Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
The Audacity of High Expectations
Andrew Leonard has posted a cogent analysis of Barack Obama’s March 27 economics speech at the Cooper Union in New York that illustrates night-and-day differences not just between his economic policies and John McCain’s, but between the divergent paths taken by the Obama and Clinton campaigns as they approach voters on the issues.
The review is at times more amorous than analytical…but what’s not to love when Obama approaches the serious economic issues of our day with the same kind of eloquence, nuance and substance that he brought last week to the issue of race?
Leonard writes:
“He reached all the way back to the first Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton, in his effort to argue from first principles that government has the right and responsibility to intervene in the economy to ensure that the few do not benefit at the expense of the many. He referenced the 1999 repeal of the provision in the Glass-Steagal Act that previously separated commercial and investment banking. He even declared that it was "time to realign incentives and compensation packages, so that both high level executives and employees better serve the interests of shareholders" -- a broadside unlikely to win him a lot of votes in downtown Manhattan -- (or at the fundraiser at the investment bank Credit-Suisse that Obama headed to after his speech, as helpfully pointed out by the Clinton campaign.)”
The slam-down comparison with John McCain speech the day before was succinct:
“Obama sounded like he understood what he was talking about. McCain sounded like he was reading a speech designed to make him look like he understood what was going on.”
As for Clinton comparisons, the point was remade that the differences in economic policy between the two Democratic candidates were minor in comparison with the McCain platform. Bigger distinctions were made, though, in how Obama and Clinton talk about the economy with potential voters in recent speeches:
“(T)he clearest difference between the two speeches is this: Hillary went to Philadelphia and promised Pennsylvania voters a gift-basket of direct government assistance. Obama went to New York and made a case for long term, fundamental change, along with a smaller gift basket.”
But rather than pile on to the idea that Hillary Clinton has a bad habit of saying that she has a solution to every problem faced by every voter (that almost always involves money), I want to take issue with the Clinton campaign’s response (as noted by Leonard):
"Senator Obama announced a series of broad, vague principles, while offering no new concrete solutions to provide Americans with greater confidence in the market or keep them in their homes."
In other words, Obama didn’t provide sound bite-sized instant-fix solutions using simple words that don’t require the American people to think.
After years of White House and right wing attacks on “Intellectual Elites,” are we now looking at more of the same from Hillary Clinton?
We’ve already seen her campaign and its media sycophants marginalize the “Has a College Degree or Higher” voting block as latte-drinking intelligentsia. And when Obama made his brilliant thought-provoking speech on race, they complimented its eloquence and scope even as they argued that it failed to answer the simple, straight-forward questions within voter’s minds (or at least the questions the Clintons think should be in the minds of voters). Now we have this…Obama’s economic speech is to be blamed because it included “vague” principles instead of platitudes and promises.
When it comes time to talk about public policy issues at the dinner table, Hillary Clinton would shoo away voters from the table, claiming that she and the other “adults” would take care of everything and promising a spoon-fed dessert.
Barack Obama offers the American public not just a seat at the public policy table, but the responsibility that comes along with it….to understand, reflect upon, and ultimately contribute to the discussion at hand.
Comments (54)
You buried the lede. What kind of dessert are we talking about? If it's got toffee in it, I might just have to switch my allegience. ;)
March 27, 2008 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just want to mention that the "latte drinking intelligentsia" sentiment did not come from Hillary's camp. I believe it is the media that used those words and has now become part of the lexicon.
David Brooks used the terms in an op-ed a while back.
A UK paper used the Starbucks vs. Dunkin Donuts
I don't think that Hillary's camp has marginalized the educated and well to do by using those terms. You give her way too much credit. That class can make up their own minds. And she is still winning about 40% of that demographic.
March 27, 2008 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
From the London Times just prior to the Wyoming caucus:
One Clinton aide yesterday derided Mr Obama’s victories in “boutique” caucus states rather than the hardscrabble terrain of the rustbelt, saying: “Obama has won the small caucus states with the latte-sipping crowd. They don’t need a president, they need a feeling.”
Attempt to link [url=http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article3507714.ece?token=null&offset=12]here[/url],
March 27, 2008 4:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Man, that really hurts. I feel stabbed in the back.
Yes, the Clinton camp used the phrase. I think my point is that they didn't make it up. It was used much earlier by the press. I can't find the article where I first heard it but here is an article by Brooks, in Feb. along the same lines. Its a pretty funny read.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/08/opinion/08brooks.html
March 27, 2008 6:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can't let this one slide:
That was your point.
