the US and Mexico.  On health care he supports cutting costs and expanding access to affordable health care.  A decade ago he was for a harsher immigration policy, including not giving citizenship to the children of immigrants, but now supports earned legalization, and a guest worker program.  He supports tax cuts, particularly to the income tax, and supports a "Taxpayer Bill of Rights".
"We need to work with business, that's where the jobs are created after all, instead of engaging in ideological warfare, and we need the right kind of tax incentives, not just tax cuts for the wealthy and income transfers from the middle class to big corporations."

History: Bill Richardson was born in 1947 to an American father, who worked for Citibank in Mexico City, and a Mexican mother.  He was sent to Massachusetts to attend a prep school when he was 13, and he studied French and political science at Tufts, and went on to get a masters from Tufts.  He moved to New Mexico in 1978, unsuccessfully ran for Congress in 1980, then successfully ran in a newly created district in 1982, and served in Congress until 1997.  He focused on foreign policy issues and fashioned himself as a diplomat, engaging in diplomacy with Saddam's Iraq, Sudan, and North Korea while he was in Congress.  In 1997 he was appointed to be the US Ambassador to the UN, and in 1998, Secretary of Energy until the end of the Clinton Administration.

Judgemnt: Richardson is clearly a liberal, and perhaps not even a "modern" liberal, but a more traditional one, or even a neoliberal.  I don't think I need to explain why.  I won't support him.

Conclusions:
I was wrong about Hillary.  Perhaps I can trust her as much as John and Barack.  I really don't know.  It was really too hard to pin her down.  John is not the populist I really want, but he uses the message, which is really what I want.  More so than anyone else, he communicates like a populist or a social democrat.  I learned a lot about Barack.  He has a clearer and more consistent history than the others, and I would probably be happy with him as president.  I just wish he would talk about it more, but he maybe too cautious.  The media has a history of mistreating or belittling those populist and social democrat types.  I'm happy now as a supporter of John and Barack, and I'm more open to Hillary than I was before.
I hope I did fairly well in defining them, and I hope you enjoyed.

Tags: 2008, Barack Obama, Bill Richardson, economics, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, liberal, populist (all tags)

  • 96 Comments
  • 0 recs
  • Share
  • Permalink

Comments

96 Comments

Shadow_head_small
Re: Economic Principles of Clinton, Edwards,

As a current supporter of Clinton let me state that that was a fairly good summation.   Therefore I recommended this diary.  

Since the issues of welfare liberal vs. social liberal has come up here, where do you think, value-wise, this speech of Hillary Clinton (addressing Bush on minimum wage, tax distribution, plight of the poor, etc.) on the Senate floor fits in that context?  I posted this speech in another diary, but felt it fits the context of this diary to understand where one of the candidates is coming from on some of these issues.

http://www.votehillary.org/CMS/node/110

Hillary's Floor Statment in Support of Raising the Minimum Wage

Mr. President, I find it almost hard to believe that we are here on the floor of the United States Senate arguing over the necessity for an increase in the minimum wage. I am strongly supportive of Senator Kennedy's amendment, proud to cosponsor it, and urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote in favor of it and to oppose the second-degree amendment. Now, this amendment does not go as far as I or Senator Kennedy and others would have preferred. It raises the minimum wage to $6.25 an hour, far short of the $7.25 an hour that Senator Kennedy and I and 48 other Senators proposed in March, but we could never get a vote on that. Now, this amendment, however, should have even greater support than the 50 cosponsors we had last March. It should pass unanimously out of this body. Fifty senators just last March supported an increase to $7.25 and now we have cut the increase with a hope that we can get, number one, the vote we are hoping to get on this appropriations bill; and, number two, an overwhelmingly bipartisan passage.

Since March, we have seen even more evidence as to why this is critical. At a time when working families are struggling to make ends meet, it's critically important that we do something. Senator Kennedy has called this amendment a down payment on what is truly needed.

Today the Federal minimum wage is $5.15 an hour, an amount that has not been increased since 1997. Now, unfortunately, the same cannot be said of the cost of living. Over the past three months, according to the federal Department of Labor, inflation has increased more rapidly in the New York metro area than any time since early in 1990. We also know that the poverty rate is going back up and that the fact is there has not been one net new private-sector job created in the last 4 1/2 years. This chart, this should be a rebuke to all of us. It shows that we have increased the number of people living in poverty. In 2000, we had 31.6 million, which is far too many. And now we're at 37 million, up 5.4 million. Why? Because we're not creating jobs and many of the jobs that are in the economy are no longer paying wages that families can live on and can work their way out of poverty. So, Mr. President, we know that everything else has gone up. Across America, people are spending 74% more gas than they did at the beginning of 2001. Heating oil prices are expected to rise by more than 50% this winter. Such rapid price increases will force consumers, especially poor working people, to cut spending on clothing, health care, and food just so they can get to work and keep warm this winter. These rising costs and falling wages are illustrated in this chart where heating oil is going up dramatically and the buying power of the minimum wage is going down. And of course we are in the post-Katrina phase, which lest we forget, demonstrated in stark terms how so many Americans live every day on the brink of economic disaster. Any setback becomes a major obstacle to being able to pay for gas, pay for food, pay for health care and prescription drugs, pay for tuition, pay for all of the necessities of life. Mr. President, I think that it's hard to stand here on the floor with this amendment before us and not wonder, when will the majority stop giving privileges to the already privileged?

At what point is it too much? Never has a political party given so much to so few who needed it so little. And it never ends. You know, we're more than happy to continue to provide tax breaks for the wealthiest among us while we cut the social safety net, while we refuse to raise the minimum wage. Well, shame on us. You know, I think at some point there has to be a recognition that we are tilting the scales dramatically against average Americans. Middle-class wages are stagnant. Health care costs are going up and the number of the uninsured is going up because people who work hard for a living are no longer offered insurance or cannot afford to pay what it costs. Pension and retirement security is at risk. There's something really wrong with this picture.

With all due respect to those who have a different economic philosophy, rich people did not make America great. I'm all for rich people. Ever since my husband got out of office and got into the private sector, I think it's great. I never knew how much the President really liked us. He can't give us enough tax cuts. I have nothing against rich people. That's part of the American dream. But with all due respect, it is not rich people who made America great. It is the vast American middle class. It is the upward mobility of people who thought they could do better than their parents.

For more than 100 years we have worked hard to make sure the deck was not stacked against the average American. Teddy Roosevelt understood that if we didn't have a fair playing field, if people were permitted to monopolize capital and labor, we would have rich people, but the vast majority would never get ahead. He began to advocate for -- and accomplish - a fair economic system. As we moved through the 20th century, we saw adjustments made. We saw Franklin Roosevelt who understood that sometimes the difficulties of life strike any of us and that a fair and just society would try to provide a little help so that people overwhelmed by circumstances often beyond their control could keep going and raise their children and plan for the future. And we put in a lot of government programs to make sure that we had a balance of power, a balance of power between capital and labor, between management and employees. And it worked really, really well. The history of the economic prosperity of the American middle class in the 20th century is the greatest example of what can happen if a democracy where people's energies are freed so that they can compete between themselves, but within a framework of rules. I'm proud of the progress we made in the 20th century and I'm particularly proud that in the last eight years of the 20th century 22 million people were lifted out of poverty. Where we raised the minimum wage. Where we said to people, you have to work, but if you work we'll make sure you have a fair chance, you and your children. We've reversed that progress and it appears as though people are just sleep walking through this chamber and the one on the other side of the Capitol. Don't we see what is happening before our eyes? We are undermining the American dream. We are making it nearly impossible for people to believe that tomorrow will be better than today and yesterday was.

These numbers sort of speak for themselves. Look at this, the minimum wage no longer even lifts a family out of poverty. You can go to work 40 hours a week. You can clean the rooms and the toilets in a motel. You can serve the food in a restaurant. You can work in a small factory. You can make that minimum wage and you cannot even get your family out of poverty. What kind of message does that send? The whole idea of America is if you work hard and you play by the rules, you will be successful. You will have a chance to do better.

Look at that chart. It speaks for itself: we've been on a steady slow decline. Even when we were able to get a bipartisan agreement to raise it in 1997, we still didn't get above the poverty line. What message are we sending to millions of hard-working Americans? I represent a lot of them working hard for a living. You see them on bicycles in Manhattan delivering food. You see them doing all the hard work of janitorial services at night. In upstate New York, I see them as they get up every day and go to work and believe that they are doing what they should do. What message are we sending them? Too bad, keep working. Don't expect anything for us; we're too busy giving tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans. Well, that's a choice that is going to be made by this chamber. As far as I can tell it's going to be a choice to vote against the minimum wage and to vote instead for the second-degree amendment which is designed not only to defeat Senator Kennedy's amendment, but to do even more harm to the paychecks of working Americans. I mean, this is what I don't understand. The second degree amendment would deny more than ten million workers the money wage, overtime and equal pay rights by ending individual fair labor standards coverage and raising the threshold for which a business would be held accountable to $1 million from $500,000.

