"Obama, Bitterness, Meet the Press, and the Old Politics"

Robert Reich has something to say:

Obama, Bitterness, Meet the Press, and the Old Politics, by Robert Reich: I was born in Scranton, Pennsylvania, 61 years ago. My father sold $1.98 cotton blouses to blue-collar women and women whose husbands worked in factories. Years later, I was secretary of labor of the United States, and I tried the best I could – which wasn’t nearly good enough – to help reverse one of the most troublesome trends America has faced: The stagnation of middle-class wages and the expansion of poverty. Male hourly wages began to drop in the early 1970s, adjusted for inflation. The average man in his 30s is earning less than his father did thirty years ago. Yet America is far richer. Where did the money go? To the top.

Are Americans who have been left behind frustrated? Of course. And their frustrations, their anger and, yes, sometimes their bitterness, have been used since then -- by demagogues, by nationalists and xenophobes, by radical conservatives, by political nuts and fanatical fruitcakes – to blame immigrants and foreign traders, to blame blacks and the poor, to blame "liberal elites," to blame anyone and anything.

Rather than counter all this, the American media have wallowed in it. Some, like Fox News and talk radio, have given the haters and blamers their very own megaphones. The rest have merely "reported on" it. Instead of focusing on how to get Americans good jobs again; instead of admitting too many of our schools are failing...; instead of showing why we need a more progressive tax system to finance better schools and access to health care, and green technologies that might create new manufacturing jobs, our national discussion has been mired in the old politics.

Listen to this morning’s “Meet the Press” if you want an example. Tim Russert ... interviewed four political consultants – Carville and Matalin, Bob Schrum, and Michael Murphy. ... And what do Russert and these four consultants talk about? The potential damage to Barack Obama from saying that lots of people in Pennsylvania are bitter that the economy has left them behind; about HRC’s spin on Obama’s words (he’s an “elitist,” she said); and John McCain’s similarly puerile attack.

Does Russert really believe he’s doing the nation a service for this parade of spin doctors talking about potential spins and the spin-offs from the words Obama used to state what everyone knows is true? Or is Russert merely in the business of selling TV airtime for a network that doesn’t give a hoot about its supposed commitment to the public interest but wants to up its ratings by pandering to the nation’s ongoing desire for gladiator entertainment instead of real talk about real problems.

We’re heading into the worst economic crisis in a half century or more. Many of the Americans who have been getting nowhere for decades are in even deeper trouble. Large numbers of people ... are losing their homes and losing their jobs, and the situation is likely to grow worse. ...

Bitter? You ain’t seen nothing yet. And as much as people like Russert, Carville, Matalin, Schrum, and Murphy want to divert our attention from what’s really happening; as much as HRC and McCain seek to make political hay out of choices of words that can be spun cynically by the mindless spinners of the old politics; as much as demagogues on the right and left continue to try to channel the cumulative frustrations of Americans into a politics of resentment – all these attempts will, I hope, prove futile. Eighty percent of Americans know the nation is on the wrong track. The old politics, and the old media that feeds it, are irrelevant now.

The working class has been largely ignored by this administration, save a few tokens when elections are near, and that's what the questions ought to be about. What do each of the candidates plan to do to change the conditions that led to Americans being "more pessimistic about their situation than they have been for more than a quarter century"? How many times has McCain flip-flopped on economic policy? Does he have any plans at all to address these problems (beyond wishful thinking), or will he follow in this administration's footsteps on (the lack of) domestic policy? But no, instead, we get this drivel. The public has not been well served by a press that seems, as I watch CNN, to spend more time picking out their clothes than they do preparing to talk about issues, and they aren't even the worst offenders. I shouldn't be surprised, it happens every four years, but I hoped for better. I'm afraid old politics still works.

What do you think? Is Robert Reich right that economic conditions will nullify old politics and make this election different?

Comments

[LJM]

The economy is the number one issue for voters this year. I'd have to say this election reminds me of the Clinton/Bush election when Ross Perot had his pie charts and because of the war, The election between Carter/Ford. Reich seems to be on the Obama team, so I don't look to him to be positive about Hillary Clinton. John McCain has said he doesn't know much about economics, so nothing more needs to be said about him. It would serve the public well to be reminded that the 1990s during the Bill Clinton years were good times for our economy and for most people. We got a balanced budget. People wanted to "party like it was 1999" when the current Bush took office. How soon people seem to forget recent history.

[Bruce Wilder]

Mark, ever the artful editor, omits a telling line: "Listen to this morning’s “Meet the Press” if you want an example. Tim Russert, one of the smartest guys on television,"

Somebody hopes for a future Meet the Press invite.

This telling bit of corruption from Reich, should not detract from his message, but it does help to explain why his message is on a blog. And, that, in turn, explains a lot about what is wrong with our Media and their control of the public discourse.

Bob Somerby, of Daily Howler fame, has done a fair amount of work, ridiculing Tim Russert and his colleagues, as the hirelings of G.E. boss Jack Welch. "Neutron" Jack, plutocrat extraordinaire, hired Tim Russert, who is most certainly not the smartest guy in any room where he's not alone with his dog, and then Robert Reich, strident voice of the Left, has to pretend Russert is smart. (Pretending Russert is smart is not even heavy-lifting compared to what Reich has to do, to be invited on by Larry Kudlow.)

I've seen the eponymous Kos of DailyKos has taken to trying to eliminate "MSM - mainstream media" in favor of "traditional media", to emphasize the idea that the blogs are also Media. And, indeed, they are. The "bitter" story started out life as a blogpost on Huffington Post, as Jay Rosen points out. But, it remains true that, while we number in the millions we denizens of the internets remain few compared to the tens of millions skimming television and radio. The political campaigns, even with hundreds of millions to spend, are forced to slog through the ancient communication technology of rallies in high school gyms.

[Dickeylee]

I noticed adds from ADM, GE, UBS, and Exxon on Timmy's hour yesterday, but at least no pitch for his book Big Russ or something like that. And also for the record, Timmy has set his Boston College dropout son up in business with the same Mr Carville up in a sports reporting business of some sort, closed loop reports to bars and such.

[kthomas]

White people are so sensitive.

[gordon]

Prof. Thoma: "The public has not been well served by a press that seems, as I watch CNN, to spend more time picking out their clothes than they do preparing to talk about issues, and they aren't even the worst offenders".

If the situation is as bad as that, maybe some kind of internet newspaper which picks up the "flip-flops", the lies and the spin as news (as well as doing straightforward reporting) is some kind of solution (headline: "McCain Flip-Flops On Economic Policy Again"). Or maybe such a thing already exists. The trouble is that you need to get intelligent and thorough people to do it, and they will have to expose the same lies, the same spin and the same flip-flops over and over again. It would be repetitive, and journalistic reputations aren't built on repetitiveness - though perhaps it could be argued that Lou Dobbs has indeed built a reputation on repetition.

