Paul Krugman: It’s the Economy Stupor

Can Obama " find the passion on economic matters that has been lacking in his campaign so far"?:

It’s the Economy Stupor, by Paul Krugman, Commentary, NY Times: By rights, John McCain should be getting hammered on economics. After all, Mr. McCain proposes continuing the policies of a president who’s had a truly dismal economic record... And the public blames the White House, giving Mr. Bush spectacularly low ratings on his handling of the economy.

Meanwhile, The Times reports that ... Mr. McCain still “dials up” Phil Gramm,... who resigned as co-chairman of the campaign after calling America a “nation of whiners” and dismissing the country’s economic woes...

So Mr. McCain would seem to offer a target a mile wide: a die-hard supporter of failed economic policies who takes his advice from people completely out of touch with the lives of working Americans.

But while polls continue to show that the public, by a large margin, trusts Democrats more than Republicans to handle the economy,... Barack Obama has at best a small edge over Mr. McCain on the issue... And Mr. Obama’s failure to achieve a decisive edge on economic policy is central to his failure to open up a big lead in overall polling.

Why isn’t the Obama campaign getting more traction on economic issues? ...[L]ack of passion. When it comes to the economy, Mr. Obama’s campaign seems oddly lethargic.

I was astonished at the flatness of the big ... speech he gave in St. Petersburg... billed as the start of a new campaign focus on economic issues. Mr. Obama is a great orator, yet he began that speech with a litany of statistics that were probably meaningless to most listeners.

Worse..., he seemed to go out of his way to avoid scoring political points. “Back in the 1990s,” he declared, “your incomes grew by $6,000, and over the last several years, they’ve actually fallen by nearly $1,000.” Um, not quite: real median household income didn’t rise $6,000 during “the 1990s,” it did so during the Clinton years, after falling under the first Bush administration. Income hasn’t fallen $1,000 in “recent years,” it’s fallen under George Bush, with all of the decline taking place before 2005.

Obama surrogates have shown a similar inclination to go for the capillaries rather than the jugular. A recent Wall Street Journal op-ed by two Obama advisers offered another blizzard of statistics almost burying the key point — that most Americans would pay lower taxes under the Obama tax plan than under the McCain plan. ...

[T]he last Democrat to make it to the White House ... had no trouble conveying passion over matters economic.

In his speech accepting the Democratic nomination in 1992, a year in which economic conditions somewhat resembled those today, Bill Clinton denounced his opponent as someone “caught in the grip of a failed economic theory.” Where Mr. Obama spoke cryptically in St. Petersburg about a “reckless few” who “game the system, as we’ve seen in this housing crisis” — I know what he meant, I think, but how many voters got it? — Mr. Clinton declared that “those who play by the rules and keep the faith have gotten the shaft, and those who cut corners and cut deals have been rewarded.” That’s the kind of hard-hitting populism that’s been absent from the Obama campaign...

Of course, Mr. Obama hasn’t given his own acceptance speech yet. Al Gore found a new populist fervor in August 2000, and surged in the polls. A comparable surge by Mr. Obama would give him a landslide victory...

But it’s up to him. If Mr. Obama can’t find the passion on economic matters that has been lacking in his campaign so far, he may yet lose this election.

Comments

[Bruce Wilder]

Krugman on politics is tiresome, indeed. If he has some evidence for his thesis that the American People long for a populist vision, he should bring it forward; otherwise, he should shut up. He doesn't know what would cause Obama to surge ahead in the polls, and should not be mind-reading the whole electorate, while pretending that he does.

Obama has managed to draw a clear contrast on income taxes, and is fighting to keep it from being completely obscured by our incompetent Media. Larry Bartels is pretty clear that Obama's tax plan, as simple as it might seem to this blog's readers, is just the kind of thing American voters get confused about, and the Media proves incapable of reporting on accurately. Populism is not as easy a campaign theme as Krugman imagines.

On a number of other populist themes -- the mortgage crisis, gas taxes, off-shore drilling -- Obama would run some serious risks of committing himself to bad policy, if he tries to out-demagogue McCain on these issues. Does Krugman have any ideas about how to stop "Drill Here, Drill Now"? I didn't think so.

Obama is ahead in the polls, which indicate -- surprise! -- that about a third of the electorate has not paid any attention, yet. A majority of voters in 2004 elected George W. Bush; those people and their bad judgment haven't gone away, and their numbers, though diminished, put a floor under McCain's support, and a ceiling on Obama's.

Clinton's economic populism may have been a lovely thing, but not nearly as lovely in terms of his electoral chances, as Ross Perot. Clinton never achieved an actual majority, but he didn't need to. Obama will have to have an actual majority to beat McCain, but he's well on track to achieve that.

[NLS]

Bruce Wilder is on point once again. Most folks still haven't begun to pay attention and haven't even entered the stadium. (For example, note the traction Jackass Corsi's slash and bash book grabs.) PK is no doubt a brilliant economist, but doesn't he understand that injecting doubt and offering hesitation only steepens the hill?

The object of the game is to beat McCain.

[Cyrille]

Bruce Wilder on Obamania is tiresome. Anyone who speaks his mind for anything but singing the praise of Obama is immediately rebuked.

Krugman asks to state demonstrable facts, Bruce Wilder calls that asking to out-demagogue McCain. Uh?

Obama's lead in the polls is considerably smaller than his party's, so surely he must be doing everything perfectly. Still, Krugman notes that Obama has not had his acceptance speech yet, and that it could create a surge, but that won't make him less tiresome since he's a miscreant, he does not blindly worship.

Republican economics should these days be called names that will get you censored if children might be watching (they should have for the past 30 years, but now the conclusions are so obvious and immediate as to be plain to all, even those who reckon that "in 3 years time" is too far to ever happen). Failure to do so is yet another worrying sign that Democrats have turned into Republican light.

They have stolen, looted, lied and ruined a country the size of a continent for the sole benefit of them and their cronies. It's not demagogue to hold them accountable. And it's crazy to not attack them on that when the horrible consequences of their acts are the main thing on everyone's mind (OK, Iraq should be as well, but now all the media reports are sterilised and very few people in the US will get first hand experience).

[Cyrille]

NLS, no, the goal is not to beat McCain, it's to have progressive policies.
A victory over McCain that would come at the price of having promised yet more Republican policies would be worse than defeat while promoting progressive ones -because McCain would have a Democratic congress in any case.
And the failure to be vocal about progressive policies makes them appear fringe (even though Democrats actually are to the right of centre -there is no leftist party of any significance in the US) and ever less likely to happen. You need to shift left the political window. By a couple of blocks at least.

If most people have not paid attention yet, well being mellow isn't going to wake them up. A last minute decision would not be to Obama's advantage, when anyone who WILL have spent some time thinking will want Republican out (unless we're talking about someone who's both in the top 0.1% of earners AND a selfish bastard).

[Average Voter]

Dear Economy:

Ya'll just got jacked by Sakashvili (and Scheunemann). A slight bit of October magic, pulled a little earlier(while Obama was golfing in Florida, and the rest of us were watching the Olympics), now gives us our second-biggest issue. Russia gets to play the right noble patsy. They can't be thrilled with the role, given that the opening act in our play is Georgia razing a city and killing civilians and peacekeepers. Russia had to defend these people. They suck at PR, though, and drawn into this setup, we "teh west" are being trained now to fear and hate them. It works. I already feel the bile churning in my stomach at the mere mention of the name Medved -- wait, Sarko -- no, Putin. Whatever.

McCain now has the game-changer he so dearly needed. I've never seen electioneering politics used in an international scrum before. I'm thrilled to have witnessed such an act.

I'm just curious how we'll feel on the morning after, Nov. 5, when we realize what we've done.

You can keep talking about our credit crisis, current account deficit, or unemployment rates, but we won't be listening until you mention gas prices.

[NLS]

Cyrille, points taken. Krugman should spend his time drawing the contrast between the two rather than doing the CNN Political Ticker's job of ending everything in a question mark. Get it?

A Democratic Congress will not stop McCain from throwing cruise missiles at Iran.

[Cyrille]

Won't it?
We are talking about a veto-proof Congress -that's what the massive advantage that the party has nationwide is pointing to.
I'm not a US constitutionalist, but I thought that Congress COULD do something to restrain a president. With some spine of course, which is often seems to lack...

[Andrew Hartman]

Everything Krugman says now is aimed at achieving one goal:
having something to be critical of for the next four years.
If McCain wins, Krugman will continue with the preening and
back seat driving. If Obama wins, Krugman will continue with
the preening and back seat driving: more in sorrow than in
anger, of course.

As to the economy: we are in the beginning of a shift from
too much debt and too much consumption to much less debt
and much less consumption. This will be painful all across
the board, and no one can get elected in this country
talking about reality, even if they understand the nature
of the problem, which I doubt Obama and McCain do.

[bakho]

Part of what we see on national news is the sound bite the national press chooses. They are choosing to under report the economy and are foreign policy focused. However, Obama does not use the word "jobs" often enough in his speeches or explain why different policy would work better to create jobs. Obama is making the mistake of assuming Americans will connect the dots instead of connecting the dots for them.

This election was never going to be a landslide. It was always going to be close. The 1992 recession election was close and probably would have had a different result without Ross Perot.

[hari]

Paul is fundamentally right in his criticism. Lots of unnecessary nuances seem to inject themselves into BOs economic speeches, so far. The guy is not able to strike a cord of populism - he ain't made out of it!