In short, and let's make no mistake about this, the second-degree amendment would be the end of the 40-hour workweek. So, we can go right back to the end of the 19th century because that's where we're heading. You know, there are those who, bless their hearts, believe that America was better off at the end of the 19th century, when you were told what to do and you had to do it and you didn't have much of a choice about it. I just don't agree with that. I'm proud of the progress we made in the 20th century, but I'm just absolutely convinced that some people are trying to head us right back there. Because if it's the end of the 40-hour workweek and the end of the American weekend because there's no rules on overtime that means a pay cut of $3,000 a year for the median-income earner and an $800 pay cut for those earning minimum wage.

Employees are already free to offer more flexible schedules under current law, but today if they come in and they tell an employee, "Guess what? I need you this weekend. You are going to have to work," they have to offer overtime when the work is more than 40 hours a week. The second-degree amendment would undermine that basic protection. So, instead of making it easier for families to spend time together, we basically are going to tell workers that they have to do whatever they are told at the risk of losing their job without any overtime pay or any other compensation.

The second-degree amendment would also prohibit states from providing stronger wage protections than the federal standard for employees like waiters and waitresses who rely on tips. The amendment removes agency direction and creates a safe haven for violators of consumer protections by prohibiting agencies from assessing fines for most first-time reporting violations and preempts states' abilities to enforce these laws. In many states, we happen to think some of those rules need to be enforced. Just like what James Madison said in the Federalist, "If men were angels, there would be no need for a government." But we aren't and we never will be, not on this earth.

The job of government is to level the playing field, help right that balance because otherwise people are powerless to defend themselves especially when they have to get up every day and go to work to keep body and soul together and to put food on the table and particularly if they are a single parent trying to make due on minimum wage. So, it's disheartening. We could have had an up-or-down vote on the minimum wage. If you want to vote against it, vote against it, but to introduce a second-degree amendment loaded with poison pills against workers and fairness, that speaks louder than anything I could say in this chamber.

I think there's going to be a day of reckoning. You can't continue to tilt the scales against the vast majority of the Americans and not be held accountable in the political process. The mask has been ripped off of compassionate conservatism and people see it for what it is: partisan politics to favor the privileged. If that's what we're fighting against in this chamber, then I guess, bring it on because most are on the same side. They want to make sure the deck is not stacked against them, that they've got a fair chance to compete and that their labor gets a fair return.

So, Mr. President, I hope that our colleagues will rally in support of Senator Kennedy's amendment and vote against the second-degree amendment. We should pass an increase in the minimum wage and it should not come at the cost of denying basic rights to millions of Americans and turning the clock back to the 19th century, which is what it would do. Thank you.

by georgep 2007-02-25 11:50PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Economic Principles of Clinton, Edwards,
Nothing here really challenges my assessment, particularly "level the playing field, help right that balance", which expresses equality of opportunity, a liberal principle.  She did not express any anguish over the injustice of a single parent trying to raise a child on $5.15 an hour, perhaps because she is more of a welfare liberal, concerned with "providing stronger wage protections" paternalistically rather than trying to make the outcomes more equal.  She talks about "upward mobility", several times she invokes "a fair playing field", and asserting that "a fair and just society would try to provide a little help so that people overwhelmed by circumstances often beyond their control".  She comes off as more of a welfare liberal than much else.
BTW, I really appreciate her record.  I hope it is representative of her.  She is tough to pin down.  Whereas I can hear a few sentences out of John Edwards and know where he stands, I have to really hunt down bits and pieces here and there with Hillary, and they often point in different directions.  This speech is pretty clearly from a modern, or welfare liberal, though.  At least, it is to me.
by jallen 2007-02-26 05:47AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Economic Principles of Clinton, Edwards,

Well, I guess that is what I am then, too.  I found the speech compelling and I appreciated the combative tone, especially when it came to repudiating Bush's tax policies in regards to how much they shortchanged the middle class and the poor.  She was also spot on about the "day of reckoning" coming soon, it did.  And more to come.  :-)    

by georgep 2007-02-26 06:10AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Economic Principles of Clinton, Edwards,

When Bill Clinton said he was a new kind of Democrat, he meant he had changed parties.  A vote for a DLC Clinton is a vote for Ronald Reagan.

by dkmich 2007-02-27 12:47AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Economic Principles of Clinton, Edwards,

Sure.  The eloquence of that argument is very compelling.  

Wow.  

by georgep 2007-02-27 11:34AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Economic Principles of Clinton, Edwards,

You want to support DLC NeoLiberals and Blue Dogs?   Be my guest.  It is a free country for another 20 minutes or so.  Your sneer identifies you and says much more about you than I ever could.  

by dkmich 2007-02-27 01:02PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Economic Principles of Clinton, Edwards,

No, this identifies YOU:

"A vote for DLC Clinton is a vote for Ronald Reagan."

I don't want to say what it identifies you as, given that I want to keep my comments at least PG-13 rated.   :-)   But you made the case for it quite well.  Congrats.  

by georgep 2007-02-27 01:13PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Economic Principles of Clinton, Edwards, Obama

Your friends say a lot about who you are.

And Senator Obama has some friends that are highly questionable.  In April of 2006, Obama was the keynote speaker at the launch of the Hamilton Project.  On that occcasion (Text-Video)Senator Obama told the audience:

Now, the economic statistics of the nineties that we are all so familiar with speak for themselves--income growth across the board, 22 million new jobs, the lowest poverty rate in three decades, the lowest unemployment in years, and record surpluses. None of this, I would argue, happened by itself. It happened because the leadership we had, including many in this room, was willing to take on entrenched interests and experiment with policies that weren't necessarily partisan or ideological.

That is what I hope we will see from The Hamilton Project in the months and years to come. You have already drawn some of the brightest minds from academia and policy circles, many of them I have stolen ideas from liberally, people ranging from Robert Gordon to Austan Goolsbee; Jon Gruber; my dear friend, Jim Wallis here, who can inform what are sometimes dry policy debates with a prophetic voice. So I know that there are going to be wonderful ideas that are generated as a consequence of this project.

Obama is running for the "center" (I don't really believe that what the media and elites call the center approximates anything like the median opinion in this country, and in doing so he's seriously trying to revive the neoliberalism of the Clinton administration.  Consider that among the policy proposals offered up by Obama's friends in the Hamilton Project do include creating  individual Social Security accounts (a move that is the first move towards privatization), and a total unwillingness to acknowledge our failed trade policy.

Obama's embrace of this group and his subsequent move to the "center" in his votes for the Oman Trade Agreement and bill limiting class action suits suggests that Senator Obama is closer to the Clinton legacy than the economics of the New Populists (Webb, who keynoted the populist counterpart to the Hamilton Project, Tester, Brown, and Sanders).  Obama's recent decision to skip out on a union sponsored event in Nevada to raise money in Hollywood is indicative of Obama's transformation to Beltway Insider in the short 2 years he's been there.

Obama should renounce the Hamilton Project if he disagrees with their economics, otherwise those policies need to be hung around his neck like an albatross.

by ManfromMiddletown 2007-02-26 01:51AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Economic Principles of Clinton, Edwards, Obama

I don't think it appropriate to attribute to Senator Obama all or even any of the policies of the Hamilton Group as you have suggested unless he has endorsed them himself or included them in his policy.  I would prefer to hear the advocacy of things like the privatisation of Social Security and the specifics of trade policy directly from the candidate rather than associate them with him on the basis that he has given a collegial speech to their launch.  Otherwise it seems you are attempting to hang them around his neck like an albatross and that may not be fair.  Incidentally, your trade policy link is not working properly.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-02-26 02:45AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Economic Principles of Clinton, Edwards, Obama

Where exactly do you think that Obama's money is coming from?

He was the keynote speaker at the Hamilton Project's launch.  Sen Webb spoke at the launch of the Shared Prosperity group, these organizations have fundamentally different understandings of what the nature of inequality in America is.

The Hamilton Project blames the victims, and rejects a halt in further trade deals until the country can evaluate the damage done by previous deals.  They've come up with this bullshit response that education is the answer, that if workers get a nursing or Computer Science degree they'll be able to get jobs that pay the same or more than the ones they've lost.

First, a lot of these workers are in their 50s, and I just don't think that it's realistic to expect them to go back to school for 4 years to get a degree. Second, many of these workers already have college degrees, a point that the Hamilton Project and Obama seem to miss.  Third, the fields that retraining programs have pushed workers into are being outsource (the IT sector) or flooded with imported workers (Nurses from the Phillipines).

Obama embraced the education myth saying that the government hasn't taken the retraining of workers seriously.

The question is whether retraining will make a difference when companies can drive down wages through offshoring, outsourcing, and the importation of workers.  

In embracing the idea that what's driving the growth in inequality in this country is that workers don't have the right skills.  He's blaming the workers for their woes.  The new populists and Edwards point to deeper structural issues that can only be addressed by a strategic rexamination of our nation's trade policy.

There are several important trade related bills coming up in Congress.  Fast track, the Korea US free trade deal, the Panama free trade deal, and free trade deals with Peru and Colombia are all on the block.  I can't find a comment from Obama on any of them.  