[save_the_rustbelt]

"to blame immigrants"

No, illegal immigrants. There is a difference.

[realpc]

"the words Obama used to state what everyone knows is true"

No one minds that Obama said people are bitter over the economy. The trouble is that at the same time he called the entire lower working class bigots ("antipathy towards those different from themselves"). And he explained away their passion for religion as nothing but an outlet for frustration. And he similarly dismissed their concern about the right to own guns -- merely a result of financial frustration.

Obama's comment was extremely disrespectful, as well as inaccurate and unfair. Sure there is bigotry in the lower classes, but there is bigotry everywhere. What about the anti-white sentiments of Obama's church? And the anti-"redneck" bigotry expressed in Obama's comment.

We are all bigots in one way or another, but we see it in our adversaries, not in ourselves. Obama revealed his own bigotry and lack of respect for middle America. He's apologizing for the word "bitter," but that misses the whole point.

[Patricia Shannon]

Gordon,
check out
www.fair.org

[Kryst]

Mr Reich - the banks and the
credit "system" are broken and
can't be fixed."

Next

[Alex Tolley]

Is Robert Reich right that economic conditions will nullify old politics and make this election different?

What if Obama is correct and people just feel bitter, take solace in their religion and just assume that nothing can change because for many of them, the way the country is run is like a "force of nature"? If so, Reich may be the one doing the wishful thinking. I doubt that many people listened to the "Meet the Press" segment, but many do listen the repeated demagoguery on popular t.v. and radio shows. Repeat enough times and the "Big Lie" can be sold. I just hope I'm wrong.

[dale]

RPC- "antipathy towards those different from themselves" is a phrase far removed from the emotive contents of the term "bigot". Senator Obama himself has a passion for religion- so I doubt his remarks were a critique of religion in general- more likely a critique of right wing Christianism. And it is truely remarkable that so many working class white men find gun ownership their greatest political concern. I live amongst these folks and I read their gun magazines.

I just listened to the speech. He did not say that all working class folks shared these traits. And his talk was more about cynicism about government than about bitterness. Bitterness was used once.

This was a speech that everyone knows is true (everyone in the rhetorical sense of Democrats who have thought about these matters). We've been talking about Reagan Democrats since the 80s. Frank's book, What's the Matter With Kansas was must reading a few years ago.

This is a gruesome example of the worst sort of US politics as practiced both by the media and the candidates. I can see politicians jumping on one another over poor choices of words- but it is unforgivable for the media to feed this sort of thing.

[donna]

Oh come on, who is going to actually take anyone's guns, God or marriage away from them? I can almost see the resentment against illegals since yes, they take those jobs at low wages that, honestly, nobody else will do (at least I haven't seen any Minutemen around here who want to mow my lawn or clean my house lately).

Obama speaks honestly and everyone is "horrified". Bush can speak to the rich and call them "my base" and nobody gave a damn.

The whole furor over this is ridiculous, and the fact that the right has for 20 years now run on God guns and gays and promoted these fears, as well as playing up to the racism of the southern voter, while all the while stealing their income and shifting it to the top, is not only sad but truly pitiful.

Is it elitist to say those voters ought to wake up and realize they've been had? No Republican politician actually gives a damn about these issues.

[2slugbaits]

realpc,

"he explained away their passion for religion as nothing but an outlet for frustration. And he similarly dismissed their concern about the right to own guns -- merely a result of financial frustration."

Obama's point was that downscale, rural white voters do not comprehend what's going on around them. The issues are too big, too complex, but they know something's not right. These are low information voters, and when they don't understand complicated abstract issues they tend to focus on more immediate issues that they can understand on an intuitive and concrete way. Things like gays, guns and God. Karl Rove has managed to convince these folks that banning assault rifles means they won't be able to hunt. The GOP tells them that if a Democrat wins in November then their kids won't be putting on anymore Christmas plays next winter. And they don't understand comparative advantage, but they do know that they're falling behind, so they blame immigrants and NAFTA. In another age they would have blamed Jews and Irish Catholics. Obama was pointing out was that these people are victims of false consciousness. Obama isn't saying that people shouldn't hold dear things like religion or family traditions of hunting. Obama's point is that these people are being manipulated when they are led to believe that someone is out to try and take away these traditions from them when it fact it's all just a shell game to distract their attention just long enough to make sure they vote the right way.

Will the old politics work? Probably. I'll say what Obama won't...half the voters are below average.

[pgl]

Bruce Wilder stole my thunder. I agreed with most of what Robert wrote but "Tim Russert, one of the smartest guys on television"? Russert is a village idiot when it comes to topics like Social Security. Just check the archives over at www.dailyhowler.com and you'll see what I mean.

[Andrew]

Is Robert Reich right that economic conditions will nullify old politics and make this election different?

Nope. In 2004, the economy and healthcare were being touted as the number one issues, along with the increasingly unpopular war.

Whether or not you believe that Bush stole the 2004 election (he did), over 59 million Americans voted for the guy. These same voters are not interested in Obama or Clinton. The Republicans have no reason not to play the same fundamentalist moral authority BS to distract from real issues that they have been playing for nearly three decades. The memes of morality, guns, religious 'oppression', and abortion are firmly entrenched in a huge swath of society, and the Democrats apparently have no idea how to counter this strategy.

The New Media conglomerates have utterly separated profit from the service they provide, and never again shall they meet. News is not important, advertisers are. There are no more Walter Cronkites. Opinion, not fact, is the name of the game, and the more divisive and emotional a response it gets, the higher the ratings go. As a result, the public chooses to listen to whatever opinion peddler conforms most to their worldview, and that is where they get their news.

Oh, and the election will be stolen again.

[Bruce Wilder]

realPC: "he explained away their passion for religion as nothing but an outlet for frustration. And he similarly dismissed their concern about the right to own guns -- merely a result of financial frustration."

Except he most emphatically did just the opposite. A religious man himself, Obama did not dismiss their religious faith. A constitutional law professor, who has spoken about the 2nd Amendment, and also as a man, who has spoken about the intergenerational traditions of hunting and sportsmanship with great respect, he did not dismiss guns, either.

What's wrong with the political dust-up is precisely that so many supposedly neutral reporters gravely report a narrative that gives people a decidedly false impression -- which, apparantly is the impression you absorbed. It is so wrong.

[esb]

2slugbaits:

What Rove actually tells them is that if another Democrat becomes President, ever, then two gay boys (or even worse, two gay girls) will move into the house next door and when one of the kids balls rolls over onto that neighboring lawn one of the new occupants might just pick it up and toss it back.

Worse yet, one of the new occupants might even talk to one of the kids.

