It is entirely possible that Obama is simply saying what he truly believes, and we should take his words at face value.

Obama’s links to former 60’s radicals (a couple of domestic bombers: William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn), his community organizing in Chicago, and his early influence from “Frank” (apparently Frank Marshall Davis identified as a member of the Communist Party USA), suggest that Obama has a certain, politically-controlled, view of economics. We’ve seen these ideas, and they failed, long ago.

Then there’s Obama’s absence of accomplishments. Other than to get elected (and in Chicago, a town known for political machines and the debts incurred), there seems to be nothing. Even his supporters on TV come up with nothing. To some degree, Obama has never run against real opposition and had to justify his ideas; his opponents were Democratic candidates with essentially the approved views.

Obama may be unable to see that his ideas are naïve, unworkable, or failed. The influence of “Frank”, Ayres & Dohm, the Hyde Park intelligensia, etc., not withstanding, Socialism, Communism and “Class warfare” objectively failed about the same time the Berlin Wall fell.

It’s time for serious intellectual scrutiny of values and ideas, and the party machine cannot provide protection. There’s some evidence that Obama expects to be able to say what he wants, yet not be questioned or held to account.

This is not the stuff of which real leaders are made, and it’s time to say so.

Consumer spending in the U.S. rose more than forecast in January, reflecting a jump in prices that is eroding Americans’ buying power.
MB4 on February 29, 2008 at 1:57 PM

Yes. The increased consumer spending was due mostly to higher prices rather than more purchases.

The economy is ugly right now. McCain better keep the “economy, stupid” post-it on his desktop because if he can’t convince people that he’s got better answers than Obama, he’ll lose.

It’s not enough to believe that Obama’s prescriptions are harmful, since they are appealing on the surface and harmful down the road.

Obamaman’s message of hope and change rings hollow as hell to those of us who live on the reality side of life. As Steve Huntley notes today at the Chicago Sun-Times, recalling the political salvos over Iraq between Barack Obama and John McCain the ot…

A separate report from the National Association of Purchasing Management-Chicago showed American business activity contracted this month. The group’s business barometer declined to 44.5, the lowest since December 2001, from 51.5 in January.

10 year T-note down 4.74%

2. PRINT lots of money (Bureau of Engraving & Printing, who make the paper bills, and the US Mint, who stamp the metal coins), beyond the amounts demanded for normal economic commerce in the economy. This is often a BAD idea because it tends to send inflation skyrocketing and is one of several reasons why Germany collapsed economically after WWI. Which resulted in the Third Reich. Which resulted in an even huger World War later. Lots of dead and maimed people and lots of money lost, whole economies destroyed. Like I said, BAD idea.

Shirotayama on February 29, 2008 at 11:11 AM

That’s what’s going on right now.

Many people have compared Obama to Ronald Reagan in his ability to promise “morning in America,” but they have focused only on the most superficial part of the Reagan revolution.

That is a bit of an overstatement, but not to quibble as it is largely irrelevant as most swing voters don’t get down enough to see if something is an inch deep or a foot deep.

Reagan didn’t cast himself as the agent of hope,

Yes he did. That is why he won. Call him “Facilitator of hope” rather than “Agent of hope”, if you want. It doesn’t make much difference to most people who are going to decide the election.

but appealed to the hope within Americans that they could lift up the country, and not the other way around.

Yes, with his help as the agent facilitator of hope. Reagan did advocate getting the government “out of the way” that is true, and that gave a lot of people hope as a lot of people back then saw government as a big part of “the problem”, although as it turned out the size of the government didn’t go down under Reagan. Even the Dept of Education remained.

He focused on the hope of the individual as the true agent of change, and not the despair of the collective that required government intervention.

I don’t think that it is Obama’s supporters who are in despair right now. It is conservatives who are in despair and rightly so. In so much despair that few can think of anything good to say about McCain and what he will do for the country. The other guy will be worse just ain’t going to cut it.

…and to prey on the fears of the working class by casting globalization as an unmitigated evil.

Globalization has uneven effects benefitting some more than others. The right needs to acknowledge the problem and keep pushing our solution which is not to intervene in the markets to benefit one group over another but to educate those who have been displaced.

Greg Mankiw has been pointing his awful policies for a long time now.

Limerick on February 29, 2008 at 9:15 AM

Could the dirty-little-secret of the record turnout be the fact that half of the racist/sexist dems are voting against a female and the other half are voting against a black?

On the other hand, it also points out that Hillary may be even worse in this respect, which is surprising given Bill’s history. Maybe she’s just trying to match Obama, but nevertheless all this rhetoric on the part of both of them is worrying.

Obamanomics? Hillanomics? Either way, it will mean that things don’t look good from where I’m sitting.

I work for US Treasury Department Headquarters. RIGHT next to the White House. Flip over your $10 bill. I am sitting in the building you see on the back of that bill right now.
One commenter in a different thread (and lots of liberals) are wrong in thinking it’s the war that’s got us broke. It ain’t the war. When you look at the details of the federal budget and see how much the war effort is taking up, it needs to be put into perspective.