Since Obama met with the Hamilton Project towards trade deals seems to have moved to the right.  Before meeting with the Hamilton Project he voted against CAFTA, after he voted for the Oman trade deal.  How he votes on these issues will say quite a bit about the influence the Hamilton Project has had on him.  I predict he folds like a deck of cards and votes for all of the above.

As for the trade link, it's directly from the HP page, their website is spotty.  You can probably find a Google cache copy.

Obama needs to clarify in unequivocal terms his relationship with the Hamilton Project.  They have suggested a series of policies that would provoke outrage if they came from Republicans.  Obama gave the keynote speech at their launch, and hasn't made clear which policies of the Hamilton Project he supports and which he disagrees with.  All that is clear is that his approach to trade policy took a dramatic turn after he gave that keynote speech.

by ManfromMiddletown 2007-02-26 03:30AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Economic Principles of Clinton, Edwards, Obama
Social democrats accept that the market works well for some things.  Not so well for others, but it's ability to efficiently allocate resources and generate wealth are appreciated by social democrats.  While John Edwards's rhetoric may be more revolutionary in some ways, he and his fellow social democrats (if I am right), are reformers.  Today, most accept the role of markets and trade, although they seek to regulate them.  Voting for trade is not going against demcoratic socialism, but voting for free trade, w/out limits, is.  I've decided to allow flexibility, rather than very strictly interpret, because a truly strict interpretation would not assign Barack a place.  It would be too hard to have done in the course of time that I took to put together this partial view of the candidates.  I'll continue to monitor them, because I really want to know the truth, but flexibility is important, particularly because of how warped welfare liberalism and democratic socialism are from their ideological roots.
You may have noticed that I mentioned the DLC while discussing Edwards, but not Hillary, although Harold Ford Jr. made it clear who they support.  I have never heard Hillary group herself with them, and someone will probably quickly find proof to contradict me, but as long as she did not self-identify with them, that satisfies me.  I'm not sure, from her record, why they would strongly support her, nor am I sure of why Barack would support the Hamilton Project.  Al Gore, though, was a founder of the DLC, and is certainly pro-business, yet he has many differences with them, though I'm not saying he is a social democrat.  Perhaps I should stress again how much social democrats have come to accept economic liberalism to an extent.  Perhaps if I can find his address to them... I guess I'll look it up.
by jallen 2007-02-26 06:03AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Economic Principles of Clinton, Edwards, Obama

The Clintons are the DLC. Without the Clintons and Carville, there is no DLC.  Here read this on NAFTA, Bill Clintons gift to the middle calss.

And when you are done with what damage has already been done to US workers by the Clintons, read this one. It will tell you what China is about to do. Next them intend to drop BILLIONS in to stock markets around the world, mostly in the US.  So, they make everything with our money, they hold our notes, and now they are going to be major stock holders in our companies, which own our politicians who rule us.

After that, let's look at this from the DLC.  On the cover, we have Harold Ford Jr.  If that doesn't bother you enough, look at this.  These fools are still denying that trade and trade deficits have had any impact on the middle class.

"but that Hillary Clinton seemed to me to be more obviously an economic liberal, like her husband, which is why it would be difficult for me to support her. "  
Economic liberals?  There is no such thing. The proper term is neo liberals. The Clintons and the DLC are big time NEO LIBERALS. Notice the similarity to NEO CONS.  If that doesn't give you a clue, let me help.  Both are neos (pro business, trade, and Milton Freidman).  The difference is their social policies.  One will allow you to have an abortion and be gay while you starve to death in your mud hut with your goat.  The other one won't. At least today, they won't.   We already have an anti flag burning proposal from Hillary. Another few dollars from the captains of industry, and who knows.  

Labor is supporting Edwards.  Edwards campaigned for Lamont and supports the netroots.   Now what have you to offer that is more concrete than that?

by dkmich 2007-02-27 01:19AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Economic Principles of Clinton, Edwards, Obama

OK, let's accept your point as there are some risks here rather than condemning the candidate on the basis of a connection I believe you have failed to establish credibly and get on with a discussion of what the issues are.  So far the only substantial claims you have actually made are that Obama has said government hasn't taken the retraining of workers seriously and that he voted for the Oman trade deal.

Let's discuss the trade policies that you would like to see promoted and judge the candidates on their actual performance not what they seem to be doing or haven't made clear.  Then we will all get to discuss the issues and you can make your point.  Does that sound reasonable?

by Shaun Appleby 2007-02-26 01:36PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Economic Principles of Clinton, Edwards, Obama

Here is the url of the speech:
http://www1.hamiltonproject.org/comm/eve nts/20060405obama.pdf
"Unfortunately, while the world has changed around us, Washington has been remarkably slow to adapt twenty-first century solutions for a twenty-first century economy. As so many of us have seen, both sides of the political spectrum have tended to cling to outdated policies and tired ideologies instead of coalescing around what actually works."

I should have included in my descriptions of liberals and socialists that liberals tend to believe that people are rational actors, that we make decisions based on rational consideration.  Conservatives and socialists are more likely to believe that people act based on emotion and passions.

Therefore, the above quote is more of the same BS that Barack says a lot of.  He is trying to appeal to people who believe in reason rather than ideology.  The problem is: that is itself an ideological position.  It is liberal.  One of my biggest problems with Barack is that, no matter what he is himself, he appeals to liberals.  When he talks about values, the social and conservative tendencies come out, which is fine, because most of us feel the same way.  When he talks about policy, the liberal comes out, looking for "rational" solutions rather than ideological ones.  This ignores that all methods are in some way ideological.  It is hypocritical in that appeals to reason are inherently liberal.
Look, the argument that Barack is trying to be all things to all people is valid.  That is not the strategy of Hillary or Edwards.  Barack says that both sides go to far, but not that either is really wrong.  He insists that if we all just work together, we can find solutions.  This ignores that ideology is not just prescriptive, in providing solutions to problems, but also descriptive, in determining what are actual problems.  The non-ideological theme may work in elections, but it is dishonest and patronizing.

I'm not changing my judgment, because I have witnessed this BS from him before.  This is the kind of stuff I always hear from him.  It did upset me, though, as I'm sure you can tell.  I wish that his supporters would take this stuff more seriously.

by jallen 2007-02-26 04:03PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Economic Principles of Clinton, Edwards, Obama

I don't get how Obama is "non-ideological".  

Is it "non-ideological" to tell Fox News, the right wing noise of the Repubs, to piss off?  We should have done that years ago.

Is it "non-ideological" to spank Dick Cheney in public as Obama did in Austin the other night?  

Is it "non-ideological" to have opposed the Iraq War from Day 1?

I haven't chosen a candidate but I have noticed something interesting in this race already.  People who want Presidential campaigns to be continue to be fought on the "base cultural issues" which have defined national politics for the last generation really dislike Obama.  I am a post-Baby Boomer and I am really tired of the 1960s-70s resentment that have defined our national politics for what seems like forever and find Obama's approach refreshing.  I have no idea if it will result in support but it is capturing my attention.

by John Mills 2007-02-26 06:33PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Economic Principles of Clinton, Edwards, Obama

"Is it "non-ideological" to tell Fox News, the right wing noise of the Repubs, to piss off?"

Yes, that was partisan but it spoke nothing of ideology. That doesn't mean it wasn't cool though.

"Is it "non-ideological" to spank Dick Cheney in public as Obama did in Austin the other night?  "

Yes, Chuck Hagel has done the same thing and I imagine he and Dick Cheney are much more ideological in line than Chuck Hagel and Obama.

"Is it "non-ideological" to have opposed the Iraq War from Day 1?"

Yes, if you thought it was a stupid decision and a stupid war. If on the other hand, you are a pacifist and are opposed to ALL wars then that would be an ideological stance. I have not heard Obama claim to be a pacifist.

by adamterando 2007-02-26 06:51PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Economic Principles of Clinton, Edwards, Obama

I find it fascinating that Obama is the one candidate who is consistently standing up to the right and its noise machine and yet he is not "ideological" enough for some.  To be honest, I don't know what people want from the guy.

by John Mills 2007-02-26 07:06PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Economic Principles of Clinton, Edwards, Obama

Standing up to a machine and knocking it down when they throw ad hominem attacks your way does not necessarily have anything to do with ideology.

Unless your definition of ideology is "partisanship" or just "not-GOP" or "stands up for himself", all of which would be interesting and unique definitions of the term.

by adamterando 2007-02-26 07:27PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Economic Principles of Clinton, Edwards, Obama
All you have to do is look at this diary or look to his days as a community organizer to see where he stands on "ideological" issues and it seems he is right where most Dems are.  It is pretty clear from his record that he is pretty progressive and is no right wing conservative.  I think the problem comes down to his rhetoric and his desire to try to move beyond the language which has defined our political discourse for the last 30 years.
 
by John Mills 2007-02-26 07:39PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Economic Principles of Clinton, Edwards, Obama

Look, I am in my fifties and I am having trouble with exactly the same thing.  Perhaps you have put your finger on it.  Somehow Obama is disloyal to the ideological struggle between the Blues and the Reds since Vietnam.  A struggle which has strict rules of engagement and clearly defined battle lines with uncomprimisingly partisan positions on almost every issue.