[save_the_rustbelt]

Wow, are we boys and girls grumpy this morning?

A year ago it was clear the Democrats would win Ohio and Michigan easily, due to 7 years of economic deterioration.

Obama has now put that in jeopardy. Maybe bad mouthing the auto industry for nearly a year was not such a hot idea. Maybe dissing on Michigan was not so smart. No one believes he is going to renegotiate NAFTA.

If Obama loses Ohio and Michigan he loses. If he loses Ohio but takes Michigan he may win. To be comfortable he needs both.

The Democrats may snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

(And what's up with the Clintons and Denver - smash and trash?)

[anne]

"Everything Krugman says now is aimed at achieving one goal:
having something to be critical of for the next four years.
If McCain wins, Krugman will continue with the preening and
back seat driving. If Obama wins, Krugman will continue with
the preening and back seat driving: more in sorrow than in
anger, of course."

Loe on, lie on, lie on.

[Andrew Hartman]

Hey Anne: I don't like Krugman, you do. And that makes me
a liar? Or something? Why don't you drop the Delphic Snark
for awhile and try something new.

[Ryan]

"Paul is fundamentally right in his criticism. Lots of unnecessary nuances seem to inject themselves into BOs economic speeches, so far. The guy is not able to strike a cord of populism - he ain't made out of it!"

Is it the nuance injecting itself, or does Obama look to obfuscate everything?

Anyway, perhaps the reason populism isn’t being bought is that the ones selling it, by all means, are rather elite, aside from maybe Kuchinich (nah he saw a UFO or something, and looks a bit too much like Perot) or Gravel (crazy old guy.)

[anne]

"Everything Krugman says now is aimed at achieving one goal:
having something to be critical of for the next four years."

Lie right on.

[ken melvin]

Bruce, Cyrille, NLS, Andrew, ... any of you all of you - gives us your definition of 'progressive'. It's seems to be becoming more and more important that we know what people mean when they say 'progressive'.

[anne]

"For example, note the traction Jack Corsi's slash and bash book grabs."

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/17/obama-meets-with-pickens/

August 17, 2008

Obama Meets With Pickens
By John M. Broder

RENO – Senator Barack Obama and T. Boone Pickens, the Oklahoma oilman turned wind farmer, met for a few minutes this morning to talk about energy and the economy.

Aides did not share the details of their meeting, but Mr. Obama took one question from a reporter, who wanted to know why he was meeting with a man who spent $3 million supporting the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth campaign to tear down Senator John Kerry, the Democrats’ 2004 presidential nominee.

Mr. Obama looked a bit uncomfortable and then said that’s not what he planned to talk to Mr. Pickens about, according to a pool report from the meeting, "Ah, you know, he’s got a lot longer track record than that. He’s been doing, ah, he’s a legendary entrepreneur and you know one of the things that I think we have to unify the country around is having an intelligent energy policy." ...

[Ah, you know, I know, we know, know.]

[Ryan]

Unless you are particularly referring to progressive taxation, use of the word progressive elicits a blank stare from me; it is just another useless political euphemism. As always, I’m open to being educated otherwise.

[anne]

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/18/a-sense-of-anxiety/

August 18, 2008

A sense of anxiety
By Paul Krugman

Uh-oh [Chart]

This chart is from fivethirtyeight.com, * a (very pro-Obama) poll analysis site. The site now warns:

"Although Barack Obama remains a slight favorite in this election, his position is more vulnerable than at any point since the primaries concluded, and he no longer appears to have a built-in strength in the electoral college that we had attributed to him before."

* http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/

[Don Quijote]

Populism from Obama? Get real.

Obama is an upper-middle class good government guy who won the nomination by appealing to upper-middle class good government types (Liberals) and African-Americans, there isn't a populist bone in his entire body. Unfortunately for him and us, he is going to discover that outside of the the upper-middle class good government types (Liberals) and African-Americans, he has very limited appeal.

[zero]

Bruce Wilder - I think you are too harsh on Krugman.

My take is PK wants Obama to start campaigning more on the Economy as PK feels Obama has some strengths in relation to the other guys.

Another 500 words of blather to package this idea as a column does give some things to quibble about. In many of your other posts you would seem to support PK's basic idea here.

Rust Belt - maybe you are giving Michigan and Ohio too much weight? If the local Democratic machine is broken, could any candidate be assured of winning the area? Maybe in a major landslide but if close organization counts, and the type of organization required takes years to build.

[im1dc]

If "Our Professor Krugman" was pitching for the Yankees the game would be a No Hitter:

"No, the problem isn’t lack of specifics — it’s lack of passion..."

And when at bat PK hits a GRAND SLAM:

"Obama surrogates have shown a similar inclination to go for the capillaries rather than the jugular."

Why isn't Obama paying attention to PK?

[im1dc]

"Don Quijote says...Obama...has very limited appeal."

Ummm, then what does that say about McCain's "appeal" which is far more narrow and limited?

says...

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24195787-2703,00.html

August 18, 2008

Obama, McCain Measured on Faith
By Laura Meckler and Amy Chozick

As president, [Obama] said he would rely on a range of public figures, singling out Democrats including liberal Senator Ted Kennedy and Republicans such as conservative Senator Tom Coburn. The wisest advice, he says, comes from putting together a "table where a lot of different points of view are represented"....

[I am like all, "hooray."]

[anne]

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24195787-2703,00.html

While he hesitated in responding to some of the tricky policy questions, Senator Obama readily invoked religious themes. Asked what Christianity meant to him on a daily basis, he said: "I believe that Jesus Christ died for my sins and that I am redeemed through him." ...

[Now that I know, I am so relieved.]

The last comment was mine, as well.

[me]

"Unfortunately for him and us, he is going to discover that outside of the the upper-middle class good government types (Liberals) and African-Americans, he has very limited appeal."

I really do not understand why he isn't getting that. He spent $7 million in Florida advertising and didn't move up a tenth of a point against McCain.

If I were not way ahead of McCain at this point I would be very concerned. What did he even win in the last 10 primaries. Any states with more than 3 electoral votes?

Why would he continue to ignore 18 million that voted for HRC?

Did he learn nothing from Bill Clinton, like "I feel your pain" and then says what he is going to do about jobs, health care access, health care costs, the war in Iraq? He was getting out and now he's not.

I am still amazed that 10 republicans and 10 democrats started out in the primaries and these two idiots are what we get to pick from.

[swells]

Well, I've got a bit of a different take. From where I stand, things look dismal for the economy for the foreseeable future. To work our way out from under a mountain of debt and a ton of future, and currently unfunded, liabilities will take a lot of hard work and a huge amount of sacrifice by everyone in the country.

I think Obama is just trying to keep expectations reasonable given the 50% tax burden on everyone that is coming. Getting elected is one thing. Getting elected in a way that makes the seriousness of our situation clear and is quite another. Accomplishing the former without the latter is a recipe for disaster in the years ahead.

[Bill]

The economy will likely recover with the falling oil price

[Peter Schaeffer]

Here is the real reason Obama hasn't passed the "economy" test. Obama and his class of globalized elites are doing just fine and don't think we have a problem. In this respect the only difference between McCain and Obama is the spelling of their names.

Consider trade. McCain affection for "free" trade is only exceeded by his ignorance of it. Obama plays the trade card when it is convienent and then sends Goolsbee to privately tell the Canadians "don't worry, be happy".

McCain's people think Americans are whiners about gasoline prices (and everything else). Obama's crowd thinks we should have $10 gas to promote conservation (and keep the roads clear for them).

Obama and McCain think America's only immigration problem is a shortage of cheap servants.

Foreign debt, manufacturing decline, trade deficits, dependence on foreign financing, serial bubbles...

A complete list would be long...

[swells]

Here is a link that I think is germane to this post and reflects some of my concerns about the coming economic mess:

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/08152008/transcript1.html

It's a link to a transcript of Bill Moyer's Journal where he is interviewing Andrew Bacevich. Bacevich is no economist. He (and by implication I) could be completely wrong.

But, I don't hear much saying why this view is wrong that is fact based.

Here's one series of quotes from the transcript.

BILL MOYERS: And this is connected, as you say in the book, in your first chapters, of what you call "the crisis of profligacy."

ANDREW BACEVICH: Well, we don't live within our means. I mean, the nation doesn't, and increasingly, individual Americans don't. Our saving - the individual savings rate in this country is below zero. The personal debt, national debt, however you want to measure it, as individuals and as a government, and as a nation we assume an endless line of credit.

As individuals, the line of credit is not endless, that's one of the reasons why we're having this current problem with the housing crisis, and so on. And my view would be that the nation's assumption, that its line of credit is endless, is also going to be shown to be false. And when that day occurs it's going to be a black day, indeed.

BILL MOYERS: You call us an "empire of consumption."

ANDREW BACEVICH: I didn't create that phrase. It's a phrase drawn from a book by a wonderful historian at Harvard University, Charles Maier, and the point he makes in his very important book is that, if we think of the United States at the apex of American power, which I would say would be the immediate post World War Two period, through the Eisenhower years, into the Kennedy years. We made what the world wanted. They wanted our cars. We exported our television sets, our refrigerators - we were the world's manufacturing base. He called it an "empire of production."

BILL MOYERS: Right.

ANDREW BACEVICH: Sometime around the 1960s there was a tipping point, when the "empire of production" began to become the "empire of consumption." When the cars started to be produced elsewhere, and the television sets, and the socks, and everything else. And what we ended up with was the American people becoming consumers rather than producers.