Even worse, the kids might even like the new neighbors and come to realize that there is absolutely nothing wrong with them whatsoever,

and then the whole exclusionary American evangelical paradigm is lost.

The problem is not Rove, but the wiling recipient(s) of the absurd message.

I can no longer understand how these messages are able to be received, they seem so fatuous,

but perhaps I just have a limited, damaged mind.

[mrrunangun]

Guns and hunting as well as poles and fishing have been parts of American working class culture since at least the days of Natty Bumppo. So has religion, altho since the civil war the ladies have traditionally safeguarded and passed down that part of working class culture. Group solidarity is regarded as a positive when gay, feminist, black, or other countercultural groups' solidarity organizations are considered. When working class whites' group solidarity organizations are considered they are disparaged and suspected of being Klan equivalents. While many here agree with BO's take on the white working class, it is easy to see how his remarks might offend the dignity of the members of the white working class, the heart of the Democratic party for a hundred years. No such disparaging remarks by any candidate about gays, feminists, blacks, or hispanics would pass without outraged posts in these threads, and revisions and excuses would cut no ice.

[Wags]

The problem was not the bitter statement. It was saying that they "cling to their guns or religion" because of that bitterness. Nice stereotyping for a person who called his book, "The Audacity of Hope", after his pastor who says some real bigoted statements and who really sounds bitter. But I guess that bitterness is OK.

Everyone wanted Obama to be something special. We all know changes have to be made, but this was a condescending remark aimed at a different class of voters in front of San Francisco Democrats paying $1000 for a reception. It is elitist, and frankly it does upset me. It is no better than the macaca moment. He has ticked off a potion of Midwesterners, Reagan Democrats, the NRA, Small Town America, and reinvigorate the religion right in one moment. That is a major accomplishment in one small sentence, a real screw-up, and one which really sets back his chances.

If we are to improve America we can't be condescending. It is the one thing that none of us like whether we are left, center, or right.

[Andrew]

Are you kidding me?

Obama said: "And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

Assuming that this remark is an unfair stereotype, who is it a stereotype of?
The voters who put guns, immigration, or their religion forward as top political priorities have assuredly not been "the heart of the Democratic party for a hundred years."

The NRA does not elect Democrats. Neither do Christian Fundamentalists, racist groups, or Minutemen. And if he wasn't referring to folks like this, the he wasn't making an offensive stereotype, was he? You can't have it both ways.

[Wags]

"The NRA does not elect Democrats. Neither do Christian Fundamentalists, racist groups, or Minutemen. And if he wasn't referring to folks like this, the he wasn't making an offensive stereotype, was he? You can't have it both ways. "

Politics is about getting elected first & foremost. Bill Clinton understood that, he would never ever make that remark. History, when was the last real progressive elected President? The 1930's, it took the Depression. Duh!

To have change you must get elected! Politics is the art of building coalitions, not pissing off blocks of voters. It's the worst mistake you can make when 5% of the voters decide the election. That's who is at play. Know the game you are playing is the first rule.

Listen to Carvelle, he knows his stuff.

[Jim]

intelligence seems more like a log function that a linear one. I am fairly sure that more than half the population is below average intelligence.

[NLS]

Jim: "intelligence seems more like a log function that a linear one. I am fairly sure that more than half the population is below average intelligence."

That's not true. People just don't have enough sources.

[mdm4584]

>> Jim says...

>>intelligence seems more like a log function that a linear >>one. I am fairly sure that more than half the population is >>below average intelligence.

A log function of what? Time? Age?

[realist]

do these folk vote ?

the voter turnout is usually in the low 40%

says...

"The issues are too big, too complex, but they know something's not right. These are low information voters, and when they don't understand complicated abstract issues they tend to focus on more immediate issues that they can understand on an intuitive and concrete way. Things like gays, guns and God."

This is not too condescending is it? Hey, it's OK. It's just low bred white folk.

[brian holt]

Gordon,

there is also Media Matters for America. Very thorough. Perhaps too much so.

[lb]

Wags says...

Politics is about getting elected first & foremost. Bill Clinton understood that, he would never ever make that remark.

Let's see:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/13/bill-clinton-flashback-al_n_96433.html
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/04/14/will-media-remember-gov-clintons-insecure-white-people-remarks

''You know, he wants to divide us over race. I'm from the South. I understand this,'' Clinton croaked. ''This quota deal they're gonna pull in the next election is the same old scam they've been pulling on us for decade after decade after decade. When their economic policies fail, when the country's coming apart rather than coming together, what do they do? They find the most economically insecure white men and scare the living daylights out of them.'' -- Sunday Times, November 3, 1991

Bill Clinton, never made "that remark" but he did make reference to "the most economically insecure white men" being easily scared. He also asserted that race was/is a potent weapon in manipulating such people. I imagine the people described might not find his choice of words terribly flattering if shoved down their throats, either. Who likes to be called insecure or told that someone else is leading them around by way of fear?

The sky didn't fall when Clinton spoke in late 1991, nor is the sky falling because of Obama's recent words.

[Hank Jestor]

In reading this I get really confused. The U.S. was at one point where we are now. We had an extended period of Elites elected and crony capitalism ruled the day. This changed with the election of a presidential candidate. Andrew Jackson was the candidate.
This reversal in the U.S. changed the political scheme in the U.S. and brought forth the term "Jacksonian's". These are the people that will be offended and are easily manipulated by populous language.
These are the people that Obama needs to have in his camp to be able to make change in this country and these are the people who will never support him.
Forgive the Cracker Fools, they cut of their nose in spite of the face.

[anne]

There was nothing wrong in Barack Obama's conjecture on discontent, and far more thought should be given to such a matter, but I am thoroughly unconvinced that Obama or Reich are correct. Through all the poll reading I do not understand American unease at present, no matter the attempted class breakdowns, and this lack of my understanding bothers me.

Obama and Reich may be correct, but I just do not find evidence they are. A class unease is real, but why? Why is the unease not as evident as would be the case in France?

I do not understand, but wish there were more discussion apart from any criticism of Obama which is uncalled for.

[hari]

Mark, your old colleague/friend (now tenured at Berkeley) is not worth the salt of his useless words anymore - other than the fact he is *milking* every opportunity to squeeze a post in the event Barack wins - and I may suggest it now a very big IF!!!

Secondly, if anything, this thread demonstrates (once again!) the cultural demise of decline and fall of a civilization. There's little or no intelligence in the stuff of Reich - it's simple pietous rancor for attention!

Above all, I pity Barack the ever so audacious and intellectually clever guy - who now seems more and more as if he was campaigning for President of Harvard Student Body.

[Petter]

I watch MTP regularly. It is very often about the "politics" of politics, not so much the policies of politics. Now, maybe there are better shows for the latter, I still reckognize one thing: whenever the guy one has a soft spot for gets hammered as far as character, the normal response seems to be a wish for something else to talk about.