Win, lose or draw I hope he is the beginning of the end of that approach.  I call it Civil War re-enactment, as it is about as useful.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-02-26 07:15PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Economic Principles of Clinton, Edwards, Obama

"Somehow Obama is disloyal to the ideological struggle between the Blues and the Reds since Vietnam.  A struggle which has strict rules of engagement and clearly defined battle lines with uncomprimisingly partisan positions on almost every issue."

I am really beginning to think this is what it is because this diary shows it is not issue based.  He is clearly the most consistent of the bunch.  I find it fascinating his appeal amongst young voters is so high which means his message is clearly resonating with them.  That may not be good for him electorally since they are less likely to vote but it clearly shows there is a generational shift going on.

by John Mills 2007-02-26 07:26PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Economic Principles of Clinton, Edwards, Obama

Right, young voters identify with him because (besides him being young and inspirational) is that they do not have well-formed opinions and ideologies on many of the big problems facing society today.

How many people on facebook have to deal with job-lock or with losing a manufactoring job in mid-career? How many know what single-payer health care is? I know I didn't 8 years ago. Heck I didn't even know how social security really worked until 2 years ago. They're inspired, but it doesn't mean their political ideology is well grounded yet. I'm hoping Obama draws out some more specifics soon so maybe he can give them an education.

by adamterando 2007-02-26 07:30PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Economic Principles of Clinton, Edwards, Obama

Actually young voters tend to be far more liberal than older voters.  Most people become more conservative as they become older.

Yes, young voters may not have experienced the work world and other things like older voters but they may well be shaped by the experiences of their parents or other family members.  It is not fair to assume none of them have been impacted by the challenges life throws at all of us.

by John Mills 2007-02-26 07:42PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Economic Principles of Clinton, Edwards, Obama

I never said none. Just not a lot.

by adamterando 2007-02-26 07:52PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Economic Principles of Clinton, Edwards, Obama

You are entitled to your opinion but I find it a bit condescending to assume young voters, including people in their 20-30s, are not impacted by the vagarities of life.  After all, they are not all Brittany Spears - most have jobs, many of them have children, care for sick parents, pay mortgages, suffer from illnesses, etc.  

People born after the baby boom will shortly be the majority of the electorate so you had better get used to them influencing the electoral process.

by John Mills 2007-02-27 05:26AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Economic Principles of Clinton, Edwards, Obama

I think it is a bit unfair to assume that young voters are less wise than the previous generation, merely less experienced.  I'm sure the job-locked or retrenched workers are more urgently seeking a remedy but I wonder if they are any more able to recognise a sound solution from a bad one.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-02-26 08:10PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Economic Principles of Clinton, Edwards, Obama

No, I don't think they're less wise than previous generations (we're all equally un-informed!) but they are less experienced and no that doesn't mean that older workers would recognise the best solution, but it does mean they would care more about a solution and perhaps understand better the importance of labor unions giving their longer work experience without a union.

by adamterando 2007-02-27 03:29AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Economic Principles of Clinton, Edwards, Obama

Yeah, but people in their mid to late 20's support Obama... and many have experienced being underemployed, unemployed, laid off, heavy in debt, etc.  The point is that many of these people see fixing these problems in a different way than you do... they seem a need to try and fix the system and change the dialogue... the GOP has so successfully done it to us that it makes it hard to fix the issues you talked about.  By changing the bigger problem or at least changing the way the game is played, the hope is THEN that the single issue problems (such as the anti-union laws, poor healthcare, etc) can be solved easier.  Will it work?  I don't know... but that is what many of us hope can be done... we know it won't be easy but if we work hard enough, then it CAN happen.  

by yitbos96bb 2007-02-27 11:26AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Economic Principles of Clinton, Edwards, Obama

Thanks for the link, I haven't read this before.  It obviously triggers a lot of objections among progressive Democrats, this Hamilton Project group.  But I will take exception to your conclusions here, if I may.  I hope you don't mind if I re-quote a bit of Obama's speech with my comments.  

Firstly he establishes the need to make changes to the policies of the last great socialist we had, FDR, but only on the basis of renewal, not ideological flaw:


For those on the left, and I include myself in that category, too many of us have been interested in defending programs the way they were written in 1938, believing that if we admit the need to modernize these programs to fit changing times, then the other side will use those acknowledgements to destroy them altogether. On the right, there is a tendency to push for massive tax cuts ... no matter what the cost or who the target is, a view that stems from the belief that there is no role for government whatsoever in the challenges we face. Of course, neither of these approaches really works.

Then he establishes his criteria for making these structural changes on the basis of populist idealism, but as solutions not positions, an oft repeated Obama theme.  I personally feel his market and demand comment in this context is a gentle dig at his audience in their ivory tower of economic academe:


Before we came here, somebody was asking me, how do I maintain my idealism? I do because I think the American people know that neither of these approaches works. I think there is a broad consensus out there in the country that we should be looking for common sense, practical solutions to the problems that we face. I think that there is a market. I think that there is a demand for solutions that are practical, that are based on facts, that are tested, and that require us to think in new ways.

A sincere tip of the hat to the Clinton years and a plea for a non-ideological approach:


Now, the economic statistics of the nineties that we are all so familiar with speak for themselves--income growth across the board, 22 million new jobs, the lowest poverty rate in three decades, the lowest unemployment in years, and record surpluses. None of this, I would argue, happened by itself. It happened because the leadership we had, including many in this room, was willing to take on entrenched interests and experiment with policies that weren't necessarily partisan or ideological.

Followed by a gentle caution of how that process was conducted and reminder of what is at stake:


A lot of the people who are here today have done that in the administration. Not only have they succeeded on many of their policies, but almost just as importantly, they have failed occasionally and have acknowledged those failures and adjusted their views. I think that is the kind of experimentation and attitude that all our policymaking has to pursue.

And a disclaimer to those present on the conditions of his association with their product.  And as an example the very subject of trade and free markets is brought up with a gentle hint that he is not buying any today:


Not every idea will I embrace, and I hope that one of the roles that I can play, as a participant in this process, is to not only encourage the work but occasionally challenge it.

I will give one simple example. I think that if you polled many of the people in this room, most of us are strong free traders and most of us believe in markets. Bob and I have had a running debate now for about a year about how do we, in fact, deal with the losers in a globalized economy. There has been a tendency in the past for us to say, well, look, we have got to grow the pie, and we will retrain those who need retraining. But, in fact, we have never taken that side of the equation as seriously as we need to take it.

Hmmm.  Not exactly the ringing endorsement we assumed it might be, in fact a collegial arms-length acknowledgement of the possibility of using some of these policies under certain conditions.  My doubts are reassured I will leave you to make your own judgement, you probably will disagree based on your comments.

I feel you are too harsh on the non-ideological approach, but am interested to understand your point better.  You acknowledge Obama's appeal to passions and emotions when he is talking about values, and these are the source of his eloquence, but why should rational approaches be proscribed in developing solutions to the problems which ideology describes?  He consistently seems inclined to deliver solutions, not positions.  I see this as a theme in Obama's approach and it has provided results in the past.  You describe this as dishonest and patronising and I am wondering why.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-02-26 08:02PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Economic Principles of Clinton, Edwards, Obama


As so many of us have seen, both sides of the political spectrum have tended to cling to outdated policies and tired ideologies instead of coalescing around what actually works.

That seems like a lazy intellectual argument and quite patronizing in tone. It's the same argument as "both sides are wrong! that means I don't actually have to take a stand".


too many of us have been interested in defending programs the way they were written in 1938, believing that if we admit the need to modernize these programs to fit changing times, then the other side will use those acknowledgements to destroy them altogether.

Ok, senator Obama, can you tell me what is so wrong with social security that it needs to be "modernized". And if you say we need add-on accounts, can you tell me who on the left would disagree with you?


Of course, neither of these approaches really works.

Again..some specifics on how is taking this approach on the left would be nice. I can give plenty of examples of people on the right who endorse massive tax cuts, but not so much on the left.


I think that if you polled many of the people in this room, most of us are strong free traders and most of us believe in markets. Bob and I have had a running debate now for about a year about how do we, in fact, deal with the losers in a globalized economy. There has been a tendency in the past for us to say, well, look, we have got to grow the pie, and we will retrain those who need retraining. But, in fact, we have never taken that side of the equation as seriously as we need to take it.

So he is a strong free trader and while he wants workers in this country to do better, what about the losers in other countries that are working for slave wages (or as slaves)?


Some of that, then, will end up manifesting itself in the sort of nativist sentiment, protectionism, and anti-immigration sentiment that we are debating here in Washington.

Again, if he's referring to Democrats then I'd like to know who exactly fits this description.

And you said,


He consistently seems inclined to deliver solutions, not positions.

But again, it's all about what kind of solutions you want to deliver. George Bush has a solution for globalization too, it's called greater consolidation of muli-national corporations' power.