BILL MOYERS: And you say this has produced a condition of profound dependency, to the extent, and I'm quoting you, "Americans are no longer masters of their own fate."

ANDREW BACEVICH: Well, they're not. I mean, the current debt to the Chinese government grows day by day. Why? Well, because of the negative trade balance. Our negative trade balance with the world is something in the order of $800 billion per year. That's $800 billion of stuff that we buy, so that we can consume, that is $800 billion greater than the amount of stuff that we sell to them. That's a big number. I mean, it's a big number even relative to the size of our economy.

BILL MOYERS: And you use this metaphor that is intriguing. American policy makers, quote, "have been engaged in a de facto Ponzi scheme, intended to extend indefinitely, the American line of credit." What's going on that resembles a Ponzi scheme?

ANDREW BACEVICH: This continuing tendency to borrow and to assume that the bills are never going to come due. I testified before a House committee six weeks ago now, on the future of U.S grand strategy. I was struck by the questions coming from members that showed an awareness, a sensitivity, and a deep concern, about some of the issues that I tried to raise in the book.

"How are we gonna pay the bills? How are we gonna pay for the commitment of entitlements that is going to increase year by year for the next couple of decades, especially as baby boomers retire?" Nobody has answers to those questions. So, I was pleased that these members of Congress understood the problem. I was absolutely taken aback when they said, "Professor, what can we do about this?" And their candid admission that they didn't have any answers, that they were perplexed, that this problem of learning to live within our means seemed to have no politically plausible solution.

[Julio]

Every time I read stuff about what Obama should be doing or not doing, I remember that he is one of the smartest "political animals" in my lifetime. He went from nowhere against the powerful and well-prepared political campaign of Hillary Clinton and won.

So with all due respect to Paul Krugman, the posts in this blog, and my own ideas about what Obama should do, I think he's much better at running a campaign than any of us.

So, I'll mostly watch. And, hopefully, learn.

[RW]

I've had doubts about Obama since the (astonishingly early) beginning of the nomination season but lack of intelligence, subtlety and a capacity for faith are not among them. His choice of economic advisors did not endear him to me but frankly I am not in a position to quibble: The Republican brand is now so polluted that anyone who adheres to or promotes it is soiled and I confess that I simply couldn't vote for a Republican in this cycle and hold my head up (things would not be so simple if there were more Andrew Bacevich's around but there aren't so...).

But Obama has larger problems, much larger: He must appeal on multiple levels and he must not only quell apprehension he must foster thoughtfulness, a willingness to look beneath the skin. He's obviously aware of the scurrilous rumors circulating about him in the religious community but also knows that many evangelicals are serious students of the bible and quite capable of textual analysis and capable of honoring its conclusions. I suspect Obama would consider it well worth the risk of an unfriendly venue to foster the possibility that some might become interested in knowing him better, perhaps engaging their analytic capacity more fully in the process.

We should not forget that evangelicals have been systematically exploited, manipulated and lied to by right-wing politicians and leaders using hot-button issues such as abortion and homosexuality and they are not entirely insensitive to how little their support of the right-wing has changed anything for the better. I suspect there are more than a few who will take that second look.

And if they do I think the very act of analysis will reveal something else: That they actually know less about the celebrated war hero than they know about his opponent.

Frank Rich, not one of favorite columnists, shows here at http://tinyurl.com/66b2ef that even a modest pass through the fog surrounding McCain can reveal some surprisingly contradictory tidbits. And Rich makes another point I agree with: The notion that Obama is now 'losing' has precious little foundation.

In any case I do not believe the religious right is what it was even four years ago and while I have no doubt the majority will probably still wind up voting for the celebrated war hero, hoping against vain hope that they have found someone who will keep his word, I don't think there are as many of them willing to be blindly led over the cliff as there once were. May the same be said for the majority of all of us?

[.]

The truth seems to be that Obama has been a disappointing candidate since winning the nomination. He appears to have a tendency to say whatever he feels is required for the moment without having much conviction about anything at all.

Obama really is the perfect TV candidate. He looks good and sounds good and entertains, but there is little substance to be found in his reading of the campaign scripts... even if he does read far better than McCain.

Obama has yet to win a real identity for himself. He remains the Black candidate in spite of efforts to define who he “really is”. But to win in November, he’ll need a far larger identity. I’m beginning to doubt he actually has one.

[cautious]

krugman's a hillary backer and she's in the vote at the convention now. i suspect this is the beginning of a clinton-backed "obama can't win" campaign to try to put enough doubt in the minds of the delegates to snatch the nomination away at the convention,... but then again, i always see conspiracies around the clintons.

[btg]

The problem with Obama is that he many primatires by talking about doing politics differently - about uniting people and not doing the "old" politics - which helped him win because while many of the older die hard Dems voted for Hillary (and initially, many blacks as well), young people an INDEPENDENTS (and even a few republicans in open primaries) voted fot him.... so in some respects he is trapped by his own past approach to winning the nomination.

But the other thing he spoke about was "change" and this needs to be his theme, while not seemed to be going negative (leave the attack ads to be done by the party or by proxies for the Democratic Party, just as the swiftboating was done against Kerry)

[NLS]

"Unfortunately for him and us, he is going to discover that outside of the the upper-middle class good government types (Liberals) and African-Americans, he has very limited appeal."

Oh yeah, I forgot that Iowa and Wisconsin are all upper-middle class good gov types and African Americans.

[save_the_rustbelt]

Question for the day:

Did a dysfunctional primary system give us two mediocre candidates?

Question for my Democratic party friends:

What is gonna blow up in Denver?

[swells]

save_the_rustbelt, Honestly, I don't know how to answer your question. If Obama means what he says about getting beyond the politics to which we've all grown accustomed I think he could be a truly outstanding leader. Unlike McCain, he has the intellect to deal with the complexities.

This of course reflects my view that there really isn't much difference between republicans and democrats these days. Yeah sure, they have different constituencies but they are both all about gimme, gimme polictics instead of actually earning one's way in the world (whether one is a country or an individual).

To, I think it's possible Obama could be great but it's not a sure thing. McCain would simply be another embarrasment on the world state as he has neither the intellect nor the temperament for the job.

[hari]

@ Swell -

Thanks for your rendition of OBs lack of justaposition and irrelvance on economic malise now confronting the Great Satan- after almost eight yars of Bush/Cheney policy of *starve the beast* pheonomenon.

Let's be generous and assume BO and his surrogates know bloody well how incompetent they have been until now - not only inability to pull away from Republican Democracy candidate - but also their preocupation of non-partisanship.
The latter I assume is the achilles heel of BO; he simply doesn't accept the dogma of Republican Democracy; Paul is trying to give him a vent to exhibit a bit of economic excellence in his policy format gooing forward; yet, for all what we might desire, BO is bent upon non-partisanship as a theme, as far as he can pull it thru to Denver and thereafter.

I hope for God's sake someone, like Bruce Wilder or similar character, can open up his mind and wisdom to Republican Democracy and its ideological indulgence to monopolize economic debate based on laissez faire economics. Bo is unable to puncuture the dogma of Republican Democracy which has until now made the Great Satan not only decline in global power but becoming more and more irrelevant admin after admin....in global affairs.

[Jas Jain]

--
And housing will be a drag for years and years…

Housing Market Index and Traffic of Prospective Buyers Stays at an All-Time Low

From the survey of homebuilders:

http://www.nahb.org/generic.aspx?genericContentID=529

A reading below 20 means that the conditions are horrible.

The actual housing demand during prolonged recessions is NEGATIVE (people move in with others) and America’s econ-whores claim that the housing inventory is being worked off? By 2012, as the recession turns into a depression, there will be 25 million Vacant Units in the US and most of the housing will be owned by some federal agency.

Free market for housing, or debt, in a country controlled by debt pushers and evildoers as the leaders (Greenspan, Bush and Bernanke)? Moral bankruptcy of America has preceded the financial and economic bankruptcy. “The American People” are bred to be dopes so that crooks and their agents, economists among them, can easily control them via propaganda. America, an idea whose time is past.

Jas

[Bruce Wilder]

str: "Did a dysfunctional primary system give us two mediocre candidates?"

The primary systems of the two parties are quite different, and they produced contrasting candidates. Obama is a an excellent, historic candidate, leading an extraordinarily capable campaign organization, and an enthusiastic, motivated Party.

McCain is a pretty typical Republican Presidential candidate: bereft of principles, callow, stupid, a serial liar, he's really old and he heads a campaign organization staffed from top-to-bottom with corrupt lobbyists. But, it wasn't a dysfunctional primary process that produced McCain, anymore than it was a dysfunctional primary process that produced Richard Nixon, Spiro Agnew, Ronald Reagan, Dan Quayle, George W. Bush or Richard Bruce Cheney. The Republican Party is designed to produce liars and fools and crooks, in service to the plutocracy.

[hari]

McCain will institute his *Alliance of Democracy* with Israel- as the lynch pin - and Middle East as its focal strategic struggle for dominance and power. May be Israeli/IDF had a hand in Saaks invasion of OS with Liberman's advocacy to advance McCain as C-C - who knows.
The Cabal has a way of working itself to power whether it's hi fi empire or global restitution of a single ideology....

Swell's idea of McCain being a disaster for the Great Satan, as its advocate, I take it he doesn't trust his honesty to stick to principles. Does BO inspire such goodness in a leader, I don't know. The guy is unproven...however much I'd like to make him succeed; he doesn't fail to disappoint me with his non-sececuter stupid statements of non-partisanship in an election in which the winner takes all!