My guess it goes both ways (note!), but in this case I wonder where RR et. al. were when McCain was questioned about the decade old maybe-fling...

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/15/opinion/15herbert.html

April 15, 2008

Some Perspective on ‘Bitter’
By BOB HERBERT

Maybe Barack Obama felt he couldn’t afford to give the correct answer.

He was asked at a fund-raiser in San Francisco about his campaign’s experiences in the run-up to next week’s Democratic primary in Pennsylvania. One of the main problems, of course, is that he hasn’t generated as much support as he’d like among white working-class voters.

There is no mystery here. Except for people who have been hiding in caves or living in denial, it’s pretty widely understood that a substantial number of those voters — in Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia and elsewhere — will not vote for a black candidate for president.

Pennsylvanians themselves will tell you that racial attitudes in some parts of the state are, to be kind, less than enlightened. Gov. Ed Rendell, Hillary Clinton’s most powerful advocate in the state, put it bluntly last February: “I think there are some whites who are probably not ready to vote for an African-American candidate.” ...

Senator Obama has spent his campaign trying to dodge the race issue, which in America is like trying to dodge the wind. So when he fielded the question in San Francisco, he didn’t say: “A lot of folks are not with me because I’m black — but I’m trying to make my case and bring as many around as I can.”

Instead, he fell back on a tortured response that was demonstrably incorrect. Referring to the long-term economic distress of many working-class voters, Mr. Obama said: “It’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or antitrade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

He danced all around the truth. Unless you’re Fred Astaire, if your dance steps get too intricate you’re bound to make a misstep. This was a big one.

But there is something perverse in the effort to portray Senator Obama — who has tried hard to promote a message of unity and healing — as some kind of divisive figure. He has spoken with great insight and empathy, most notably in his race speech in Philadelphia, about the anxiety and frustration of middle- and working-class Americans.

In his San Francisco comments, Senator Obama fouled up when he linked frustration and bitterness over economic hard times with America’s romance with guns and embrace of religion. But, please, let’s get a grip. What we ought to be worked up about is the racism that still prevents some people from giving a candidate a fair chance because of his skin color.

Are working people bitter? There’s no doubt that many are extremely bitter over the economic hand they’ve been dealt. Those who believed that America’s industrial heartland was secure and everlasting have been forced to adjust over the past several years to an extremely bitter reality. Jobs and pensions have vanished. The value of the family home is sinking. Health care is increasingly unaffordable. For many, the cost of college is out of reach.

But “bitter” has a connotation that is generally not helpful in a political campaign. Bitter suggests powerlessness and a smallness of spirit. Most people would prefer to be characterized as “angry” — a term that suggests empowerment — rather than “bitter,” with its undertone of defeat.

So this was not a good episode for Senator Obama, however you look at it.

If I were advising him, I would tell him to confront the matter head-on, meeting as often as possible with skeptical, and even hostile, working people in Pennsylvania and elsewhere. Let the questions rip, and answer them honestly....

[baileyman]

One should wish for despair leading to anger among ordinary voters, for without that they will not demand change. But, it's the right wingers who are prepared with reform proposals to harness that anger for their own objectives. We will be lucky indeed if instead someone like an FDR sneaks through the gate and creates solutions beneficial to ordinary Americans. But this seems low probability.

[hari]

The average voter is much more intelligent than you are prepared to acknowledge. We witnessed today what the average voter delivered in Italy - Berlusconi again!

Barack will be roasted by GOP...then what will you argue for?
The guy is not adept at footbal-type rough skirmishes; too academic and removed from everyday Joe's life; liberal to no end in his ideological fervour; and not timid but arrogant-like-hell!

That is a good recipie for (a) certain failure, as we know it, from Ike's days....

[jean]

Are these folks working 2 or 3 jobs? Can they afford a computer? The high cost of the NYT everyday? Time to read this stuff? I've got all this (except the job, I'm retired) and I can't keep up. I don't want to spend the whole morning on the computer, reading the paper, this blog and a few others. Finding info, reading speeches, comparing candidates all takes time. Tv sound bites, the radio on while you work, all much easier. It's a fair amount of work to keep up and if you weren't an ace at reading and spelling, it's even harder.
And if you are saturated in guns, gays and god everyday, all day, and you don't have a strong philosophy one way or the other, repeated talking points/lies are effective.
That's what the Dems need to counter. Short effective frames that don't echo the Reps.
Not to mention the herd of cats the Dems are, while the Reps are lockstep. It's good to be a herd of cats, but hard to win elections.
I like Howard Dean's fifty state strategy. It gets a different point of view on the ground, where that POV hasn't been seen in many years.

[Patricia Shannon]

Jean, well said. There is a lot of ignorance among all classes in the U.S.

[Patricia Shannon]

Jean,
After I posted, I realized I might have sounded accusing. It's as you say, most people don't have time to be well-informed, esp. with the disinformation in the traditional media. It may surprise the members of this blog community, but a lot of people don't ever use a computer. Usually, people love my song "My Computer Has a Mind of Its Own". But when I sang it a song-writers critique, not a single smile. I asked afterward how many people used a computer. Not a single hand.

[Jack]

No, Reich is wrong and the strategies of "old politics," including more or less crude smear campaign tactics, will prevail. This is so because, of course, such tactics worked in the past, and people simply respond to such garbage. Does this mean America deserves its fate? Oh, yes.

[Holly W.]

a network that doesn’t give a hoot about its supposed commitment to the public interest ...

Wasn't the idea that networks have any responsibility to public interest pretty well gutted in the 1980s?

[anne]

Franklin Roosevelt, more so because of Eleanor, and John and Robert Kennedy were often able to seek out and listen to people for whom struggle was living, and the listening was broadly noticed and appreciated. I was told by my father about finding magazine pictures of John Kennedy in the shacks of families living and working in tobacco fields in Puerto Rico near 1970.

Barack Obama, as Bob Herbert suggested, needs to begin listening and talking to people who are otherwise not listened and talked to in Pennsylvania. I have not noticed this so far through the campaign.

[Bruce Webb]

"What's wrong with the political dust-up is precisely that so many supposedly neutral reporters gravely report a narrative that gives people a decidedly false impression -- which, apparently is the impression you absorbed."

Wilder you sell RealPC too short. There is a difference between absorption and dispersion. Mr. PC is a dispenser, he knows what he is saying and why.

[agricanto]

Barak's comment serves as a quick 15 minute diagnosis of patient in the doc's office for a complaint of "general malaise" (remember that one was Jimmy Carter's). So here's my medical metaphor for American bitterness. It was an astute insight that comes from a good old-school bedside diagnosis that will probably be confirmed "after the lab tests are in" (and which the patient will have to pay out of pocket because insurance only covers one of each every two years).