The fact that he does not lay down positions tells me that I can't trust him at this point to say "no" solutions that are bad for people. He might think George Bush's solution is the best "solution". And if you say that he would never do that because he thinks it is a failed solution that hurts people, then wouldn't you say then that he does have a position from which he is operating from? If that's the case, then why hide behind the non-ideological stance and just say clearly and forcefully what you stand for?

by adamterando 2007-02-27 03:49AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Economic Principles

Everything is ideological.  You can try to sound non-ideological, but everyone has an ideology and every idea and solution or position is ideological.  You cannot separate politics or government from ideology.  Ideology permeates everything we do, and everything we are.  It is how we self-identify, it is how we relate to the world.  It is impossible to make decisions in politics without ideology.

by jallen 2007-02-27 06:42AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Economic Principles of Clinton, Edwards, Obama

I have no idea where Obama is on trade but one thing that jumps out at me is that you lumped Korea in with trade pacts like those in Peru, Panama, etc which you shouldn't.  Korea is a fully industrialized country with a strong labor movement (read up on the strikes at Hyundai Motors) and strong environmental rules like the US and Western Europe.  Twenty years ago it might have been a cheaper place to build things but not today.  Additionally, Korea is suffering from similar problems to the US losing manfacturing jobs to China and other places in Asia.  

I am not against trade pacts, I am against unfair ones with countries that don't have strong labor laws or environmental protections.  I don't see that kind of problem with Korea anymore than I see it with Western Europe or Japan.

by John Mills 2007-02-26 06:13PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Economic Principles of Clinton, Edwards, Obama

I agree, I haven't a problem with a trade deal with South Korea, but John Edwards does.

by jallen 2007-02-27 06:33AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Economic Principles of Clinton, Edwards, Obama

The trade issue is very complicated and the US is not the only industrialized country facing problems from low cost, developing countries.  Western Europe, Japan, Korea and other industrialized nations are also losing jobs to lower cost, developing countries.

There is no silver bullet and while I am against unfair trade pacts with countries that don't have strong labor or environmental laws, I am also troubled by the idea if we just close the borders everything will be fine.  Despite our trade deficit, the US exports $1.4 trillion per year in goods and services (about 10% of our economy) and that creates a lot of jobs.  Do we just throw that out the window?

I am not sure about the exact solution but it includes better, fairer trade agreements, stronger, smarter labor unions to increase wages in the growing service sector and some effective job retraining programs.  Just closing off the borders is neither realistic nor will it bring back lost manufacturing jobs.  We need to figure out a real solution moving forward.

by John Mills 2007-02-27 07:08AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Economic Principles of Clinton, Edwards, Obama

That's a strawman, no one on the left is saying we should close our borders.

by jallen 2007-02-27 08:14AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Economic Principles of Clinton, Edwards, Obama

My point is there is no simple silver bullet to dealing with this issue. Jobs in our industrial base are declining because of automation and computerization as well as off shoring of jobs.  Getting our health care costs under control would also help the US to be able to compete abroad.  

Industrial jobs weren't always high paying - unions made them so.  We need to unionize places like Walmart.  That will probably do more to address this problem than anything else.

This issue is going to have to be addressed in a multipronged manner and will include reforming trade agreements where necessary.  That alone, though, won't be enough.

by John Mills 2007-02-27 10:39AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Economic Principles of Clinton, Edwards, Obama

We need to unionize places like China and India.

by jallen 2007-02-27 10:24PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Economic Principles of Clinton, Edwards, Obama

That too but taking care of stuff at home is probably more realistic.

by John Mills 2007-02-28 07:21AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Economic Principles of Clinton, Edwards, Obama
Excellent analysis about Obama and the Hamilton Project.  Obama's non-idoleogical approach fits right in with a group that disclaims ideology, while having a neo-liberal one.
 
by littafi 2007-02-26 02:20PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Economic Principles of Clinton, Edwards, Obama

Was that really analysis or guilt by association?  Are you really interested in understanding his policies or do you have some objection to them that is aligned with the Hamilton Project theme?  I hardly think his association with Hamilton Project ideologies is demonstrated by the evidence in the up-thread post.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-02-26 07:08PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Economic Principles of Clinton, Edwards, Obama

He was the keynote speaker and speaks highly of them.  Do you think it would be "bad" if he agreed with them?  Obama's position is unclear, but he certainly did not point out that fair trade preventing the loss of good jobs was better than welfare after the jobs are lost.  

If you can find out Obama's position, let us know.  

by littafi 2007-02-27 05:15AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Economic Principles of Clinton, Edwards, Obama

Jallen, that is probably the best, most informative and balanced diary I have read here and it is on a fundamental aspect of these candidacies which is often discussed but as frequently misunderstood or misrepresented even by supporters themselves.  You comprehensively assessed these candidates and I would have certainly overlooked many of the issues and positions you mentioned.  I am much more comfortable with foreign policy and diplomatic issues than economics and this has helped a lot, thanks very much.

I am glad to have your perspective on Obama and it confirms what I have felt without being able to articulate it as well as you have.  I was planning to bring up the Campus Progress speech in our previous brief dialogue.  I have often thought that he understates some of the positions he holds but consistently enables them.  I believe for him this may, in fact, be wise.

And I am glad to reconfirm my view of Edwards as a genuine populist as there were some things said about his past history on these issues which I was unsure about but found disconcerting.  Yet he has struck me as being very consistently holding the position of social responsibility as you point out and that is very reassuring.  I think he could even be a more articulate advocate of this theme in his campaign and I fail to understand why it is not reflected in broader popularity in the electorate.

The real surprise for me is to discover that it is the difficulty in pinning down Hillary which has made me mistrustful of her rather than any particular policy.  She seems to adopt social liberal positions more often than not, as you say, and perhaps that is appropriate for someone who is basically the mainstream presidential candidate for the party.  I am less comfortable with her liberalism in respect of property and free markets than Edwards and Obama but it is certainly acceptable, especially as a potential corrective for a country that has had the recent history we have suffered in social policy.  In some ways she should probably maintain, but clarify, these positions as it would make her more credible to progressives, she is what she is, rather than try to have it both ways.

I look forward to the discussions this diary provokes.  What are your views on free trade?  This is an issue which I am having difficulty with and there seems to be a lot of ambiguity even among these candidates.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-02-26 02:27AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Economic Principles of Clinton, Edwards, Obama
I don't have enough time to address trade fully right now, I've got to go in a few minutes.  I hardly "comprehensively assessed these candidates", as I had a little over an hour on each, and from the responses so far, I know I've missed plenty of relevant material.  I appreciate the compliment nonetheless; I do my best to be honest.
I need to go, but I'm not done, so I'll get back to this.  Trade is an important and divisive issue, so I think that, having brought it up in my diary, I should make my biases clear.
by jallen 2007-02-26 06:29AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Economic Principles of Clinton, Edwards, Obama

I guess I used comprehensive in a relative sense.  I certainly helped me to have a broad look in one diary at all of these candidates.  I look forward to your comments on trade because it certainly seems to be a trigger for a lot of criticism of these candidates.  It is a tough issue which seems to require rethinking of traditional economic ideologies.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-02-26 01:28PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Economic Principles

On principles and values, and as a motivation for my policy preferences, I am a social democrat.  As common for a modern social democrat, I am generally in favor of trade, but opposed to free markets.  Aside from regulation and providing an infrastructure, I'm not much for government intervention.  Free markets, however, would be anarchic, chaotic, and create tumultuous situations that would likely bring about revolution.

I think trade is good for creating wealth, but we need stronger environmental and labor standards.  Really, thats all.  We need rules to live by.  Unfortunately, our trade agreements have not had them.  BTW, we can enforce such standards easily, by threatening to cut off trade.  We can do more than just whine about it.  We can do it.  The problem is that we have had economic liberals in charge, and for them, trade trumps people and the environment.

I really don't know that much about economic policy.  I'm more focused on what MyDD does best, elections, and why we fight in elections, our ideologies.  I focus on economic issues, though, because I have experienced poverty, after having been in the upper-middle class.  That transition occured around the time of the beginning of the war, and other major events in my life.  That period really changed me, and for the better.

by jallen 2007-02-26 02:59PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Economic Principles

Indeed my experience was the reverse, poverty, and total personal independence I might add, followed by a very tedious middle class professional experience and now a sort of hippified gentry lifestyle which could easily descend to near-poverty again.  The pursuit of prosperity and virtue are often at odds but not necessarily so.

I guess the issue for me on trade is tariffs.  I have heard some pretty strong words advocating the re-imposition of tariffs on trade, to protect US labour from under-valued labour in countries with poor human and social rights, to impose environmental standards, to protect rights and values upheld by popular opinion in the US.  The global economy strikes me as an inevitability, we are in it.  Do we abandon whole industries?  Do we subsidise them?  Do we attempt to renew our technologies to give them new life?  Do we subsidise education and then let the workers fend for themselves or guide the whole process of renewal?  I see the candidates and the electorate struggling with this and their seem to be some triggers that activate strong feelings and discontentment.