Nevertheless, I've been challenging our host to deal with the *decline and fall* of the Great Satan; he doesn't trust me or will not admit the facts of the case, so far. McCain will inevitably run roughshot of global concerns and project an aggressive advance of his *Alliance...* which EU and China, India and Brazil...to name a few important parties... will hasten to regroup and fight him to a last ditch political confrontation.

[hari]

In principle, I agree with Bruce wilder, BO is the ultimate persona to regain American prestige and power in the world.
However, even BW must admit now that the way BO and his surrogates are davancing the contest for power is a failed strategy. Non-partisanship is OK - once you're in the Oval Office - not before - because it may deter your ability to influence the marginal/independent voter, me thinks.

Now is the time to influence the demarcation line and make it stick with the opposition. The electorate are seemingly waiting for a messiah to deliver - ain't it so!

[dissent]

Well, if the worst happens and McCain wins, what then?

I think the McCain campaign is going to try to make its case to the voters based on what it perceives as its strengths in defense and character, and avoid economic issues.

But the economy will be a huge issue in the next administration. I think McCain would have the shortest honeymoon in history. People in fact don't want a McCain economy, McCain taxes, deficits, offshoring, union busting, health care. But that is what they'll get, with McCain. The nation's political divides may get violent, because the suffering will continue to increase.

I also think the election of McCain would be decisive in breaking American soft power, and that could impact the dollar, trade, foreign financing of our deficits, etc. Hoover here we come.

[dissent]

"Obama Tilt Toward Rubinomics Stirs Warning From Organized Labor"

The above is a Bloomberg headline.

The ironic thing is that Obama in fact is running as an advocate of Clinton-style economic policies, while he does not (as Krugman mentions) let the word 'Clinton' past his lips, at least in relation to the economy.

But Bill Clinton didn't run as an advocate of Clinton-style economic policies, those he adopted under political pressure once he won.

He ran more to the left. He won that way. A lesson for Obama?

[dissent]

"A Rubin protege, Jason Furman, is now the economic-policy director of Obama's campaign."

From the Bloomberg article, check it out:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=aJ.pKsYB_DfU&refer=home

[swells]

hari, I'm not sure I understood all your comments. But yes, McCain would be a disaster. He simply doesn't have the intellect to deal with the issues. He also, in my view, goes to his gut way more than a sensible person should. And, he will be beholden to all the big-money and small-minded interests that have come to dominate republican politics.

But, I don't know that Obama will be what is needed. He could actually be quite bad and still be much better than McCain. Don't get me wrong, I intend to vote for him and have contributed substantial sums (for me anyway) to his campaign. I've even done a little work campaigning for Obama. But, his vote on the FISA bill concerns me greatly. His willingness to expand faith-based initiatives is also troubling to me.

I just think the problems we face and will be facing are not amenabe to solution with the same old, same old politics I've seen over my lifetime. It has to quit being about winning and losing for a particular part and get to be about figuring out how things are and how they aren't and devising solutions that are reality based.

[dissent]

Just one more, from the bloomberg article:

"At an Aug. 5 town hall meeting in Berea, Ohio, Obama touted the benefits of a strong dollar, a cause Rubin championed at the Treasury. ``A strengthening of the dollar'' would mitigate rising gasoline prices, he said.

The statement appalled economists aligned with unions, which fear that a stronger dollar would make imported goods cheaper and hurt export sales. ``The strong-dollar policy is very harmful,'' says Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington. ``There's some real fundamental differences between the Rubinites and the labor people, and I don't know how you get them on the same page.'' "

[save_the_rustbelt]

McCain has an editorial in one of the Detroit newspapers today (www.detnews.com) outlining his "economic surge" economic plan including wage insurance and training for displaced workers and specific energy and automotive proposals.

Whatever one thinks of the policies, it is now a package with a clear and easily identifiable theme.

The Democrats should win this election. The Democrats may lose this election.

[Bruce Wilder]

Julio: "So with all due respect to Paul Krugman, the posts in this blog, and my own ideas about what Obama should do, I think he's much better at running a campaign than any of us."

I can understand armchair quarterbacking. My sports fan buddies always think they know better than the coach or the professional players, too. And, maybe, sometimes they actually do. I do think Obama's campaign is extraordinarily good, however.

What I do not understand -- and I see this in Krugman's column as well as in comments -- is the easy dismissal of the American political environment and electorate: the corrupt, incompetent Media, the corporate plutocracy, and an ill-informed electorate where a majority could vote for Bush (after 4 years of experience with him!)

In my personal political convictions, I am to Obama's left. Heck, I am to Krugman's left. On issues from Iraq to health care to FISA, Obama is more conservative, in his rhetoric and in his policy proposals, than I would wish. But, I am realistic enough to recognize that the President I would wish for, could not be elected in the U.S. circa 2008.

In arriving at his political poses and rhetoric, I see Obama as being clever and calculated, within the bounds of some (but not my) principles. That's as good as it gets, in politics. I perfectly understand why some people take on a paranoid interpretation of that clever/calculating somewhat-moderate-conservative political persona. For his pose to work in cobbling together the support of 51%, he has to appeal to a pretty broad spectrum, never giving any subset enough reasons to reject him, which means never giving them quite enough information to pin him down too precisely. Too little information is strategically necessary, even if it, necessarily, provokes a paranoid response.

I think if Obama were as aggressively "populist" as Krugman desires, it would create several problems for his candidacy and campaign. First, he, personally, would have to say things, which would make him seem more angry a person, and that would not be appealling to a lot of people, who vote the person they find most attractive, ignoring policy and philosophy. Second, he could scare the corporate plutocracy, a significant part of which is clearly not supporting McCain.

It would be nice, if a majority of the American People were to wake up to the fact that the Republican Party is a bunch of crooks in service to ruthless Plutocrats, but I don't think that has happened, or is likely to happen. Instead, I think the main dynamic in 2008 is that some smallish, but significant parts of the Republican base of secular, suburban professional and corporate-business conservatives think things have gotten out of hand with the Republicans, and it is time for a change.

Both Obama and Clinton seemed to recognize that that was the dynamic in this election -- that was the shift in votes and money (especially money) that would make a Democratic President electable. So, you get Obama meeting Pickens and Clinton meet Mellon-Scaife. You get conservative states like Alaska and Montana and Colorado and Virginia moving into the Democratic column.

In competing to take advantage of this conservative shift -- and it is, primarily, a conservative shift that is opening the door -- Obama and Clinton had somewhat different advantages and disadvantages, which were exposed during the primaries.

In his own mavericky way, McCain and the other major Republican primary candidates, were competing to counter this conservative shift; I think McCain's campaign has failed miserably in this task, and this will become apparent in the campaign's home stretch.

There are real dangers for progressive hope in this kind of election, where winning depends on conservatives shifting into the Democratic Party. One is that they will, learning nothing from their own failures, impose conservative policy within the Democratic Party. Another is that they will show no committment, and leave again as soon as the Republican Party has cleaned house and recovered a bit of nerve. A third -- and this is what scares me -- is that, with control of the Media in corporate-plutocratic hands, President Obama can be effectively "hooverized" -- blamed for "losing Iraq" and for increasingly severe economic problems, so that the consequences of Republican malfeasance are mostly transferred to the hapless Democrats in the minds of much of the electorate.

I see the Obama campaign doing many of the right things in the circumstances. One of the most important is the massive effort to motivate young people to become involved and to vote. Even if the door to winning has been opened by a conservative shift away from the Republicans, if enough younger people can be brought into a Democratic/progressive/liberal identification, that shift could have profound consequences for politics. Even if some of the conservatives shift back to the Republicans, the Republicans may not be able to regain a majority, if there's been a large enough demographic shift to the Democrats among younger voters (who, polls show, are heavily, heavily identified now as progressive/liberal), and the influx of young, progressive voters may counterbalance the conservatives, keeping the Democratic Party a liberal/progressive Party confident in its policy preferences.

In 1992, Clinton benefitted from a conservative shift, as well. But, that conservative shift did not come into the Democratic Party -- it went to Perot. Clinton did nothing to strengthen the Democratic Party; Perot supporters went back to being Republican voters, and the rest is history, as they say. This time may be different. We live in hope.

[donna]

I think all these comments show that this election is much more about the American people than anything Obama does or doesn't do. Will the American people reject the Republican lies and corruption, and begin to move in a new direction, or not? That is really the only actual choice we are presented here. Clinton would have been more of the same. McCain is more of the same. Only Obama offers anything different, any change at all. He totally pegged it -- this election is about change.

The questions about whether or not Obama can help create that change are indeed valid. The questions about whether or not he realizes this is what he has to do, what he has to present, are not. Sure, his economic message could be stronger. And we will see what his plan is to present it. But certainly Democrats are complicit in the creation of our current economy. He could try to peg it all on Bush and Bush Sr. and to some extent he will, and perhaps he wants to get the facts out there in his own way first. But the choices made, the decision to run the U.S. economy on debt, were not those of Republicans alone. And it would be a mistake to say that, in spite of what PK says. Whether or not Obama can win the election, and what strategies he needs to use, are certainly valid for discussion. And I agree that PK's comments are valid that Obama should attack hard. But it is ultimately up to the campaign to decide when and how to do that.