So come the real test at the Dem Primary the patient will still be hearing from the provider that the doc is wrong and that the real test of bitterness will have to wait until more (expensive) tests can be ordered in November.

Hillary is sitting there at policy central happily denying claims. As she gloats with her "DENIED" rubber stamp wondering if she should also stamp "DENOUNCE" and "REJECT", she waxes on about the glories of the American people and their total lack of bitterness. "Bitterness indeed," she'll mutter to herself "if anyone has the right to be bitter, it's me." Then she will draft the letter telling Doc Obama that he is not fit to be a doctor or that her insurance company is putting him on a watch list in case he tries to diagnose the patient ever again.

By this time the patient's malaise will have developed into a full blown stomach ulcer with complications and required surgery soon. Policy Central will continue to insist that bitterness is not coded correctly for coverage of more tests (DENIED for surgery) and Doc Obama will sadly tell his patient that he will have to refer him to a charity hospital for the surgery. But there is a 3 month waiting list because the provider continues to insist that the surgery is "elective" and not covered.

Frustrated and bitter, clutching his Bible wondering who he should shoot with his old family shotgun (the doc? the policy analyst? gays? the CEO of the insurance co.?) the patient walks down the street and stops at the offices of Dr. Pain McCain where his shingle is framed by the phrase "Serving the wealthy patient for over 100 years." The patient goes inside and finds a Frenchman and an Italian in the waiting room. Feeling the bitterness in his mouth and the burning in his stomach the patient sits down for the wait. "Don't worry," says the Frenchman, "you are next. We have already seen le docteur. We wait only to pay." The Italian says "he is not very good but I have been here twice. He reminds me of my former doctor, Giorgio Bush." The patient mumbles a thanks and wonders aloud "I wonder if I can afford it?" Hearing this, the Frenchman says, "Do not worry, he will take your mind off your pain and you can always file bankruptcy if your condition is catastrophique."

"I feel better already" says the patient. Then from inside the receptionist's window comes the familiar "Next."

says...

Petter: "in this case I wonder where RR et. al. were when McCain was questioned about the decade old maybe-fling..."

I don't know specifically where Robert Reich was -- Google does not indicate that he wrote on the issue -- but almost every liberal blog I read was highly critical of the conduct of the New York Times in focusing the narrative on unsubstantiated insinuations of sexual misconduct.

Human nature is to choose up teams, and identify with "our" team. But aside from the inevitable distortions of point of view associated with identifying with a team, there's no symmetry between Right and Left, in their characteristic criticisms of the Media.

The Left wants journalists to meet the standards of journalism as a profession, and to inform the public, accurately. The Right wants their prejudices confirmed, their ignorance reinforced, and their viewpoints reported uncritically, preferably without hearing anything at all from the Left that is not plainly ridiculous.

[Bruce Wilder]

Bruce Webb: "Wilder you sell RealPC too short. There is a difference between absorption and dispersion. Mr. PC is a dispenser, he knows what he is saying and why."

Of course, I am probably giving him too much credit for being an actual human being. When realpc is such a reliable echo of right-wing talking points, the null hypothesis that, like Instapundit, he's a thinly disguised bot, cannot be rejected on the available evidence.

[Bruce Wilder]

anne: "Through all the poll reading I do not understand American unease at present, no matter the attempted class breakdowns, and this lack of my understanding bothers me.

"Obama and Reich may be correct, but I just do not find evidence they are. A class unease is real, but why? Why is the unease not as evident as would be the case in France?"

I hope you will expand upon what puzzles you, for I, too, think this subject should be discussed more, with curiosity at the fore.

Of course, the criticism of Obama takes the form of pretending to misunderstand his remarks, and be offended. This rhetorical pose is designed to shut down serious discussion of the issues raised. That both Clinton and McCain should be so eager to shut down serious consideration of the sources of economic anxiety worries me.

I understand Clinton is doing so, motivated by tactical expedience, but combined with so many other small things, it is hard not to form a narrative, where she's running for the Republican nomination. It's very disturbing, viewed on a strategic level. And, maybe she's right, viewed against the electoral experience of the last 25 years, only Republican Presidential candidates are allowed to win. Maybe a Democrat and a liberal cannot win in November, and she's going to show us how and why that is true, before the irrevocable nomination is given. But, it is not a lesson I want, and I will not thank the teacher for it.

I'd rather hear about why what used to be called the white working class is so determined to keep handing power to the Republicans. I understand that mostly the unions that marshalled them, especially in the Midwest and Northeast, are much diminished. I understand the evangelical churches -- some of the churches at least -- do volunteer to marshal them for the Republicans. I understand the Media -- especially talk radio and Fox News -- supply attractive rhetorical poses, identification, and calculated misinformation. The aspiring white male in his twenties and thirties, with no union affiliation, with a couple of years of college, is particularly vulnerable to the offer to identify with, and belong to the Republican establishment, and to suggestions that Democrats only want to help "minority groups" of which he is not one, and that Democrats are "liberal elites" to which he cannot aspire.

The willingness of Americans to affiliate, to belong to voluntary social organizations, identify with them, and participate -- the Shriners, or the Elks, or the AFL, or the PTA, as well as traditional churches -- is at a low ebb. (I know there's been academic work documenting the trend quantitatively, but I wouldn't know how to google it up, right now; sorry). It has its upside. Americans have much diminished ethnic prejudices -- it is really remarkable, when you look back, historically, at how even educated Americans in the 1920's packed so much prejudice into a person being "German" or "Catholic". In a sense, people today, inside and outside the category, pack a lot of prejudice into "Evangelical", but it belongs to a set of categories that cover a relatively small part of the population, the committment to identity is weak -- this is not the faith of our fathers -- for most evangelicals, it is the faith of the last few years only, and won't be their faith a few years from now; people pass in and out and back in, sometimes, with something more like brand loyalty than a deep sense of faith and tradition and inherited identity.

And, Democratic "liberal elites" are remarkably insensitive at times, in both attitude and policy. The concept of solidarity appears to be very weak, on a practical level, among Democrats. I know I am often with Save the Rustbelt on some of these issues, like illegal immigration and "free trade", where I think liberals, unthinkingly embrace analyses, that are unconsciously hostile to the interests and understanding of a lot of Americans.

Signals of solidarity from potential leaders are very important to people, who feel vulnerable, ignorant and anxious. No one struggling to raise a family on $40,000 a year has the time or resources to independently reason out complex economic theories, or penetrate through Madison Ave rhetoric to evaluate candidate promises. They look to see if the candidate signals an ability to see things from their point of view, and respects them. So, George W. Bush buys a "ranch", rolls up his shirt sleeves and cuts brush, and puts out a press release suggesting that despite his sobriety since age 40, he'd be a great guy to have a beer with.