We can protect our intellectual property but at the same time abuse the rights of other, poor nations to enjoy theirs.  Do we patent the process for making aspirin or the product itself?  How are our interests served by the prosperity of other nations and how is it eroded and how can we tell the difference?  Does a rise in the price of corn because we are now using it to protect ourselves from dependence on foreign oil increase the flow of illegal immigrants from Mexico because of the price of tortillas?  Do we care?  Do we impose standards on our industries that decrease their profitability or turn a blind eye in some cases to our social responsibility to workers in our efforts to protect their industry?  Or is there another way?

I don't know the answer to these things but there sure seems to be a lot of people who think they do, both among the candidates and the lobby groups, not to mention the electorate.  I guess my only real question is what is the difference between free trade and free markets?  And where should the government regulation be applied with the lightest hand for the greater good of the electorate?

by Shaun Appleby 2007-02-26 03:41PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Economic Principles

I'm a fan of Thom Hartmann, but I seriously disagree with tariffs.  I am not for very much government interference, aside from regulation and providing infrastructure, but there is room for social considerations in economics.

"Do we abandon whole industries?  Do we subsidise them?  Do we attempt to renew our technologies to give them new life?"
Yes, no, and yes, unfortunately.
"Do we subsidise education and then let the workers fend for themselves or guide the whole process of renewal?"
The government should provide a certain number of years of education at public universities for those who qualify to attend.  As to the other questions, we cannot abandon people.  Education must be understood to be part of the infrastructure that the economy is built upon.

"Does a rise in the price of corn because we are now using it to protect ourselves from dependence on foreign oil increase the flow of illegal immigrants from Mexico because of the price of tortillas?"
I don't follow your logic.  Wouldn't higher prices for corn be good for farmers everywhere?

"Do we impose standards on our industries that decrease their profitability or turn a blind eye in some cases to our social responsibility to workers in our efforts to protect their industry?"
Of course we do the former (people before profits).  At the same time, in order to protect their industries, we insist on higher standards in other countries through our trade agreements.

"The global economy strikes me as an inevitability, we are in it"
Not quite yet, but we are getting there.  Imagine what a flat market would look like world-wide.  Would it be better, or worse?  Does it matter if it happens more quickly or slowly?  I'd fully address that, but I haven't the time.

"Or is there another way?"
Always.  A global market may be inevitable, but shouldn't there be more than one way to get there?

by jallen 2007-02-27 09:16AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Economic Principles of Clinton, Edwards, Obama
I would keep your eyes open as you have.  You have done an excellent summary.  When people run for office they say things to help get elected.  All politicians do this.  They sometimes try to find their stride.  
I am not a fan of Hillary and beleive she may be hard to pin down due to her lack of her own personal  beliefs.  It's scripted and consulted.  Not real.  This makes it hard when assessing her.  I'd say keep an eye open and see where she goes.
Edwards has done an image makeover.  This will account for some inconsistencies.  He went from a conservative democrat to a populist in a year.  He may still be trying to find his way through some ideas and issues.
Obama is hard to pin down.  One former state senator who worked with him said he voted according to each individual issue and so you cannot pin him as any one tag.  This can be frustrating but, he is issue by issue sort of person.  
I think what you are doing now is great.  Doing real looking and thinking and research.  But, I think when it comes down to it you will find no one person will fit 100%.  There will be some things you don't agree on with all of them.
It may just come down to old fashioned intuition and who you are comfortable supporting.
by vwcat 2007-02-26 03:40AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Economic Principles of Clinton, Edwards, Obama

Edwards has never been a conservative Democrat.

by clarkent 2007-02-26 04:39AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Economic Principles
For one thing, people change.  For another, to an extent you must take people at their words and their deeds if we are going to try to derive anything.  And yes, people tend to be mixes, particularly welfare liberals and social democrats, who after all betray their own ideological heritage, to an extent.
People who are "issue by issue," though, I have trouble respecting politically, because they do not seem to know where they are coming from.  They are not fully aware of themselves, because if they were, they would understand why they feel a certain way about abortion and a certain way about trade and a certain way about CAFE standards.  You cannot take positions on issues just from ration, you need to hold political beliefs and principles.  I do not think Barack is lacking such self-awareness.
by jallen 2007-02-26 05:26AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Economic Principles of Clinton, Edwards, Obama

Very good diary. The one thing I would like to have seen (maybe in an update or in another diary?) is more attention to the candidates stance towards labor. Is it lip-service or do they see it as the fundamental component of any social democratic movement?

I think you have to look at speeches rather than just AFL-CIO records to address this because most Democrats (even DLC democrats) will have a high AFL-CIO score since unions are such an important constituency. But that's the thing, do these three see unions as a constituency or as the front-lines in a progressive movement?

by adamterando 2007-02-26 03:58AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Economic Principles of Clinton, Edwards, Obama
I'm from a fourth-generation union family.  I'm deeply concerned with the situation of working people.  I think that Edwards and his man, Bonior, have made clear how much he supports unions.  He has gone across the country to talk to and support striking workers, despite his history with the DLC.
The Clintons have not shown the same loyalty to unions that the unions have shown to them.  Still, according to my sources, Gerry McEntee at AFSCME likes Hillary because of his past with the Clintons.  Whatever.  The Clintons are liberals, and so should not get preferential treatment from unions.  If they get the endorsements, they better have earned them.
Barack Obama I'm not as sure of, but from his past as a community organizer, and as a politician, I'd guess that he understands their value.  Barack has spoken from AFSCME podiums before, IIRC, at their convention.  I think he saw little value in going to a forum at this early stage, in Nevada, when he is trying to make himself seem different from the usual crowd of politicians.
If you want union, vote for Edwards, I'd guess.  Don't overlook the qualities of the others, though.
by jallen 2007-02-26 06:14AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Economic Principles of Clinton, Edwards, Obama

Right, I feel the same way, I'm just saying for the benefit of those that don't know where they stand.

by adamterando 2007-02-26 06:47AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Economic Principles of Clinton, Edwards, Obama

I think it is pretty obvious that Edwards has staked an unchallenged claim to being the labour/union candidate and I am consistently surprised that he is not getting universal endorsements from the unions even this early in the campaign.

My assumption is that they are holding out on Hillary's behalf and can only assume they are hedging their bets in the hope of picking a clear winner.  If this is the case I think their strategy is fundamentally flawed as they are affecting the outcomes and failing to promote their most loyal and outspoken advocate.  I am guessing that Edwards is the only candidate that perceives the unions as a vehicle for a progressive movement and I am disappointed they are not more responsive to him.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-02-26 01:45PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Economic Principles

Liberals, though I have my problems with them, are an important part of the coalition.  We should try to appreciate them for what they do, even if we can't agree with them on everything.

I doubt, though, your take on Iran.  I don't think any of the candidates would seek a war with Iran.  Do you really think that they would want to so enflame the Middle East and destroy our military?  Do you think they want the price of oil at $130 a barrel?  I don't think she would want the 1970s again.  I sure don't.

by jallen 2007-02-26 06:18AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Thanks!

This is a great diary.  And I really appreciate the mindset--looking at their actual records as opposed to the quote-of-the-week in assessing the candidates.  It's stuff like this that makes MyDD the most intelligent political blog IMHO.

by Go Vegetarian 2007-02-26 06:33AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Can you define your terms?

Could you please provide a brief definition for the terms you are using - welfare liberal, modern liberal, social democrat, progressive? No one else here seems to be confused by this, but I personally am not clear on the meaning of these terms and what differentiates each from the others.

by miasmo 2007-02-26 07:36AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Can you define your terms?

Agreed!

by yitbos96bb 2007-02-26 08:27AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Can you define your terms?

Okay, I have a few minutes before I have to go again.  I thought about doing htis in the diary, but it would've taken too long and made the diary even longer.

A classical, traditional, or just plain liberal, is essentially like a libertarian, so like Adam Smith or John Locke.  Libertarians tend to be more anarchists than Smith or Locke, though.  They believe in social/political/civil equality, in liberty, and inherent human rights.  They believe in equality of opportunity, but not in economic outcomes, because, unlike socialists, liberals and conservatives tend to believe that you are born with certain traits and talents, and education can only improve upon that to an extent.  This is why economic inequality resulting from a capitalist market economy is okay.  Unlike conservatives and socialists, they believe in complete or almost complete economic freedom.  Liberals are individualists, thinking that it is our duty to take care of ourselves and our own interests in order to maximize the interests of all.  They see problems as the problems of individuals rather than as problems of society.
Modern, or welfare liberals (for they generally are used interchangeably) have responded to the inequities and other problems in the market.  They tend to take a paternalistic/maternalistic/nurturing view towards those who are disadvantaged, which I interpret as a result of influence from social conservatism, and therefore support targeted programs to help the disadvantaged, like Medicaid, food stamps, and Affirmative Action.  they are still liberals, though, and will still support economic liberalism with few qualms.  They are somewhat more willing to intervene with fiscal and monetary policy to support the economy, and more willing to consider that more things should be thought of as infrastructure that the government should control or regulate, like health care and utilities.
I wish I had the time to go over neoliberals, but they are essentially liberals with the concerns of modern liberals, but seek solutions using capitalist principles to the problems we face, rather than social solutions.  As liberals, they see problems as the problems of individuals, rather than societal problems, and therefore seek market-based solutions, like trading pollution credits, rather than stricter regulations, like caps on pollution.  George W. and the modern Republicans are neoliberals in economics.