But I will give you credit for accepting the fact that your original point was incorrect. Not that you need my credit for anything.
March 28, 2008 12:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
I can speak for myself thank you.
I"ll repeat, I don't think Hillary's camp has marginalized the said clan by using those terms.
Where do you see me saying that I was incorrect?
March 28, 2008 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
What a GREAT quote.....and appropriate. latte sippers vs. joe-bag of donuts
March 28, 2008 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just to add, this "latte drinking" thing is completely played out and outdated. It is very clearly chai or mate now.
When I drive my bio diesel volvo to the co-op to get a latte I ONLY purchase shade grown, organic, sustainably farmed, fair trade coffee from Zapatisa women's collective farmers.
March 27, 2008 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Damn straight. And I bring my own NPR mug.
March 27, 2008 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
So what do you do when they finish off the three pounds of coffee grown each year under those strict conditions?
March 27, 2008 5:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Drink and feel superior.
March 27, 2008 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Grow my own, of course, in my sunroom. What are you using your sunroom for?
March 27, 2008 5:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Airwon,
Actually, it was Tom Buffenbarger, president of the machinists' union (International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers) who addressed a Clinton rally prior to Hillary’s speech in Youngstown, Ohio. Among many of the "gems" he used to insult Obama, he went after Obama's supporters as well, saying
Here's a link to read more of what this charming fellow had to say:
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/02/20/684411.aspx
March 27, 2008 8:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unfortunately the Dems will need his votes come Nov. More nasty stuff said on the campaign trail. I am sure that the list is endless.
I think my original comment was that the Clinton camp did not begin the characterization of the division in those terms. Instead it was the press who characterized it as such and it caught on. When it comes from David Brooks' mouth, its funny. When it comes from that union leader's mouth its insulting.
To suggest that Hillary is trying in earnest to alienate the latte crowd is simply not true. It is not any more true than suggesting that the Obama camp is alienating women by having supporters taunt Hillary and Chelsea in NH.
As an observer,I think the display of tribalism is going too far when Starbucks vs. Dunkin Donuts metaphors are used as weapons and the victim actually feels injured.
Lets step back a little and get some perspective and laugh it off.
March 27, 2008 9:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would have to admit that this is the first time I have heard you act or describe your self as an observer. Usually you demonstrate an ax to grind in terms of candidates.
Just to be clear - my particular ax is logical inconsistencies.
March 28, 2008 12:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, airwon, but I have to agree with elliott here.
But, hey--I'll accept your offer. If you do more perspective-getting and laughing, I'll try too.
March 28, 2008 1:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
elliotness,
I am observer in the sense that I am not going to campaign rallies. Unlike laurajordan. That is what I meant.
I don't think that logic has much to do with many of the arguments that people make on these posts. Most people advocate for their candidate. Sometimes these arguments get out of hand. And I try to respond when I feel it is appropriate.
March 28, 2008 10:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
I know it is petty, but it is fun to point out this guy make 200K + a year and makes that statement.
March 28, 2008 1:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
reply to.....not work.... DOH!
March 28, 2008 2:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
And another great quote. Gotta love a Union guy to put a fork in it.
March 28, 2008 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
airwon, you're a smart poster, but you've lost this argument. You're now quibbling about "he said, she said" (or rather "he invented, she invented"). The point I think that you were trying to make is that the Clinton campaign has not tried to garner support from blue-collar folks by exploiting resentment towards educated, white-collar folks with terms like "latte drinking intelligentsia". The evidence seems to be pretty clear that people from the campaign and prominent supporters have attempted to do just that (regardless of who first used the terminology and whether the press adopted it).
Certainly, this is not a big effort by the Clinton campaign and very ho-hum compared to what G.W. does, but it does seem to exist. I urge you to concede the argument for the sake of TPM unity.
March 28, 2008 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Its a great argument that she should use more....should be the point. No offense latte drinkers
March 28, 2008 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, but how will it play in Philly?
Sorry, but that's the question. Hillary has solidified her base by showing off the gift basket. Frankly, Obama needs to find a way to communicate to these people, and the clock is ticking.
Hey, I'm an "elite". I love the way he frames things, ties it together, gives overarching direction. I have all the confidence in the world it will be backed up with solid policies.
But he needs to better identify the meat and potatoes. He needs to do it on the campaign trail and not just refer everyone back to the website. Not everyone sits all day on their computers (!) Frankly, I expected this type of speech backed up with specifics. The Clinton campaign, of course, is ignoring the specifics that were there. But these particular voters need it easier to understand, and he needs to function on multiple tracks.