I don't think Obama is going to ignore PK's advice. I think it is a matter of timing the attacks. It is certainly possible to bleed to death even with an intact jugular vein, and it is certainly possible to parry and thrust before sticking the point into the jugular. As has been pointed out, most people aren't even paying attention yet. Perhaps it is best to save a great attack for the moment when they are focused on McCian.

[Bruce Wilder]

dissent: "He ran more to the left. He won that way. A lesson for Obama?"

Not unless a third-party emerges.

Clinton won in 1992 with 43% of the vote. If Obama only needed 43% of the vote, he could get it by running more to left.

[dissent]

This is the deal: white American voters are not instantly inclined to see a Black male as an advocate of their interests and defender of their families and communities.

This is not exactly racism. It's not based on an attitude that Obama lacks competence, etc. It is more like group-think, a kind of tribalism.

The problem is, that all working Americans need an advocate. We are suffering, have been suffering, are going (fairly rapidly) downhill. We need an advocate in Washington, DC.

I think Obama's reasonableness plays against his effectiveness as an advocate for working Americans. His calm, his balance, don't communicate that he will fight like a bulldog to improve economic security for working Americans. It critically undermines Obama's case to this group. I think that is the fundamental reason why he has failed to "close the deal" with this group of voters in primaries and polls. Voters believe, with reason, that without that fight quality in a leader who is defending their interests, their interests and needs and priorities will not get addressed. AFter all, that is the status quo.

In the absence of this advocacy, you have McCain's quality of 'fight like a bulldog' - against the wrong things (Iran, Russia). And you have McCain's whiteness, which in the trust area, inclines the white working class to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Frank Rich in today's NYTimes described Obama's campaign as 'overly genteel'. I think that's correct.

The way race is operating in this election is a bit new. It is about trust and not bias. This is what is not fair: McCain defaults to being more trusted by the white middle and working class voters (even when he would shaft those voters). Obama has to make the case.

There are two ways.

Obama has begun, in various ads, to show how McCain is a candidate who loves the elites and shafts working Americans. He is business as usual.

This is good, it may not be enough.

It is really important to TARGET the TRUST that the working class has for McCain. It can be destroyed. It has many vulnerabilities. He is an old timer and his record and character are there to be used against him. But this has to be a strategic task, done thoroughly and deliberately (through surrogates, in many cases).

If this is not something in Obama's character, if he is not capable of going negative in this way, I think he will lose.

It's possible the Obama campaign really sees our essential national problem as one of partisanship, and that explains his approach. But it is not partisanship: it is the rise of predatory elites and the decline of the middle and working classes. If this fundamental error of analysis is driving the Obama campaign, again, he will lose.

I have a lot of experience in the technology industry, and there are certain political attitudes in that world, among those leaning Dem. They are politically soft, suburban, well-meaning. They don't understand politics as war. I worry that he has too many of this type in his "genteel" campaign, and not enough South Side of Chicago (where I'm from) Democratic warriors.

[dissent]

For how to destroy the trust the white working class has in McCain see:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_I6GXfDUSM
And also:
http://therealmccain.com/

[hari]

Donna - I like your deliberate pragmatism and with it a bit of wishful thinking too. People are already taking side and the pendulum is not swinging BOs way to any significant degree - inspite of Bruce Wilder's optimism. However, BWs take is also to the point; namely, time is parhaps not right for a *frontal attack* before the Denver Convention - ie. VP crowned by the party too.

Meanwhile, the policy framework is being eroded by Bush/Rice dilly dallying on national security issues and more less boxing-in, as I said before, the next occupants policy options.

BO is playing to the gallery which I find not only a distraction but somewhat close to *dishonesty*. Because if Change is what he represents, he'd obliged to contradict the mess Rice is creating right now in Central Europe....She's been a singular advocate on *failure* of projecting US national interest - Iraq to Georgia now. Bo is actually supporting her strategic posture and more....

In a two party system, I understand, the room for policy manuvere is limited given the difficulty of cementing a sort of red line. BO is not even trying to project anything more than a modicum of rhetorics about Change - there is no meat in that slogan, so far.

If he fails to get over the hurdle - he might become deperate and make things worse....

[anne]

"This is the deal: white American voters are not instantly inclined to see a Black male as an advocate of their interests and defender of their families and communities.

"This is not exactly racism. It's not based on an attitude that Obama lacks competence, etc. It is more like group-think, a kind of tribalism."

Care to show the evidence, since I think this is demeaning rubbish; a king of tribal, group-think rubbish.

[lonesome moderate]

I see no reason to expect anything but a close election. Obama is running against a tough, savvy, apparently well funded opponent, and he has some formidable political negatives that will continue to limit his appeal to the broader public. I have always expected a close election and I still do; probably it will come down to a gaffe or emerging news story the week before Election Day.

[anne]

"Obama is running against a tough, savvy, apparently well funded opponent, and he has some formidable political negatives that will continue to limit his appeal to the broader public."

Ah, like what precisely? Like the candidates ideas? Please do explain the formidable political negatives.

[hari]

Anyhow, in terms of national security issues arising from the (Rice's) debacle in Georgia/OS, there is good chance now that EU-27 might call an Extraordinary Executive Session with Heads-of-State to deal with Russia if the ceasefire negotiated by Sarkosy is not implemented by both parties to the conflict. [You can see it on EU-info blog.]

This might reprive BO from getting his teeth into it - let the EU sort it out. However McBush has already got a lot of mileage from it, as C-C, compared to a more or less silent BO.

[hari]

Anyhow, in terms of national security issues arising from the (Rice's) debacle in Georgia/OS, there is good chance now that EU-27 might call an Extraordinary Executive Session with Heads-of-State to deal with Russia if the ceasefire negotiated by Sarkosy is not implemented by both parties to the conflict. [You can see it on EU-info blog.]

This might reprive BO from getting his teeth into it - let the EU sort it out. However McBush has already got a lot of mileage from it, as C-C, compared to a more or less silent BO.

[anne]

Could it be remotely possible that any of Barack Obama's ideas are a problem? Like making war in Afghanistan, and adding bombing in Pakistan for the sport? Like the Obama adviser, Gordon Kahl, who just returned from Iraq to explain that Iraqis are not near being able to settle their affairs without American soldiers present? Like threatening Iran? Like echoing the Administration on Georgia and Russia? Like denouncing Hugo Chavez, and anyone Latin American leader who might be intered in Chavez's approach to development? Like making a settlement in Israel-Palestine that much more difficult?

Do ideas ever matter?

[hari]

Anne - Anthony Lake is the problem not the solution for all the strategic issues you listed. And he's recruited a solid member/supporter of AIPAC as his advisor on Palestine/Israel diplomacy/conflict resolution.

Sooner or later Richard Holbrooke will emerge and distill BO ideas from a strategic perspective which confronts McCain and his advisors belligerance...and more.

[dissent]

"This is the deal: white American voters are not instantly inclined to see a Black male as an advocate of their interests and defender of their families and communities.

"This is not exactly racism. It's not based on an attitude that Obama lacks competence, etc. It is more like group-think, a kind of tribalism."

Care to show the evidence, since I think this is demeaning rubbish; a king of tribal, group-think rubbish.

anne I'm curious to know whether you think racism is over in this country, and if so, what is your evidence. If not, please give details about the substance of your disagreement with my view. I do not understand your political analysis.

My expertise is growing up in an integrated neighborhood in the heart of the segregated South Side of Chicago (Obama's district, btw). So I saw a lot of balkanized communities and I saw a lot of white racism. Of course since that time I've travelled and lived widely, from the mid-west to the west.

In any case, I'm not making the argument that Obama can't win because of racism (not that you are interested in my argument, obviously you didn't read even the whole post). I am trying to understand his obstacles and how to address them successfully.

[kthomas]

Do ideas ever matter?

Not when it comes to politics. Politics is like the art of seduction, anne. Ideas only matter to idealists.

[Dickeylee]

I think that next Tuesday is going to be pivotial for BO and the Dem's. How HRC handles her name being placed into nomination, and her speech afterward, can go a long long way towards uniting the party.
I'm hoping that she starts the push for the White House for the Democrats, and leaves no doubt that she's behind Obama in his efforts. Her issues will carry added wieght in the senate with a Democrat in the WH. She could in fact become the deal maker in the Senate, holding sway (and power). BO's agenda would have to go through her, and his victory this November can omly happen with her support this fall.

[save_the_rustbelt]

Dickey:

What are the odds that the Clintons turn the convention into a fiasco? 0% 5% 10% 20% ???%

Even if the Clintons have the best of intentions, could this blow up?

There are no exact parallels I can remember.

says...

Anne--I could not find anyone by the name of Gordon Kahl who has visited Iraq or had anything to do with the Obama campaign, perhaps there was a spelling error?

I think we all know what Obama's political negatives are, which have nothing to do with substance.

[lonesome moderate]

That was me.

[rufus]

Bruce W's tireless assault of Krugman is growing tiring. Almost as much as his hallowed efforts at populist speak and down with the plutocrats mantra, that seek to ingratiate him to both sides of any discussion…I think that is best described as hypocrisy. My only hope Bruce, is that you are in now way involved in education. How can one possibly find fault in this column? Succinctly stated, Krugman contends that Obama should be breaking McCain's & all the republicans’ legs over the economy. Obama is not doing so, and that is a big mistake.

[btg]

str: "Did a dysfunctional primary system give us two mediocre candidates?"