Social Democrat/Democratic Socialist: A reform socialist rather than revolutionary, a relatively moderate socialist on economics.  Social democrats today prefer working through the democratic process in order to bring about change, and do not seek state or collective ownership of industries (except for independent corporations that are owned by their own workers).  They are socialists in principle, but not as much in policy.  They accept capitalist economics as better (more efficient and generates more wealth) than state ownership and central planning, but still seek to correct the injustices of the market through focused regulation, fiscal and monetary intervention, and to an extent, protectionism.
Social democrats prefer universal programs like single-payer health insurance and social security over targeted and means tested programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and Pell Grants.  This is because they retain the main principles of socialism: empathy and compassion, communitarianism, unity, and nationalism, broadly defined equality, and the idea that people can change or be changed due to social factors.

"Progressive" in the modern sense is hard to define, because its original definition had somehting to do with how we should deal with monopolies or something a century ago.  It isn't really relative.  I use "progressive" as someone who cares about good government free of corruption, the environment, and thinks politics should be about rational consideration and facts rather than passion and rhetoric.  In this sense, they are liberals.  They are modern liberals, generally, but tend not to focus on economic issues today.  They tend to be somewhat ideologically incoherent because their "progressivism" is not a real, thought out ideology, it is, unconsciously, a loose modern liberalism.

Populism I have used almost interchangeably with democratic socialism because it is the closest significant thing in American politics to democratic socialism.  Populism in America is more heavily influenced by liberalism than socialism in Europe is, in part because America is a random colleciton of individuals and institutions rather than an "organic society" like England or Germany, where the people share a common history and culture, and also because of the frontier or pioneer ideas of Americans which lends to a stronger individualism.  Populists tend to be revolutionary in rhetoric, but more moderate in actual policy, seeking to correct the injustices of the market.  They tend to be repulsed by some forms of "welfare", because they have a strong sense of hard work and a work ethic.  Because they tend to be from poorer areas in inner-cities and rural areas, populists and social democrats also tend to be from more socially conservative cultures, but in some ways, like nationalism and communitarianism, social democrats are socially conservative.  In principle and rhetoric, populists are pretty socialistic.

Okay, I hope that makes it clearer.  Oh, by the way, I am a populist/social democrat, if you couldn't tell.

by jallen 2007-02-26 09:34AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Can you define your terms?

Thanks for the clarification. I don't completely agree with your definitions, but they are helpful to understand your diary. Thanks.

by miasmo 2007-02-26 10:18AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Can you define your terms?

By the way, David Sirota makes an interesting distinction between liberalism and progressivism. Something along the lines that liberals favor big government solutions and welfare type remedies to the inequities that result from capitalism, wheras progressives favor setting better ground rules and regulations for capitalism up front so that the inequities don't occur and less big government welfare type intervention is needed as a remedy.

by miasmo 2007-02-26 10:29AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Can you define your terms?

I'm using, for the classifications of liberals and socialists, the academic terms.  What I said about progressives and populists is more of my interpretations.

by jallen 2007-02-26 11:37AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Teddy Roosevelt Progressivism
Th editor of the New Republic in 1907 (can't remember his name cuz I'm drinking liberally) said that Progressives "sought Jeffersonian ends through Hamiltonian means". Hence the confusion. The progressives of one hundred years ago were terrific well meaning middle class folks and scholars, but hardly radicals.  It was a tad "ivory tower".  They did not bond with the labor movement or disenfranchised blacks.  Hmmm?  I just thought of something.  That's what happened in the 1960's.  We couldn't form strong coalitions.  Only Jesse came close in 1988 with the Rainbow Coalition.  NOTE:  it really irks me that everybody repeats the meme that Obama is the first viable candidate for President.  WTF.  Jesse won 11 primaries.  Are our memories so short or are we so young not to remember this historic campaign?  Robert Altman did the incredible "Tanner '88" for PBS where a fake candidate ran with the real ones.  Brilliant.  Anticipated the Daily Show. There was high drama at the Democratic convention instead of the snore we have now.
We have another chance to form new coalitions and transform America.  Will we choose the candidate who can form a Rainbow coalition of labor, hispanics, women, blacks,and any other group that has never got to be on top? Or will we choose to keep the status quo? I see only one possibility right now and that is Edwards.  But I am open to hearing what others have to say and how they say it.  I am sick of having a Daddy President.  I had one Dad and I don't need another.  I want a brother or a sister.  
by Feral Cat 2007-02-26 03:59PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Teddy Roosevelt Progressivism

That's an attractive prospect.  Can't see why Obama wouldn't qualify as a possible non status quo candidate for the coalition you describe?  Why not?

by Shaun Appleby 2007-02-26 04:04PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Teddy Roosevelt Progressivism

I just got this intuitive thing about Obama.  Then I read this in "Audacity of Hope"
"as disturbed as I might have been by Ronald Reagan's election in 1980...I understood his appeal."

   It was the same appeal that the military bases back in Hawaii had always held for me as a young boy, with their tidy streets and well-oiled machinery, the crisp uniforms and crisper salutes."

It shows a conservative that is conflicted.  He feels comfortable with order.  Liberals are more free form.  Hilary too was raised a Republican and now is also torn. She likes structure.
I think that both want to be liberal but can't feel it.  Edwards has no conflict at his core.  
He understands that searching is Ok.  You don't have to know the destination. He is the most mature of the candidates.  The campaign is not about him.  It's about ideas.  

by Feral Cat 2007-02-26 05:35PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Teddy Roosevelt Progressivism

I take your point about Edwards, he is certainly comfortable squarely in the ideological frame he has adopted and it is a potent one.

I actually interpreted Obama's comments about Reagan and the banal aesthetics of a military base as a real dig at the whole Reagan ethic, juxtaposed against his immature appreciation as a young boy.  Are you sure you didn't miss the ironies in those statements?  It made me chuckle at the time and I thought it very appropriately dismissive of the superficialities of that philosophy and the kind of mind to which it appealed.

The man is actually quite a brilliant thinker and I can't accept he was making that statement at face value.  Personally, since we are talking intuitively I sense that Obama is immensely radical but is aware that he must express his real value system in communal metaphors or potentially alarm more conservative potential supporters.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-02-26 07:02PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Teddy Roosevelt Progressivism

I don't sense any radicalism.  Why do you?

by jallen 2007-02-27 08:18AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Teddy Roosevelt Progressivism

Huh???  I was a teenager when Reagan was elected and I worked against him in both 1980 and 1984 but that doesn't mean I didn't understand his appeal.  In 1980, people were weary with Carter from his malaise speech to the poor economy to the Iran hostages and they were looking for someone who was sunny and would give them hope.  Reagan, who was well known by the public from his TV/movies days, came along and gave it to them eloquently.  By 1984, he was an incumbent, most people thought things were going well and Mondale said he was going to raise taxes.  Not too tough to predict that election.

Being able to understand the appeal of your opponents is a valuable skill not something to be held against you.  Also, unlike Hillary, I have read nothing that says Obama was a Repub growing up.  I don't hold Hillary's Repub upbringing against her.  I welcome anyone who sees the light to the Dem Party.

by John Mills 2007-02-26 07:19PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Teddy Roosevelt Progressivism

Wow... that was one statement you missed the boat on completely.  I despise Reagan, but I can under his appeal... Same with W... He doesn't appeal to me, but I see why some like him...  Charisma wise, Reagan and CLinton are a lot alike... They have a certain IT factor appeal... just because one shares that appeal, or one can understand the appeal, doesn't mean they share the same ideology.

by yitbos96bb 2007-02-27 11:48AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Can you define your terms?

That was interesting and really enjoyable.  It is nice to have a more insightful look at your own perspective on this.  I also had to do a bit of research to respond sensibly to your diary and I recommend Wikipedia which has a very thorough and balanced analysis of all of these terms, copiously referenced, with enough detail to get the nuances.  I was particularly drawn to the distinction between social democrats and democratic socialism and, as Jallen points out, the differences between the US and European socialist traditions.

This stuff is what makes myDD so great.  Bring it on.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-02-26 01:17PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Economic Principles of Clinton, Edwards, Obama

Do youhave some substance in your opinion on Obama?  There is NOTHING in his record to indicate he would go to the right.  SO do you have substance or is your opinion based on your irrational dislike of the man?

by yitbos96bb 2007-02-26 08:27AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Economic Principles of Clinton, Edwards, Obama

I totally agree, I like Obama, Hillary and Edwards, and will and will gladly vote for him and any of the nominees, but I guess I really don't see where there is a substantive presentation of Obama's record.  A quick perusal of CQPolitics.com indicates that Hillary and Obama voted similarly on 576 out of 618 votes.  Two areas where they disagreed were on the Ethanol matter and the Class action litigation overhaul.  When you agree with somebody 576 out of 618 votes (93.2%), you are hardly more social or liberal than the other.  Ref AFLCIO: CQ indicates the she supported the AFLCIO position in  61 of 66 "key votes".   I know that I should probably have linked to the site in question, but that is beyond my technical skills right now, and it is time to feed my kids.

by Kingstongirl 2007-02-26 12:42PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Economic Principles of Clinton, Edwards, Obama

When you get to their underlying motivations, through their speeches and statements, it is easier to distinguish them.  Sorry, the voting records are hard to distinguish.