Or she's going to crush him in PA. And that would be awful.
March 27, 2008 4:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
How the speech will play in Philly is exactly my point.
Clinton assumes that it won't play there, because the "hard-scrabble" crowd lacks the desire, education and/or attention-span required to follow along. Obama refuses to dumb-down the discussion, and has far more faith in the "lunchbucket" crowd to become engaged in the process of formulating good public policy.
Again, the differences between their policies are relatively slight...it's how those policies are presented.
Clinton says, "Don't worry about a thing, folks, I've got the problem solved for you."
Obama says, "This is the problem, here's how we got here, and here's where I think that we need to go to fix it."
Both candidates are asking for the voters to trust them. What Obama is doing, though, is showing that at least some of that trust is reciprocated.
March 27, 2008 5:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
northstardon,
Have you heard Hillary give a policy speech? It ain't that easy to follow along. You need a pretty good attention span to keep from being bored shitless.
I think you have to work far less to follow Obama because of his eloquence with prose. He makes it easy on the ear.
March 27, 2008 7:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
You seem to like Obama as a communicator. I think everyone agrees that he is a talented communicator.
You also seem to suggest that identifying the "meat and potatoes" in PA is equal to dumbing things down to "these particular voters" who need things "easier to understand." Surely that is not what you mean because you also say that the "meat and potatoes" for Obama can be found on his site. I guess you mean that most people do not spend all day on blogs whether you are classified as an "elite" or as "these particular voters".
March 27, 2008 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
57 and others: You need to get used to this idea:
Clinton WILL "crush" Obama in PA, guaranteed.
The demographics and delegate math pretty much dictate that. The PA Dem primary is tailor-made for an HRC victory. An Obama victory there is roughly as likely as it was in New York, or a Clinton victory was in Illinois.
The Obama campaign is well aware of this and has long since started working the expectations game with this in mind. They need to do more because the media hasn't caught on, but O supporters need to understand the facts and not play the Clinton game here.
March 27, 2008 5:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
While I agree with your assessment, facts are never things that have not happened yet.
March 27, 2008 7:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Crush? I doubt it. Obama himself set his expectations at 10 points down two weeks ago.
Lately I've been hearing better numbers.
Personally, as a woman in the liberation vanguard generation, I find Mrs. Clinton a very unappealing representative of the success of my generation's efforts. She is noisy, lacking perspective, dishonest and obviously status seeking. She gets frantic when under pressure and that, unfortunately for all women of all generations, comes across as strident and disorganized.
That behavior cannot win in the face of aplomb and even tempered speech. It does not matter the position of the other person in the situation, the cool and prepared cucumber always wins. It's true whether the cucumber is another woman or a man.
Unfortunately also, Mr. Obama will have the same advantage with Mr. McCain, because Mr. McCain is not knowledgable and is offering the same-old same-old.
We have not strived for 35 years to send two generations of our youth to college for them to emerge unable to recognize smarts. Curiously we have also apparently succeeded in creating a group of young people willing to follow a well constructed train of thought.
March 27, 2008 11:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ok......Then explain, GWB, GHWB, RONNIE, Nixon..and for gods sakes Ford.....Cool, prepared cucumbers win? And could you give me some examples of when Obama has or has not cracked under pressure? The more specific the example that better elfy
March 28, 2008 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey I am an "elite"? Is it catching?
March 28, 2008 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was looking for leadership, a direction for change, not sound bites. Sound bites are politics as usual; they go in one ear and out the other only to be dusted off for the next campaign.
Hillary's specifics are one of the reasons I don't think she would make a really good president. Details are not what a leader does most of the time. As well intended as she might be, she can't do it all by herself. I think her wonkishness and penchant for doing everything herself is part of her notion of toughness. She is so better suited for the Senate, where detailed plans can be used in making laws.
March 27, 2008 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
It may somewhat depend on the coverage of the speech. There are a lot of people who don't want to work that hard and if they hear that it was brilliant and is likely to help them, that may be their perception. On the economy, I may be one of them if the right people rave about it. Economy is hard work even for this latte' drinking, college educated, natural fiber wearing, but alas not Volvo driving. . .
March 27, 2008 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Another astounding bit of oratory by the Lincoln of our times. I'll bet he even dashed it off on the back of a McDonald's bag between campaign stops. I'm still supporting Hillary, though. Barack's not much for following through on speeches. (Note his disappearing act in the Senate following his landmark Illinois Antiwar Address of 2002.)