And, liberals -- at least those people, who play liberals on TeeVee and in newspaper op-ed pages are remarkably reluctant to criticize the Media itself, or the Right, and remarkably eager to criticize the Left. Joe Klein appears to exist solely to criticize Democrats. The narrowing of the range of opinion in mainstream Media, its omissions, and the general lack of seriousness, gives people very little traction on economic issues. If the Media does not help people understand the connection between Republican policy and why they are paying 400% interest at a payday lender, but they are fed some flag-burning, gay-bashing crap, well, what do you expect?

The corporate Media is a remarkably effective firewall against any Democratic attempt to educate the white working class about their economic interests and what the Republicans have been up to for the last 25 years. Every Republican pundit, almost every time he or she is on TeeVee will tell people what the Democratic Party stands for, in punchy cliches. Democrats on TeeVee rarely return the favor. Even relative firebrands like Krugman seem mystified to discover that, yes, Virginia, Republican economic policy is very effective in redistributing income and wealth upward. If Krugman is surprised to discover this, how do you expect Joe Smith in Scranton, to know his economic interest is so tied in with which Party is in power?

[Bruce Wilder]

hari: "The average voter is much more intelligent than you are prepared to acknowledge. We witnessed today what the average voter delivered in Italy - Berlusconi again!"

Is this sarcasm?

America's Media is a model of diversity and integrity compared to Italy, and American regional identity -- the much exaggerated willingness of poor white Southerners to vote like complete idiots -- is nothing compared to the what Italy produces, between the Lombard League and the southern Fascists.

As crazy as Americans may seem from abroad, after five years they did manage to recognize that Bush was a mistake, and I seriously doubt Rupert Murdoch could be elected dogcatcher.

[anne]

McCain, I pay no attention to. Clinton, however, is taking avantage of an opportunity to criticize Obama, simply because the opportunity was presented. Clinton has been talking of "working class" interests all through the campaign, while Obama has been reluctant to and this may explain the vulnerability now.

The immediate problem may simply be that Obama has avoided being remotely seen as populist, especially so in noticing how little effect Edwards had. When Obama tried to explain the difference between voting appeal, rather than just explaining that there was a need to pay more attention to "working class" needs and unease, he placed blame.

[anne]

Bob Herbert explains that there is an obvious history of racial unease, and though reaching out wonderfully that unease is lurking for Obama, but I do not think race was the problem in this instance. Rather the problem was not thinking back to the Roosevelts or Kennedys or Jesse Jackson in showing a decided "working class" sympathy or understanding.

There is too much polish about the campaign, and too little expression of interest in "working class" unease to begin to attribute steretypical characteristics to such unease, especially when such characteristics persist so and are so complex in nature.

[anne]

Was Obama afarid of being mistaken for Edwards all these months? Possibly, and with some reason but that will leave an emptiness. Eleanor Roosevelt could visit coal mining camps. There has been no Eleanor for Barack, and he has not shown such a sympathy. I think there is the problem, that allowed a few words that should be interesting an important to discusss, whether right or wrong, to become a problem.

[Bruce Wilder]

anne: "Was Obama afraid of being mistaken for Edwards all these months?"

I imagine, yes. Any practical politician would take warning. Personally, I wish Edwards' deep concerns about poverty had had more resonance with the country; it would indicate to me that mine was a better country. I give Obama credit, though, for recognizing that the country has to be cajoled into thinking we can be a better country before we will actually act like a better country.

I have listened to a couple of his stump speeches, and he's not at all shy about talking about his experience as a young community organizer. His willingness to take his career there says a lot to me about his committments and his practical education in the problems of the poor and the struggling.

I like this story from Charles Peters, founding editor of the Washington Monthly. It says a lot to me about his willingness to work on behalf of people, whose interests, per se, are not organized and represented. There's something genuinely idealistic about Obama, that allows him to champion doing the right thing by people who have no power, and to persuade others to cooperate in doing the right thing.

Obama wants this country to be the kind of country, which would want to do something for the poor. In my view, the difference between Obama and Edwards is that Obama is much more realistic about where the country is starting from, not that Obama is unaware of the need or the desirability of dealing with poverty and economic struggle.

I have listened to Obama's remarks on the "bitter" controversy, and the key point I see getting lost in this manufactured controversy, which Obama was trying to get at, is that people are "bitter" because they feel powerless about having their economic interests represented. Guns and religion become the prime political causes, because they don't think politicians can or will do anything about the economic issues. They don't vote on the economic issues, because they don't see that as an option; the only meaningful choice is about which Party affirms guns and God. Pretty explicitly this is a criticism of the Clinton Administration, which is somewhat unfair, and somewhat on target, for not delivering for these traditional Democratic constituencies and for not strengthening the Democratic brand on these issues.

Hillary's "lobbyists are people, too" attitude makes me uncomfortable. Talking about "fighting for working people" is a Democratic trope, but a losing one for the past 25 years; I don't read much into Obama eschewing that tired trope, beyond the good taste of a proud and skilled orator, (and maybe some insightful focus group analysis). I do think Americans should be more aware of class warfare as a policy dynamic in politics, but, so far, Democrats don't have the record of deeds to make this work -- Obama because he's too young, and Clinton because . . . remind me again why her record of "fighting for working people for 15 years" is so thin and ambiguous? President Clinton's welfare reform, which is what we got instead of health care, does not get me all warm and fuzzy that we are about to see Eleanor Roosevelt's genuinely sincere (albeit often quixotic) projects to address poverty will receive spiritual revival.

It is not lost on me that Charlie Black, McCain's corporate lobbyist campaign manager, comes out of the same corporate family as Mark Penn, and that Clinton has compared McCain favorably to her Democratic rival on foreign policy. (From what I know of John "One Hundred Years in Iraq" McCain, his foreign policy ideas are catastrophically wrong-headed and unwise -- surely Clinton knows this?).

(By the way, will someone explain to both Democratic candidates that only Republicans qualify as political "opponents" -- Democrats are always and only "rivals"? We, Democrats, compete to oppose Republicans; we don't oppose each other. This is certainly true of Clinton and Obama, who pretty much agree, broadly, on issues.)

My feeling about Clinton is that she's a better candidate than her campaign, and a better human being than her candidate, and its the unresolved discrepancies among those three that have troubled her bid for the nomination.