It is often truly difficult to tell social democrats and welfare liberals apart.  It is an important difference, though.  If, as a president, you have fast track authority to craft trade agreements, you have control of the commerce dept., labor dept., NLRB, energy dept., and education dept., and your administration writes most of the major bills that will affect these areas, you have a lot more room to express your ideology through policy than a senator or congressman.

by jallen 2007-02-26 01:38PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Economic Principles of Clinton, Edwards, Obama

Obama's support of Ethanol is easy to understand.... He is from a corn producing state... As a senator, he is going to vote for legislation that will help bring money to the state and the down south voters.  I would be shocked to see any senator from a corn producing state vote against ethanol.   They could of course, but it wouldn't be smart, IMHO.

by yitbos96bb 2007-02-27 11:29AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Kudos

JALLEN,

This should be used as a sample/model diary and should be promoted to front page.  It doesn't bash any candidate, gives a clear objective view AND provides support for your assertions.

Thanks very much... I gave you several 3's on here and a recommendation.  I'd love to see more... and agree miasmo that a definition of your terms would be helpful in future editions.  

by yitbos96bb 2007-02-26 08:31AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Economic Principles of Clinton, Edwards, Obama

Edwards co-sponsored Joe Lieberman's war resolution. He wanted war with Iraq more than other Democrats. I deeply admire that he can admit his mistake, but his apology did not bring back any of our fallen soldiers or innocent Iraqis.

by domma 2007-02-26 08:53AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Economic Principles of Clinton, Edwards, Obama

I don't think Edwards wanted war more than other Democrats. He's admitted his mistake (before Murtha, I might add) and he's worked to make up for it. He's been for a complete withdrawal for far longer than any other major candidate.

by clarkent 2007-02-26 09:35AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Economic Principles of Clinton, Edwards, Obama

He did speak in favor of the bill in 2002.  I think he may have even appeared with Bush, but am not 100% sure.  So either he was for it, or he was being a political opportunist... which of course is my biggest concern with Edwards... that he will sell out the ideals he talks about in his policies if it becomes politically advantageous...  I don't know if he will but some of his actions lead me to believe he might... with the exception of his pro-union and poverty platform which his support has never waivered.

by yitbos96bb 2007-02-27 11:37AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Economic Principles of Clinton, Edwards, Obama

I'm not really sure what surprised you about Hillary's positions ... they seem perfectly in sync with an establishment Democrat in the GOP era. Not horrible, but glaring gaps and a lack of consistency.

The eye-opener for me in this diary was Obama. He's a guy I previously have dismissed for the "meta" nature of his message and his inexperience in federal government. But the consistency of his record and his coherent world-view is starting to push me to reevaluate my thoughts on him. I may even read his book ...

by BriVT 2007-02-26 11:33AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Economic Principles of Clinton, Edwards, Obama

Well, I guess we need establishment Democrats too, at least as a backstop for some of the more progressive social economics we would like to see.  The electorate seems to buy it and I would hate to see our prospects for winning the presidency eroded because we didn't have a more traditional position to fall back on if we get to far ahead of the country.  They haven't had to deal with social democracy for awhile.  Let's test it in the primaries and make sure it flies.  We gotta' win in 2008.

As for Obama the one thing that scares me is if the electorate get wind of just how radical this guy can be too soon.  I am quite happy for him to soft-peddle his brand of change and build trust and a broad popular support before he holds forth with some of his plans.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-02-26 01:55PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Economic Principles of Clinton, Edwards, Obama

Yeah, I'm not a rabidly anti-establishment guy ... I was just saying that Clinton's record seemed to be exactly what I expected, not a surprise at all.

I have to confess that I'm bewildered by what the people of this country believe right now. Well, at least how those beliefs translate into their votes. Could Barack Obama's beliefs be successfully portrayed as radical when the man himself seems so reasonable? I'm not sure if it could stick, I really don't. And I don't say that to express doubt that it would ... I really have no idea.

We're in an exceedingly strange and delicate political moment right now, with a nearly content-free information stream being consumed by voters increasingly agitated and confused. Iraq is pretty much the only touchstone for people ... and they hate it. If Iraq is still a mess in 2008 (and it will be), does anything else really matter?

by BriVT 2007-02-26 04:42PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Economic Principles of Clinton, Edwards, Obama

I certainly hope Obama is not perceived as radical and I was reluctant to even mention it.  I am extrapolating from the values he expresses in his speeches, where others see no substance I fill in the blanks with the only conclusion that makes sense to me.

I agree with you about the electorate, and his stance on Iraq is a perfect fit, for now.  If he slips in on that basis and then does turn out to be a bit of a radical I certainly won't be disappointed.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-02-26 08:23PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Economic Principles of Clinton, Edwards, Obama

Could you elaborate on your reasons for thinking that Obama will slip to the right?  I have heard this mentioned several times and yet it is diametrically opposed to my reading of him.  I would appreciate understanding your position on this.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-02-26 01:47PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Clinton, Edwards, Obama, and Richardson

Edwards to address solutions to poverty at key SEIU forum

http://blog.johnedwards.com/story/2007/2 /26/16238/4742

Once the video is up, I'll put it on my diary

by okamichan13 2007-02-26 06:17PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Economic Principles of Clinton, Edwards, Obama

"has been part of the DLC."

Evidence please.  I was just on the DLC website and I can find no evidence of Obama having been a member either now or in the past.  

by John Mills 2007-02-26 06:42PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Economic Principles of Clinton, Edwards, Obama

He never was.  They put him on there in 2004 and he asked to be removed.  To my knowledge Obama is not nor ever has been a member of the commun... I mean DLC.  

by yitbos96bb 2007-02-27 11:38AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Economic Principles of Clinton, Edwards, Obama

Basically RSSAI has done little to no research and doesn't know what he is talking about in that regard.

by yitbos96bb 2007-02-27 11:39AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Economic Principles of Clinton, Edwards, Obama

Jallen - Very good analysis.  I am not surprised about Hillary Clinton's domestic record - as one of her constituents I knew it was pretty liberal but it was nice to see it confirmed.  It is foreign policy where she tends to be hawkish and where my problems with her exist.

It is interesting that you are as interested in hearing someone espouse a "populist message" as policies.  I am the opposite because populist messages have generally not been very successful on the Presidential level in this country.  See William Jennings Bryan for the best example.

The problem I have with a populist message, even if I agree with its policies, is it generally appeals to people's resentments.  Most successful Presidential candidates appeal to people's hopes and dreams.  Roosevelt, Kennedy, Reagan and Clinton got that and it is one of the reasons they are seen as being such effective communicators and politicians.

by John Mills 2007-02-26 06:57PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Economic Principles of Clinton, Edwards, Obama

I think a populist can do that as well, the hopes and dreams part. That is at the heart of both the Edwards and Obama support.

by okamichan13 2007-02-26 07:04PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Economic Principles of Clinton, Edwards, Obama

I see it a lot more with Obama than Edwards.  The 2 Americas, while true, appeals to people resentments more than their dreams.  I believe you have to wrap populist/progressive policies in messaging that appeals to people's hopes and dreams.

by John Mills 2007-02-26 07:10PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Economic Principles of Clinton, Edwards, Obama

Maybe you need to listen to/watch more Edwards then. His campaign and message are about anything but resentment.

by okamichan13 2007-02-26 08:15PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Economic Principles of Clinton, Edwards, Obama

Please look at my current diary and if you have a spare 50 minutes, listen to the recent interview Edwards did on NPR.

by adamterando 2007-02-27 03:54AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Economic Principles
Edwards's message is little like WJB, who is one of the inspirations for my ideology, btw, but I want someone who uses a populist message not from some cynical desire to win elections, but because I want the language and values of populism to be present in the greater culture, in the way that those of liberalism and social conservatism are.  The actual policies I'm not so cool with, but new ones can be developed.
Oh, and I'm not worried about John's ability to win in the general.
by jallen 2007-02-27 08:37AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Economic Principles of Clinton, Edwards, Obama

Bryan would have won in 1896 except for the fact that he focused on silver instead of monopolies (the cowbird of populism) and he could not make the argument to workers in the east that higher prices for farmers in the west would not be detrimental to their ability to provide food for their families. If he had focused much more on a labor-farmer organization he could have eked out a win. As it was, he only lost by 600,000 votes against an opponent that raised probably at least 10 times as much money.

by adamterando 2007-02-27 03:57AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Economic Principles

Definitely an interesting post. Thanks for taking the time to explain it all out.

Nothing you wrote changes my mind.

by rikyrah 2007-02-26 07:15PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
fantastic diary

written in an excellent spirit. ranks as a favorite diary of mine.

by NuevoLiberal 2007-02-26 08:23PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads


----------- myDD - skin -----------