March 27, 2008 7:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maksutov, "disappearing act in the Senate?" What did you expect him to do? Vote to cut off funding from the troops? That was what the votes were on. Congress can't authorize a war and then decide that they'll play chicken with the president and use funding that the troops desperately need for protection and supplies. Congress can't bring the troops home so what did you expect him to do? The president can but he's not doing that. The only way to bring the troops home now is by electing a democrat into office.
March 27, 2008 11:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are expecting discourse from someone who using the following talking points:
And it seems that is a lot to expect.
March 28, 2008 12:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think that Obama should emphasize that the details Hillary pours on them may not in the end wind up being the big picture but simply embellishments to draw one into believing a highly fictionalized truth....like the Bosnia event.
Obama needs to imply that her words are not truth but fishermans' tales, and like all fishermans tales they get more involved and detailed as they repeat the story and the size of the fish grows.
He then needs to contrast that with not having all the solution but knowing where we have been how we got there and what needs to happen as we go forward.
If Obama does that type of contrast alone he will get these voters as they well recognize how the devil is in the details and it is especially difficult to know the devilish details of an economic that fluctuates and moves as we speak.
So he counters with the principles to manage the problem just as you would if it was a manufacturing situation where you know that there are going to be times of greater demand and low supply as well as vice versa and that we need a plan to handle the entire cycle and not just think we can lay off workers because we are in a down cycle.
That is the type of pitch those men will completely understand because the economy mimics quite a bit what they are use to seeing as an high and low demand for products they produce in their mfgring settings.
March 28, 2008 12:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Essentially - Clinton is still trying to sell CiC of the economy, and that is BS.
She wants the ole fox Greenspan to guard hen house.
Same Old Thing.
To diverge, I just got done watching "Flags of Our Fathers" and I realized that they nailed our current problem on the head while talking about a different war. When the Feds were having troubles paying for the war, they printed money, which devastated the value of the dollar.
This is where we are at now - to fund the war, the Feds printed money (aka credit or GDP). This credit took the shape of a housing bubble. All of which was overseen by Greenspan. The entire SIV game was a shell game to keep it all hidden long enough to let the fox leave the hen house.
March 28, 2008 12:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nessy, remeber first that the fed is independent of the gov't. Another arugment whether that should be....my own opinion is that it should be a cabinet position. Still. The housing debacle didn't come from printing money. It came from resources moving from Stocks to Real Estate thereby pumping assets into that market in search of value. Throw in a terrible mix of unscrupulous lenders and sales agents and title and deed players and viola there you are....
Unfortunately, we've financed this war with writing IOU's to China and the Saudi's among other folks...those will be do at some point.
March 28, 2008 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
But,but,but.... I thought Greenspan was a "Maestro"
lower rates, print money, lower rates, print money, etc.
March 28, 2008 1:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
On brother, amorous is an understatement. What is it about Americans. An african-american speaks in full sentences and uses four-syllable words and suddenly he's a genius? It all reminds me of the time I by chance was watching some American TV channel and that moron Dennis Leary was blathering on about how "Condi's of course the smartest woman in the world." Boy, I'd love to see an IQ shootout between Condi and Dan Quayle, that would be fun to watch.
A funny aside about Quayle. He got admitted to IU law skool through some program designed to help URMs get admitted. Hilarious. And America's VP for four years. Quayle, W, Obama. God Bless America indeed : )
March 28, 2008 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
He might seem a genius compared to a White President who can't speak in sentences.
March 28, 2008 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Milla J, I'm on the verge of calling you racist, and I never do that. Are you suggesting that Obama made it because of affirmative action? For chrissake, do you know how much harder it is to get into Harvard Law than Indiana University Law? One of the smartest people I know in the world didn't make the Harvard Law Review. Obama was the friggin president of the Law Review. Have you any idea what a small intellectual elite that is, how friggin smart you have to be to have that honor? Or can you see nothing but his black skin, which leads you to the conclusion that he didn't earn his place?
March 28, 2008 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
And Condi would kick Quayle's ass.
March 28, 2008 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why would she Genghis. Politically they are identical.....Actually she may be more conservative.
March 28, 2008 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
In the magic liberal universe, intelligence is directly correlated to the progressiveness. Unfortunately that's not how the universe works.
March 28, 2008 6:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ok, just wondered
March 28, 2008 7:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
You don't have to be a genius to be **elected** president of the Harvard Law Review. You have to be a very, very good politician who can successfully suck up to the white boy elitists who usually populate the executive board.