McCain wasn't so mediocre in 2000 - and the question really his how did the primary system and the electoral system make 2000 such as close enough race that it came to bush winning the GOP nomination and then to the supreme court being able to hand the presidency to bush?

Obama is hardly mediocre - head of the Harvard Law Review etc., but he is short on experience... but then, so was Lincoln.

It is Augast - few people are paying attention, and what really matters is if Obama can rise to the challenge after the conventions (and the conventions themsleves matter little) - how these to do in head-to-head debates will be key, along with whatever swiftboating type nastiness we get from "unofficial" republican supporters.

[anne]

http://www.juancole.com/2008/08/kahl-iran-tamed-mahdi-army-al-maliki.html

August 16, 2008

Colin Kahl, just back from Iraq, reports that: *

* http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=43577

Colin Kahl, not Gordon; good grief.

I have no idea what Obama's non-substantive negatives are, but I do know that lots of what I hold as substantive negatyives are being and have long been ignored by supporters.

[Bruce Wilder]

anne: "Could it be remotely possible that any of Barack Obama's ideas are a problem?"

I think I am, more or less, where you are, anne, on most foreign policy issues. I'd like to see this country run as fast as possible from its self-destructive military-industrial complex and associated Imperial pretensions. I don't see any reason to make a bogeyman out of Chavez or Iran. (I'm not quite with you on Afganistan and Pakistan, though.)

That said, I see Obama practicing a Hotelling politics, where he adopts a rhetorical position, which is deliberately designed to be as close as possible to his opponents', even if his policy position differs. To use a fight analogy: he doesn't stand back and box, he grapples close and wrestles. Wrestlers, it should be noted, almost always beat boxers.

He did this to Clinton in the primaries. On policy, he and Clinton were very nearly identical, and I cannot help, but think that he directed his entire Senate career with an eye toward making himself, on policy, almost indistinguishable from Clinton.

He has almost nothing but policy differences with McCain; it is difficult to imagine two viable major Party candidates, who differ more on the substance of economics or foreign policy. But, on rhetoric, Obama has moved to an Hotelling extreme -- especially with regard to foreign policy, where McCain has genuine personal convictions and committments -- and, I think, it is very, very effective, in terms of electoral politics and strategy.

For people, whose opinions are on the anti-imperialist Left, it does make it hard, sometimes, to remember that Obama's actual foreign policy committments are all to Bush/McCain's left -- withdrawal from Iraq, support for multilateral institutions, dialogue and negotiation in place of adamant hostility with Cuba, Iran, etc.

But, the other side, for people whose foreign policy prejudices/opinions are in the American chauvinistic middle mush of exceptionalism and ignorance, Obama's Hotelling rhetorical positions highlight (and I emphasize, particularly for more conservative or moderate people than me) the extent to which McCain, by contrast, is a hotheaded, delusional fool.

From the point of view of the moderate, shallowly-informed independent voter, Obama seems safe. And, if Obama were to use less "tough" rhetoric, he would open himself up to McCain suggesting otherwise to these key voters.

I don't think Obama would win any votes by emphasizing in rhetoric, say, the wisdom of divorcing American policy from the extremes of Israeli Likud politics. That kind of "nuance" would just make him vulnerable to cheap shots from McCain, and motivate the virulent Israeli Lobby to support the Republican. As electoral strategy, it would be a disaster. And, it is not even that most American Jews are in agreement with American policy toward Israel, or its alignment with the Israeli Right; it is just a matter of how the fight would go, once the Media did its usual incompetent dive, and it was all reduced to sound-bites and slogans, and thirty second fulminations from the worst sort of paid talking head on television.

We could wish that the critical mass of "independent" voters had a better, more sophisticated understanding of politics, economics and foreign policy. But, if they did, they would not "independent", would not be ill-informed, and would not be so open to influence from 30-second spots in the last 3 weeks of a Presidential campaign that has gone on for almost 2 friggin' years already.

[dale]

Bruce, I don't see where Senator Obama's rhetoric is illuminating how McCain is a hot headed, delusional fool. At least not to the conservative voters as you state. This should be remarkably easy to do- but I don't see it happening.

[hari]

Bruce Wilder, the elder statesman (!), is rationalizing; however, I'm prepared to accept his logic and look at a bit furthr down the road...

* BO has given McCain the weapon with which to tame him as incompetent as C-C.

* BO has avoided to confront directly the contradictions in McCains arguments on Georgia/OS - leaving the electorate to agree that he's more than qualified for C-C post.

* The electorate is not rational, I agree, but it's BO who is not moving them towards his beliefs that he's qualified to be C-C.

*HRC 3am(!) telcal (advert) is making sense now - ain't it?

[Bruce Wilder]

dale: "I don't see where Senator Obama's rhetoric is illuminating how McCain is a hot headed, delusional fool. At least not to the conservative voters as you state. This should be remarkably easy to do- but I don't see it happening."

Of course, I'm not saying that Obama is calling McCain a "hot-headed, delusional fool". I'm saying that Obama has set up the contrast between the two of them in such a way that the difference between the two candidates that stands out, is that McCain is hot-headed and delusional (or senile enough to keep forgetting that Czechoslovakia no longer exists, that kind of thing). At this stage in the campaign, it is still about what the pundits and surrogates will say, shaping the conventional wisdom going into the post-convention campaign proper. Only after the convention, will the Obama campaign actually have, say, a commercial that suggests McCain is a hot-headed delusional fool. I don't think Obama will ever, himself, say that McCain is a hot-headed delusional fool.

But, the conventional wisdom is shaping up in Obama's favor. Obama, it is said, does "nuance", while McCain does not. Obama is calm and thoughtful. McCain tends to forget large chunks of the last ten years' history; is that because he's senile? Responsible Republican foreign policy hands (Lugar, Hagel) don't trust McCain. These kind of memes are out there pretty strongly, and create a favorable background for some pretty harsh messaging going into the last weeks' of the campaign. What isn't out there for the Republicans to exploit are any indications that Obama would be less "tough"; Republicans will make scurrilous attacks on Obama's patriotism, of course, but will lose credibility by doing so.

Personally, I don't think American foreign policy should be imperialist or "tough". To my ears, McCain's Churchillian rhetoric is scarier, because it is less ridiculous than Bush's. But, I'm not the audience for the campaign. I have been highly likely to vote Democratic in 2008, since before Reagan was inaugurated.

Nor is campaign rhetoric meant to change minds. This is something Krugman, in particular, does not seem to fully grasp. Lots of Democrats, this season, would like to have a campaign that was a crusade to change the country, that would persuade people to adopt a different worldview. Campaigns sometimes talk that way, because lots of campaign events are gatherings of people, who genuinely wish such things, gatherings of people, who would have voted for the candidate, regardless.

The real business end of a political campaign -- the twin sharp points of genuine persuasion, are to get people, who don't need to be persuaded to vote for the candidate, to vote at all; and to get people, who will vote regardless but don't know or care much about politics, to vote for the candidate.

To do the former, the Obama campaign needs the prospect of a close election as motivation, and will conspire with the Media and the pollsters, to keep alive the impression that it is a closer election than it is ever likely to be.

To do the latter, the Obama campaign has to prepare the conventional wisdom and the punditocrisy to accept memes extremely unfavorable to the McCain candidacy. So, when the politically uninformed glance at the advice given by their trusted televised tribunes, that advice favors Obama; and when the politically uninformed glance at the candidates, their minds are prepared to accept memes that are floating around. The hot-headed, delusional, senile memes, for example, will make the debates very hazardous for McCain. The most lethal meme is that McCain is Bush Redux, and it will be deployed in many forms and contexts; it is being used to neutralize the Corsi, Obama Nation book, even as we write.

[zero]

Bruce Wilder - may I disagree with your analysis of Obama's campaign. The analogy is that of chopping wood, where the rotten republican tree is about to come crashing down. The goal for Obama is to het let the tree land on him, like the tree did in 2004 with Kerry.

Obama is running a very very cautious campaign, like he did against Clinton. Krugman is suggesting Obama run on the economy, and compare Clinton's competent economic management with Bush's incompetent economic management. Obama looks like he has made a calculation and determined praising Clinton might cost him a few votes so he does nothing.

Bruce Wilder - I hope you are right, but at a certain weight, boxers, in particulars heavyweights, beat wrestlers by hitting hard.

[Detlef]

Bruce Wilder,

I´m asking you the same question I asked Billmon today on a DailyKos diary.

But, on rhetoric, Obama has moved to an Hotelling extreme -- especially with regard to foreign policy, where McCain has genuine personal convictions and committments -- and, I think, it is very, very effective, in terms of electoral politics and strategy.

How easy or how different is it for a newly elected President to radically change his position once elected? Sure, some re-direction is to be expected. But a complete turn-around?
Russia, Georgia, Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan?

[Billmon wasn´t very optimistic in his answer.]

It seems to me that it is very difficult to completely change your foreign policy if you won an election pandering to right-wing points. After all, most American voters will only hear this rhetorical points. They won´t know - like Bruce Wilder - that his actual (alleged) policy will be quite different. :)

And after all, you wouldn´t like to be called a liar in your re-election campaign? :)

With the possible exception of Iraq, what is the big difference between Obama and McCain?

This European is quite worried right now.

McCain promises us a new Cold War with Russia about Georgia immediately. Obama promises us that he´ll listen to us before starting a new Cold War. And both are pandering to domestic American election policies without any regard for the rest of the world.