[BJ Feng]

Bruce, the American people are aware of the class warfare policies of the Democrats but have rejected it. Edward's poor showing with his anti-corporate message is some proof as you have admitted. The majority believe that our taxes are progressive enough. More to the point, they believe that it would be a greater tragedy to take more from those who have earned it to alleviate the tragedy of poverty. The statement is harshly worded, but the principle is true. As for economic ideology, there is nothing wrong with payday advancers to charge 400% for a loan as long as it is openly disclosed. The borrower does not have to accept. Plus there are many other less costly forms of credit, only the truly questionable if terms of ability to repay that loan, would ever need to borrow at those rates. And therefore those rates are needed to compensate the lender for the extreme risk he is taking in making that loan. Making those types of loans illegal would do nothing but make it impossible for people who want those loans to borrow, or subject them to unregulated personal loans from sharks. The American people understand this concept for the most part and that's why Obama and Clinton cannot go as far as Edwards. Hell, Obama has even promised a tax cut for the middle class. Like it or not, Americans understand the policies and proposals that are out there, they just don't agree with the far left.

[BJ Feng]

The reason Obama's comments matter is because he sold himself as a candidate that would take into account the needs and views of all Americans. People are attracted to his IMAGE much more than his policies, which are not all that impressive. But now, thanks to his pastor and these comments, that IMAGE is being called into question. What if he does have grudges against Whites and what if he does have a very negative opinion of gun owning, God-fearing, small town Americans? We want to believe that he's a person who is willing to embrace all and will try to unite the country by pushing aside our petty differences and championing positive values we can all agree on. But that's all in doubt now.

Obama's policies have always been second to his appeal as an understanding and tolerant uniter. Even I was attracted to his uplifting message before I delved into the actual details of his proposals. But his recent statements and his relationship with his pastor puts that message at risk. The media is right to expose the Wizard of Oz, if what he's saying is fake and he doesn't really believe in his own carefully crafted message of hope.

[hari]

Bruce Wilder -

I was not sarcastic at all! After all, the voters are the *sovereign* under the Constitution - no matter how whacky or illinformed their political perspective - and more often than not they are the true reflection of society at-large.

My point about the Italian election result was simply - without reforming the electoral system - the devastated electorate decided to devolve (Yes!) a two party system, and make the Italian Parliament finally workable. The Communists and Left parties, as well as, Right parties, didn't make it....which speaks a lot about the wisdom of the socalled ill-informed and poor electorate. Doesn't it?

You need *shock* like that in American federal politics - to sort of get rid of the deadwood and balant political deadlock, I think.

[hari]

Moreover, I'm convinced, and irrespective of his mixed-race inheritance and whatnot, the guy is still NOT - repeat NOT! -
experienced to move from a Chicago-based community worker to managaing the affairs of State and Federal Gov. When Clinton won the WH, he'd no foreign policy-making experience, but state level administration and attorney general's experience to boot. Of course, you can surround yourself with *Cheny's and whatnots* to sort out policy priorities.... and with all her shortcomings HRC might be a better choice right now.

[wjd123]

It’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”--Obama

Ever since last Friday when I first heard this remark by Obama Ive been feeling like the Spice Girl in the Prago commercial. Something was missing. I was disappointed with Obama but I couldn't figure out exactly why. I've been trying to understand that feeling every since.

I tried out words like patronizing and elitist but came away unsatisfied because they didn't explain my feelings. I listened to the pundits on TV in the hope that they could capture for me what I was feeling. They couldn't. I read William Kristol's column in the New York Times. Very professorial, except for the last paragraph, but it was no help. I was getting annoyed. Why couldn't I put my finger on what I was feeling.

Yesterday I began to think that I would need to one day wake up with an epiphany to lay my finger on why I was so unhappy with Obama's remark. I decided I would deconstruct the statement from my point of view. I knew by last night that approach would be my best hope.

I put aside the "bitter" comment and the part about guns and religion. It didn't make any sense to me, so it didn't bother me. In fact, I was getting annoyed at MSNBC referring to the controversy that erupted as the "bitter battle." That was Hillary's take, not mine. No, I knew I'd find my discontent in the last part of his statement about anti-trade and anti-immigrants sentiments.

When I logged on tonight I was surprised and happy to find this subject. Surprised because it didn't seem economic enough to be on Mark Thoma's blog and happy because I could once again try to induce my epiphany moment. (That I was willing to turn to you guys--that's the non gender "guys," Anne--just shows how desperate I was.)

Well thank you Bruce Wilder for this: "I know I am often with Save the Rustbelt on some of these issues, like illegal immigration and "free trade", where I think liberals, unthinkingly embrace analysis, that are unconsciously hostile to the interests and understanding of a lot of Americans." Bingo! Obama had promised to remain open to understanding. His remark didn't make it sound that way.

[anne]

Bruce Wilder:

"I have listened to Obama's remarks on the 'bitter' controversy, and the key point I see getting lost in this manufactured controversy, which Obama was trying to get at, is that people are 'bitter' because they feel powerless about having their economic interests represented."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/16/business/16bailout.html

April 6, 2008

Big Tax Breaks for Businesses in Housing Bill
By STEPHEN LABATON and DAVID M. HERSZENHORN

Critics say the housing relief bill is adding up to a bailout for big businesses, as the legislation includes billions of dollars in tax breaks for automakers and airlines.

[Point and counterpoint.]

[anne]

Bruce Wilder:

"I have listened to Obama's remarks on the 'bitter' controversy, and the key point I see getting lost in this manufactured controversy, which Obama was trying to get at, is that people are 'bitter' because they feel powerless about having their economic interests represented."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/16/business/16wall.html

April 16, 2008

Wall Street Winners Get Billion-Dollar Paydays
By JENNY ANDERSON

Hedge fund managers are making money on a scale that once seemed unimaginable. One manager, John Paulson, reaped $3.7 billion in 2007.

[Point and counterpoint.]

[dale]

One thing this incident points out is that the day of the meta conversation about politics is over. At least among active candidates. Or at least every meta conversation will need to be framed in a way that meets the rhetorical requirements for full disclosure to the public.

[anne]

http://www.feri.org/common/news/details.cfm?QID=2056&clientid=11005

April 7, 1932

The Forgotten Man
By Governor Franklin Roosevelt

Albany, N. Y.

Although I understand that I am talking under the auspices of the Democratic National Committee, I do not want to limit myself to politics. I do not want to feel that I am addressing an audience of Democrats or that I speak merely as a Democrat myself. The present condition of our national affairs is too serious to be viewed through partisan eyes for partisan purposes.

Fifteen years ago my public duty called me to an active part in a great national emergency, the World War. Success then was due to a leadership whose vision carried beyond the timorous and futile gesture of sending a tiny army of 150,000 trained soldiers and the regular navy to the aid of our allies. The generalship of that moment conceived of a whole Nation mobilized for war, economic, industrial, social and military resources gathered into a vast unit capable of and actually in the process of throwing into the scales ten million men equipped with physical needs and sustained by the realization that behind them were the united efforts of 110,000,000 human beings. It was a great plan because it was built from bottom to top and not from top to bottom.

In my calm judgment, the Nation faces today a more grave emergency than in 1917.