Most folks don’t know that the US government budget really needs to be thought of in two huge different chunks, one much larger than the other: The DISCRETIONARY chunk, and the NON-DISCRETIONARY chunk.

Stuff like the war, like defense and intelligence, like all sorts of social programs (excluding the entitlement programs – - this will become important in a minute), like the cost of operating the federal government’s agencies and their bureaus, etc., is part of the discretionary budget.

That’s the part that gets submitted to OMB and to Congress for review, edit, and approval every year.

The discretionary piece is a SMALL slice of the entire federal budget pie…maybe 30% to 40%…the HUGE piece is the Non-discretionary piece. And what makes up this piece?

The ENTITLEMENT programs: Social Security (huge), Medicare (Even HUGER and dwarfs Social Security), and Medicaid (not that big, actually, by comparison to the other two).

They’re called “non-discretionary” funds for just that reason: OMB and Congress have NO discretion to change the non-discretionary portion of the federal budget. They’re ENTITLEMENTS. We HAVE TO PAY them. We have no choice but to pay the social security, medicare, and medicaid payees. And if we don’t take in enough revenue (that’s right, your tax dollar and mine) to cover what we have to pay for both the discretionary and non-discretionary portions, there are only a couple of options:

1. BORROW it (Bureau of the Public Debt) and drive up the national debt and our interest owed on that debt

or

2. PRINT lots of money (Bureau of Engraving & Printing, who make the paper bills, and the US Mint, who stamp the metal coins), beyond the amounts demanded for normal economic commerce in the economy. This is often a BAD idea because it tends to send inflation skyrocketing and is one of several reasons why Germany collapsed economically after WWI. Which resulted in the Third Reich. Which resulted in an even huger World War later. Lots of dead and maimed people and lots of money lost, whole economies destroyed. Like I said, BAD idea.

Both Barry O and Shrillary want to mandate universal health insurance coverage. In other words, add MORE ENTITLEMENT to the non-discretionary budget, when we can’t borry money FAST ENOUGH to cover what we currently have, let alone once the baby boom generation starts retiring in droves. SOON.
The original commenter was right. We’re broke. But for entirely the wrong reasons. Barry O. could stop the war on a dime tomorrow, and the change in how broke we are really wouldn’t make much of an impact. SERIOUSLY.

Even IF the libs don’t take POTUS, and don’t keep both houses of congress, we’re broke. If they sweep POTUS and both houses, we’re gonna be one hell of a lot MORE broke.

Plus, Bush Derangement Syndrome will permanently infantilize the Left – they need never be held responsible for their failed policies or destructive ideas because they’ll just blame Bush (Rove, Cheney) and their followers will nod robotically.

I for one do not welcome our new temper-tantrum toddler overlords.

So, a raging populist with true-blue talking points is running against someone that “doesn’t know much about economics.” That’s good. Keep in mind that the latter ran a successful campaign against a highly successful and thoroughly competent businessman to become the presumptive nominee.

So what does it matter that Obama is a socialist? Republicans don’t care enough about economics to nominate someone that even understands it. What makes you think the country will either?

spmat on February 29, 2008 at 9:40 AM

I have more confidence in the guy that McCain appoints than I do in either Obama or Clinton…unless he appoints Obama or Clinton.

So what does it matter that Obama is a socialist? Republicans don’t care enough about economics to nominate someone that even understands it. What makes you think the country will either?

“Fearmongering” is codewording for:

“I wish you’d just shut the F**K up because I have no good logical argument to refute your challenge, so I have no recourse left but to try and shut you up by seeing if I can shame you into shutting up.”

Hot Air this morning highlights this article from the Economist, which draws attention to the rising populist tone from both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton on the campaign trail (yes, she’s still officially in the race, for what that’s wo…

The problem is that he clams up when anyone bothers to ask him HOW he plans to invoke all this wonderfulness on everyone.

And this is the exact same thing he has been doing as a junior senator here in Illinois. So don’t expect him to change his spots anytime soon.

You know, in computer terms, we refer to things like this as VAPORWARE. Essentially, nice sounding ideas that never come into actual being.

Think of anything B.O. emits as VAPORWARE. That is, until he can actual come up with something of a plan to back up all these great things he says he is going to do.

carbon_footprint on February 29, 2008 at 9:06 AM

The Obama campaign is hitting them out of the ballpark with his ‘rallies’. I’m in FW and the local news kept showing news-chopper overhead footage of the ‘masses’ trying to get in to see him. They advertise these events as first come, first served, and to show up very early. Then they make em stand in a single file line. The line yesterday went on for blocks.

That said…..Early voting turnout in Texas is record setting. Dems have out numbered Reps 4-1. I know they normally have a higher turn-out then Republicans, but 4-1?
In Texas? And a record turn out? Doesn’t look too promising too me.

The Economist acknowledges that Democrats usually drop the populism when it comes to general elections. That was certainly true of Bill Clinton

But wasn’t that part of what made Clinton unique, that he moved to the middle to remain popular? I think other Democratic presidents governed more as populists.

Populism is obviously popular this year. Mike Huckabee is a populist, too, although he is more conservative than Obama.

Monkey see monkey do politics