This European thinks that if your foreign policy in an election year is just "an Hotelling extreme", maybe we would be better off without NATO. Better said the USA. Just concentrate on the EU.

If everything is just a tool for US domestic policies, maybe it´s best if we stayed out of it?

[Patricia Shannon]

Anne, you are out of touch with reality. Humans have traits which are unfortunate. To acknowledge that does not indicate that a person approves. We can't solve a problem if we pretend it doesn't exist.

[Patricia Shannon]

There is a question about whether Bush really won Ohio, and thus the presidency, in 2004.

[Bruce Wilder]

hari: "Bruce Wilder . . . is rationalizing"

absolutely. I am arguing that what we see from the Obama campaign makes good sense as electoral strategy and tactics, for a Democratic candidate in 2008. And, that we should not get too bent out of shape with either
1.) the fear that the campaign rhetoric is a perfect indicator of policy;
2.) that the contest between the two campaigns is likely to outweigh all the factors that favor a Democratic victory.

Krugman's long-established hostility to Obama, and his apparent wish that Edwards' populist themes had caught fire, are boring to me.

That said, I'm half-expecting to be completely dejected for two weeks over the V-P pick. And, I am far less sanguine about the future of the country and the world, than about the outcome of the election.

A voting majority of the American electorate is stupid, ill-informed, selfish and easily manipulated, and a selfish, complacent, callous elite is well-placed to manipulate said electorate in unwise ways. The U.S. is caught up in the internal logic of an Empire in inevitable decline, with powerful vested interests pushing "conservative" policies to keep an obsolete and decadent political economy going.

Fifty years from now, people will look back at the $3 trillion squandered in Iraq, and the failure to confront peak oil and climate change and wonder if there was some poison in the water that made American voters so stupid.

I am hoping that the day after the election, a sufficient shift in the balance of power will allow wiser heads to prevail, and an Obama Administration will be much less "conservative" (in the sense of in service to the vested interests of the corrupt corporate-business) than the campaign, understandably (to me) shy of the power of the Media, corporate executives and very Rich, sometimes seems. I am expecting the V-P pick to be a severe blow to my hopes. Bayh or Biden or Kaine would be a disspiriting concession to the reactionary conservatism of corporate-business interests.

On the Hotelling continuum of American politics, I am trapped far to the left of my best candidate choice, and my candidate, to win a majority on that continuum, has to be that far away from me.

[Icarus]

A few thoughts on Obama and "change"...

- Israel. Not much 'change' here. It looks like our new democrat-savior has no real change when it comes to US policy in Palestine. We will continue to support a racist and colonialist regime there, which has created bantustans for the victim Palestinian population. All our rhetoric on human rights, all the chaos it has caused in the Middle East, our inability to be a good faith negotiator...all of that remain the same with Obama. He ran to AIPAC just after securing the nomination, and he's come out as pro-Israeli. A disgrace to 'change', a disgrace to progressive thought.

- The Economy. Obama has openly declared the need to raise taxes on people making $250k or higher. The problem with this populist rhetoric is that it doesn't capture the American imagination. A person with $250k in income already has to pay over half their income in taxes. This rate is already confiscatory. Populist politics just don't hold at that level.
If Obama had reserved his re-distributionist rhetoric to Uber-Millionaires, perhaps he could have rallied the masses. Right now, he hasn't. People already pay too much in taxes, and Americans seem to sense that.

- Health Care. Does Obama really have anything 'new' to add? He wants to make it less expensive so everyone can afford it. I agree...and to do that, we need more bare-boned levels of health-care, which may offer less expensive services, at lower monthly costs. But, is this really change? We've been in gridlock for years, as hospitals hemorrage money due to non-paying patients. I await change.

- The War. Obama has lost a bit of energy and gumption here. He went from the "I'll bring our troops back home asap" candidate, to the one who's (like the others) licking Petreus' knob. This is sad. What is an illegal invasion and quasi-occupation requires justice. This would be real "change". The Bush/Cheney ilk need to be tried in the International Criminal Court. Does Obama have much to add to this conversation?...doesn't seem so.

- WTO/Doha. The US and the Europeans have again proved their shamelessness here, clinging to their farm subsidies, while asking other nations for neo-liberal reforms. Would Obama cut these ridiculous subsidies? No...not really. No change.

We have all been mesmerized by Obama, no doubt. To see a bright, compassionate, dedicated man achieive what he has, despite the nastiness of the Wicked Witch of the South (Hillary) is inspiring, and Obama is that.

But, such idol worship has limits, and the mantra of 'change' seems less reliable every day.

[save_the_rustbelt]

"There is a question about whether Bush really won Ohio, and thus the presidency, in 2004."

Bush won Ohio, and at the time the more tuned in commentators said that Kerry failed to properly use the union resources available in northeast Ohio, and to a lesser extent northwest Ohio and the Dayton area. Speculation though.

Bush won, but by a sliver, and that was a bad thing.

[Dickeylee]

STR, I don't think that HRC and Bubba will cause much trouble next week at all. If Hillary wants to cause trouble, it should be with McBush, since thats who she'd running against in 2012. She should start next Tuesday, and not let up through November! Be the battle ax (sorry Anne) ah la Carrie Nation and bash McCain every day. Then use Cloture for the next 4 years for her agenda. If McCain wins, look for a full frontal assault on working folks, reproductive rights, and WWIII.
But by being a good loyal soldier this fall, she can start her race against McCain now. If BO wins, then again, I say she's the most powerful Senator in DC the next 4-8 years. Heck, she might decide that where she wants to be anyway!

[Dickeylee]

While on reproductive rights, HHS is about to publish new guidelines on the start of life that will make 70% of all birth control become abortion causing agents. Never mind what medical science says, the Republican Taliban knows better!

[Bruce Wilder]

detlef, billmon is smarter and more articulate than I am; if he's more pessimistic than I am, there's probably good reason.

There's actually a technical, political science answer to your question, and I wish I was up enough on these things to give you some references. The technical analysis is more than I can go into a blog comment, but the gist is that Presidents have a lot of freedom to vary from campaign promises on foreign policy.

The vast majority of American voters want the President to be a trusted agent on foreign policy, who will make good use of expert (and secret) knowledge to follow a judiciously considered national interest. There's a strong emotional and psychological pressure to view whatever the President does, as "best" in the circumstances.

Voters do not hold Presidents to their campaign promises on foreign policy. They listen to foreign policy speeches, not for what the candidates promise about policy, but for what the candidate's policy proposals say about the character and temperment of the candidate. Few voters are looking for a specific foreign policy gimme; even most ethnic adherents to a specific Cuba/Israel/Greece policy are pretty forgiving. Because they intend to trust the judgment of the President once in office. The candidate has to avoid scaring the voter. (If the candidate scares Europeans, this might be a plus; but scare moms and dads in suburban St. Louis, and the candidate is going to lose.)

The dangers and domestic political constraints in American foreign policy arise from relations with the other Party. A modicum of bi-partisanship has always been necessary to maintain the legitimacy of a Democratic President's foreign policy. FDR practically invented the Wilkie/Dewey/Rockefeller Wing of the Republican Party to support his liberal internationalist policy. Truman and LBJ went onto the rocks, because of Republican opposition and demagoguing.

It is not the promises and poses of the Obama Administration, which will get it into trouble; it will be the ability to get key Republicans to give a seal of bi-partisan approval to major initiatives and policy shifts. Some of these will be easier than others. The U.S. will open to Cuba pretty easily, because the time is ripe, and younger Cuban-Americans will vote Democratic. America's Israel policy will shift pretty easily as well, because American Jews will have voted overwhelmingly for Obama, as they do every Democrat.

Actually getting out of Iraq will be helped by Obama's definite promises, and by the military's internal support for disengagement. But, there will be a hazard in the civil war that will follow. Republicans are prepared to blame the Democrats for "losing Iraq" and fighting that narrative could be tricky.

Ditto for getting out Afganistan/Pakistan. If the military could actually deliver bin Laden, that would be a cake walk, of course, because there are not American domestic interests pressing for the U.S. to be in Afganistan for 100 years, as there are in Iraq.

But, mostly, the military tends to be an obstacle -- the military-industrial complex is a cancer on the American body politic, and the Bush Administration deliberately made things much worse, encouraging a metastasis into the corporate mainstream. This where I would trust Billmon to have a superb sense of where things stand.

Central elements of the Republican Party have an unholy alliance with the military and the military-industrial complex, and a common interest in re-creating a Great Power enmity and rival. A reviving and expanding Russia may fill the bill, as might China. Obama will need all his persuasive, rhetorical power to shape American foreign policy in a better direction.

I think Obama knows all of this, and is especially sensitive to the bi-partisan problem. The Senatorial elections will go badly for the Republicans -- and quite possibly very badly, indeed -- and this could complicate things. It is quite possible that too few sane Republicans will survive in the U.S. Senate, to give that bi-partisan seal of approval. I don't know how that would work.

[Bruce Wilder]

zero: "heavyweights beat wrestlers by hitting hard"

It's a point, and a good extension of the metaphor. If McCain were a heavyweight, instead of a punch-drunk lightweight turned middleweight, I'd be worried.

[Patricia Shannon]

save_the_rustbelt says...

Bush won Ohio

How do we know?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Blackwell
John Kenneth Blackwell (born February 28, 1948), is a former secretary of state of the U.S. state of Ohio who made an unsuccessful bid as the Republican nominee for Governor of Ohio in the 2006 election. He was the first African-American to be the candidate for governor of a major party in Ohio.

Blackwell gained national prominence for his dual roles as Chief Elections Official of Ohio and honorary co-chair of the "Committee to re-elect George W. Bush" during the 2004 election. Allegations of conflict of interest and voter disenfranchisement led to the filing of at least sixteen related lawsuits naming Blackwell. Regarding voter disenfranchisement, the US Court of Appeals ruled, in agreement with Blackwell, that provisional ballots cast in the wrong polling location should not be counted in the election.

Do you really trust the Republicans not to steal an election if they can get away with it?
If you do, I have a bridge to sell you.

[save_the_rustbelt]

Patricia:

Bush didn't need to steal Ohio, he won it, regrettably.

NEWSFLASH!

NYT reporting Obama may announce VP pick on Wednesday morning.
The next big step may be here. Biden seems to be getting a lot of buzz.

[A.Citizen]

Bruce Wilder you really, really need an editor. Your posts remind me of Obama's 'Uncle Vanya' speech and we all know where that went. As for Obama running a 'good' or even indifferent campaign it is to laugh.

Do you think he picked up any votes with his bleating about McSame violating the 'Cone of Silence' today.

The guy is a whiner and the primitive tribalist American voter....He doan like him no whiners.

This campaign will be won as most are by the side that makes the least mistakes.

That ain't gonna be Obama pal.

[Patricia Shannon]

A.Citizen

Was that post a joke, with the spelling errors?

[rufus]

"From the point of view of the moderate, shallowly-informed independent voter, Obama seems safe."

"We could wish that the critical mass of "independent" voters had a better, more sophisticated understanding of politics, economics and foreign policy."

This constantly condescending tone comes from a person who holds business and lobbying insiders such as Ross Perot and Ron Paul, as for longed vessels for 'real' change. This logic is akin to the libertarian mantra (rant), deride everything, and extole the virtues of the impossible, political flagellance.

Bruce W's "long-established hostility to" Krugman, "and his apparent wish that" Perot's/Paul's libertarian "themes had caught fire, are boring to me."

[Patricia Shannon]

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_stolen

Like many Americans, I spent the evening of the 2004 election watching the returns on television and wondering how the exit polls, which predicted an overwhelming victory for John Kerry, had gotten it so wrong. By midnight, the official tallies showed a decisive lead for George Bush -- and the next day, lacking enough legal evidence to contest the results, Kerry conceded. Republicans derided anyone who expressed doubts about Bush's victory as nut cases in ''tinfoil hats,'' while the national media, with few exceptions, did little to question the validity of the election. The Washington Post immediately dismissed allegations of fraud as ''conspiracy theories,''(1) and The New York Times declared that ''there is no evidence of vote theft or errors on a large scale.''(2)

But despite the media blackout, indications continued to emerge that something deeply troubling had taken place in 2004. Nearly half of the 6 million American voters living abroad(3) never received their ballots -- or received them too late to vote(4) -- after the Pentagon unaccountably shut down a state-of-the-art Web site used to file overseas registrations.(5) A consulting firm called Sproul & Associates, which was hired by the Republican National Committee to register voters in six battleground states,(6) was discovered shredding Democratic registrations.(7) In New Mexico, which was decided by 5,988 votes,(8) malfunctioning machines mysteriously failed to properly register a presidential vote on more than 20,000 ballots.(9) Nationwide, according to the federal commission charged with implementing election reforms, as many as 1 million ballots were spoiled by faulty voting equipment -- roughly one for every 100 cast.(10)

The reports were especially disturbing in Ohio, the critical battleground state that clinched Bush's victory in the electoral college. Officials there purged tens of thousands of eligible voters from the rolls, neglected to process registration cards generated by Democratic voter drives, shortchanged Democratic precincts when they allocated voting machines and illegally derailed a recount that could have given Kerry the presidency. A precinct in an evangelical church in Miami County recorded an impossibly high turnout of ninety-eight percent, while a polling place in inner-city Cleveland recorded an equally impossible turnout of only seven percent. In Warren County, GOP election officials even invented a nonexistent terrorist threat to bar the media from monitoring the official vote count.(11)

Any election, of course, will have anomalies. America's voting system is a messy patchwork of polling rules run mostly by county and city officials. ''We didn't have one election for president in 2004,'' says Robert Pastor, who directs the Center for Democracy and Election Management at American University. ''We didn't have fifty elections. We actually had 13,000 elections run by 13,000 independent, quasi-sovereign counties and municipalities.''

But what is most anomalous about the irregularities in 2004 was their decidedly partisan bent: Almost without exception they hurt John Kerry and benefited George Bush. After carefully examining the evidence, I've become convinced that the president's party mounted a massive, coordinated campaign to subvert the will of the people in 2004. Across the country, Republican election officials and party stalwarts employed a wide range of illegal and unethical tactics to fix the election. A review of the available data reveals that in Ohio alone, at least 357,000 voters, the overwhelming majority of them Democratic, were prevented from casting ballots or did not have their votes counted in 2004(12) -- more than enough to shift the results of an election decided by 118,601 votes.(13) (See Ohio's Missing Votes) In what may be the single most astounding fact from the election, one in every four Ohio citizens who registered to vote in 2004 showed up at the polls only to discover that they were not listed on the rolls, thanks to GOP efforts to stem the unprecedented flood of Democrats eager to cast ballots.(14) And that doesn’t even take into account the troubling evidence of outright fraud, which indicates that upwards of 80,000 votes for Kerry were counted instead for Bush. That alone is a swing of more than 160,000 votes -- enough to have put John Kerry in the White House.(15)

''It was terrible,'' says Sen. Christopher Dodd, who helped craft reforms in 2002 that were supposed to prevent such electoral abuses. ''People waiting in line for twelve hours to cast their ballots, people not being allowed to vote because they were in the wrong precinct -- it was an outrage. In Ohio, you had a secretary of state who was determined to guarantee a Republican outcome. I'm terribly disheartened.''

Indeed, the extent of the GOP's effort to rig the vote shocked even the most experienced observers of American elections. ''Ohio was as dirty an election as America has ever seen,'' Lou Harris, the father of modern political polling, told me. ''You look at the turnout and votes in individual precincts, compared to the historic patterns in those counties, and you can tell where the discrepancies are. They stand out like a sore thumb.''

[Patricia Shannon]

When I asked a person active in the local Democratic party why the Democrats weren't making a fuss about the 2004 election, he said they were afraid that if people believed the election was stolen, they would stop voting.

[Patricia Shannon]

save_the_rustbelt

Why are you sure Bush won Ohio?

[Julio]

Patricia Shannon,

You are totally right, and the election of 2004 was a disgrace. The basic closeness of the election brought the perpetrators of fraud out of the woodwork, I suspect, and gave their actions greater (and possibly decisive) weight.

Investigating the irregularities, especially in Ohio, motivated me to get involved in the effort to clean up the deficiencies in electronic voting machines, which allow fraud, and which are already responsible for likely reversals in the results of some elections. I learned a lot, most of it horrifying, about our electoral system. Works well enough for a landslide, but in a close election, forget it.

Clean transparent machines with paper records are a start, but my guess is that the most common and largest form of fraud is the "low tech" disenfranchisement of sections of the population whose party leanings are known. Put too few machines in a precinct, lines become several hours long, and people will get discouraged and not vote.

Surprise, it happened to Black people a lot. Guess how they vote.

(Why these "irregularities" should have favored Republicans so consistently is the subject of another, interesting speculation. Are they more prone to fraud? if so, why?)

[piglet]

Schaeffer: "McCain's people think Americans are whiners about gasoline prices (and everything else)." Turns out they are right. So what's your point? Are you saying there is anything, any idiocy, any outrage in the world that a majority of Americans would not support if they were promised cheap gas as a result? And Obama, far from advocating "$10 gas", keeps quiet, knowing that telling Americans the truth about our energy future would cost him the election.

[Peter Schaeffer]

piglet,

If you want join the Phil Gramm ("a nation of whiners") chorus, I guess I can't stop you...

If you think the Obama crowd really advocates $10 gas, but don't dare to say so in public, then I guess we are in agreement...

[Cyrille]

Ken Melvin:
Sorry to reply so late. Well, I do refer somewhat to progressive taxation when I use the word, although it's meant in a more general way.

Not having the time to write an elaborate reply (it would deserve pages), let us use Rawls as a starting point, ie the idea that a criterion for a policy being ethical is that it increases the well-being of the least favoured (not the least favoured as a specific person -it may not be the same person after the policy, but the lowest well-being of the society should be seen to increase).

I agree that this is not NECESSARILY the exact optimum that one would choose, even without knowing where he'll stand (it is if the population is infinitely risk-averse. If not, well it depends on the possible outcomes and the level of risk aversion).

But we can broadly say that progressive means going towards enhancing the well-being of the least favoured.

Now, I also include (although it's on a second level) the relaxation of norms -something which you'd call liberalism. Because least favoured is not only in financial terms, but for example if you are homosexual or atheist in the States (I am one of those two), life isn't exactly lovely (yes, I know it's a lot worse if you are either of those in, say, Iran, but somehow I hold USA to higher standards).

So, to me liberalism is one part of progressivism, although I reckon that other people will have slightly different definitions.

[Cyrille]

I was replying to the question "define progressive"

[Cyrille]

Patricia: there is no question. It is an open secret that Bush lost Ohio (and a few other states), but that the vote rigging was enough to pretend otherwise.