It is said that Napoleon lost the battle of Waterloo because he forgot his infantry—he staked too much upon the more spectacular but less substantial cavalry. The present administration in Washington provides a close parallel. It has either forgotten or it does not want to remember the infantry of our economic army.

These unhappy times call for the building of plans that rest upon the forgotten, the unorganized but the indispensable units of economic power, for plans like those of 1917 that build from the bottom up and not from the top down, that put their faith once more in the forgotten man at the bottom of the economic pyramid.

Obviously, these few minutes tonight permit no opportunity to lay down the ten or a dozen closely related objectives of a plan to meet our present emergency, but I can draw a few essentials, a beginning in fact, of a planned program.

It is the habit of the unthinking to turn in times like this to the illusions of economic magic. People suggest that a huge expenditure of public funds by the Federal Government and by State and local governments will completely solve the unemployment problem. But it is clear that even if we could raise many billions of dollars and find definitely useful public works to spend these billions on, even all that money would not give employment to the seven million or ten million people who are out of work. Let us admit frankly that it would be only a stopgap. A real economic cure must go to the killing of the bacteria in the system rather than to the treatment of external symptoms.

How much do the shallow thinkers realize, for example, that approximately one-half of our whole population, fifty or sixty million people, earn their living by farming or in small towns whose existence immediately depends on farms. They have today lost their purchasing power. Why? They are receiving for farm products less than the cost to them of growing these farm products. The result of this loss of purchasing power is that many other millions of people engaged in industry in the cities cannot sell industrial products to the farming half of the Nation. This brings home to every city worker that his own employment is directly tied up with the farmer's dollar. No Nation can long endure half bankrupt. Main Street, Broadway, the mills, the mines will close if half the buyers are broke.

I cannot escape the conclusion that one of the essential parts of a national program of restoration must be to restore purchasing power to the farming half of the country. Without this the wheels of railroads and of factories will not turn....

[Notice the construction of a critically important issue.]

[Callahan]

Robert is RIGHT!

Amen brother.

[hari]

It's the purchasing power of the farming class and those other's who support their farming activities that needs to be supported and thereby provide a basis for equity in the system - that's what the Governor is demanding.

BTW, have you ever heard *the great decider* speak in that simple and direct language....?

[Patricia Shannon]

John Edwards was competitive in the polls and primaries until the media started totally ignoring him.

How can we expect humanity to survive in the long-term when we have shown repeatedly that we cannot even remember reality for more than a few weeks?

[Patricia Shannon]

BJ Feng says...

The majority believe that our taxes are progressive enough. More to the point, they believe that it would be a greater tragedy to take more from those who have earned it to alleviate the tragedy of poverty.

Yeah, the plutocracy who is bringing us the meltdown of our economy really "earned" their riches.
The middle and upper classes could not exist and could not have as high a standard of living if it were not for the working poor. Under our system, where they are so poorly paid, the rest of us are parasites.

[anne]

Notice that in the public television report on international health insurance, a conclusion that was easily reached was that insurance must be required for a national system to work. Paul Krugman and John Edwards understood that, and had Barack Obama understood there would almost surely have been support from Edwards and possibly Ralph Nadar who repeatedly sought to meet with Obama to discuss such matters. Such advising voices need to be heard in the campaign, even if indirectly. Austan Goolsbee is no voice of "working class" America.

[anne]

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/16/midwestern-economics/

April 16, 2008

Midwestern Economics
By Paul Krugman

One thing that doesn’t seem to have gotten much scrutiny in the “bitter” controversy is the suggestion that the past 25 years have been an era of continuous economic hardship for the American heartland. If we’re talking about the decline of industrial cities, there’s some truth to that picture. But if we’re talking about incomes and employment, the Clinton years were pretty good for middle-income Americans — and especially good for middle-income Midwesterners.

[Chart] Good times gone

[anne]

Notice what Paul Krugman is showing about how well middle class Midwesterners fared during the Clinton Administration. The Clinton years were time of continually improving economic conditions for middle class Americans in general and definitely so for the middle class of the Midwest much to the discomfort of those who would distort history.

Say what?

[Bruce Wilder]

PK: "If we’re talking about the decline of industrial cities, there’s some truth to that picture.

I don't think "point and counterpoint" means point and illustration of point, but ymmv.

[anne]

The point is that a long-term decline of industrial cities was stemmed and reversed during the Clinton years, and could well be reversed again by intelligent sensitive fical policy. I do not find such policy being written about by Austan Goolsbee. Obama avoided addressing the needs of beset homeowners and communities best by housing problems for most of the campaign.

Simply complaining about being criticized by Annie Oakley about guns, does not speak to setting down sensitive economic policy.

[anne]

I am still waiting for an understanding from Obama of why every international health care insurance policy maker interviewed on public television understood that national health care must be inclusive but Obama is bent on destroying the possibility and supporters refuse to push the matter as they refuse to push on Iraq.

The excuses are annoying.

[wjd123]

In its editorial "Guns and Bitter" the The New York Times is recommending what subjects should be covered in tonight's debate: Anything but trade and illegal immigration.

If the candidates don't discuss trade issues in Pennsylvania just when should they discuss them. And when it comes to illegal immigration the Democrats have an ace in the hole. They are willing to talk about employer sanctions with bite and and the Republicans, for the most part, aren't.

Instead Democrats play down the subject and Republican wall building become the prime enforcement technique. To hear the Times tell it, every time the Democrats talk about trade they are pandering. Therefore they shouldn't talk about trade least they disturb established doctrine. Shouldn't the candidates be reminding the voters in Pennsylvania that when it comes to voting against free trade agreements their Party's members do it more than Republicans.

[BJ Feng]

Anne, there is no need to understand. What you need is to feel. Don't you feel hopeful? Can't you feel the hope emulating from this man? It is with his sheer personality and radiant power of hope that this man will bring America together and solve the problems of the poor. Obama doesn't need a sensible policy, nor a logical one either. There is nothing logical about hope and determination. You are using the wrong part of your brain here, think not, just believe!

P.S. I think that would be a great tagline for Obama's campaign, "Think not, just believe!" - a message brought to you by Obama 2008.

[BJ Feng]

I can't wait for the floor fight when the DNC starts. If you think the media coverage is bad now, wait until then. Hopefully, the anarchists and professional protesters of the left will show up and with luck, burn down all of Denver. These people know how to party. When does the riot start? At 8PM? Ok, I'll be there, bring your own firebombs!

[NLS]

BJ Feng is anti-hope. Figures. Good luck when you go over to Iran to fight, I'll pray for you.

[Bruce Wilder]

anne: "a long-term decline of industrial cities was stemmed and reversed during the Clinton years"

I am an admirer of Clinton Administration economic policy, but I'm also from Michigan, and I know better than to make such a silly, unfounded assertion.