You do have to be smart to get **onto** the Harvard Law Review. That's a different matter.
I thought Milla J was making another point -- I always cringe when people refer to African-Americans as "articulate" like it's unusual or something to find an articulate African-American. It sounds so condescending -- I mean, how often do you hear white men referred to as "articulate."
And really, don't conform to the stereotype of Obama supporters -- not every cut on the guy is racism.
March 28, 2008 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the clarification. I really try not to throw that charge around and have castigated other Obama supporters who do, but Milla said more than that Obama is seen as smart because he's an articulate black man. He/she clearly implied that Obama is on the intellectual level of Dan Quayle and G.W., which is blatantly false, and that people only think he's so smart because he's black, which is at least borderline racist, especially in the context.
Then there was the reference to Obama as "brother". I'm hoping that Milla is black (even if it makes me look foolish). Otherwise, it's hard for me to interpret the reference and the subsequent b.s. in any way other than racist.
While I appreciate the clarification, you seem to be apologizing for Milla J, which I don't understand. I make a point of repudiating assholes and idiots who support Obama, and I would hope that you would do the same for Clinton supporters.
March 28, 2008 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Easy Genghis, If there are so many geniuses at Harvard then you must be saying that the private boarding schools such as Choate produce many more intelligent people than any other type of school in the country since the odds of being admitted to said schools goes way up when you graduate from choate...or is it.....the last name or daddy of the person from choate.....or maybe mummy or daddy went to Harvard or yale...so, of course, little egghead jr. gets in because he is a legacy. Please don't get started on Ivy league superiority. I include the Clintons in on this as well.....
March 28, 2008 4:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was referring to Harvard Law, not Harvard undergrad. You have to be a lot smarter to get into the former and even smarter to get onto the Law Review. Of course, it's not a level playing field, and there are many geniuses who don't go to Ivy's and many dolts who do. Obama went to an elite private school, which helped, but he certainly didn't get in because of daddy's name or mummy's money. Finally, Milla has suggested that Obama is the intellectual equivalent of Quayle and G.W., neither of whom would have been able to get into Harvard Law, let along onto the Law Review, despite their family background.
I admit the schooling is an imperfect measure, but there aren't good objective measures for intelligence, and it was something that I could at least point to, which is 100 times better than Milla's racially informed and evidence challenged opinion.
March 28, 2008 4:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I stand not totally convinced even abouth HL or Yale law or Princeton law....I guess if you want to connect to the right people so that you can have a political career I might go along. Or if you want to go to NYC and make money in business law....But thats more about being in the club rather than intelligence. And do we need to get into the problems with Standarize testing with kids that aren't from the "elite" schools?
I guess I find it very galling knowing most of the folks that are blathering about how much they admire Rev. Wright for saying what he believed are the same folks that would use that test to make sure Mr. Wright didn't get into those schools.
Obama is not a ghetto kid. Or even an other-side-of the tracks kid. He has about as much chance of being able to mentally identify with those kids as I do of saying just because I was born in Kentucky I know what it is like to live in Appalachia. You guys hollering about him not being able to get a cab..etc etc....when he would be taking a limo in any case and would have most of his life.....I think Nessy and I described these things as Ironic the other night.
March 28, 2008 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why are you people defending this loser's post? And why am I wasting my time it for that matter?
March 28, 2008 5:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dude, sign me up for whatever your smoking if you got your conclusions based on what Leonard wrote.
"Senator Obama announced a series of broad, vague principles, while offering no new concrete solutions to provide Americans with greater confidence in the market or keep them in their homes."
Thats the essence of Sen. Obama. alot of principles without the meat behind them. When does he propose setting for the meat? After the election? Well thats kinda late. How bout if he spends as much time on these issues as he does race? Then we could really see what he would or won't do. I love platitudes....but thats all they are. Tell me something that you'll do.
But your premise that she would shoo the kids away from the table is complete nonsense. There isn't anyone around thats more willing to sit for hours to talk about issues(maybe her husband is worse) than Hillary Rodham Clinton. Why do her speeches come off as a little too long? A little too many ideas in them? Cause they are chocked full with the stuff that people need to know. Need to understand. She wants everyone to understand these things. If that offends the Eastern Liberal Establishment then so be it. The ELE of the Democratic party has never elected a candidate in the history of the party. Ever.
I find in all his proposals only empty headed thoughts that most anyone could have thought up. No substance at all. Thats why......he isn't ready to lead this country.
March 28, 2008 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment