Clarify What?
The Washington Post’s editorial board gives us “Mr. Obama’s Show: This week in Denver, the nominee will have a chance to make clearer where he would lead the country”. But throughout the editorial, they don’t actually seem able to identify any particular issues where they’re troubled by a lack of clarity from Obama. On the contrary, they concede that Obama “has laid out a set of detailed policy positions — more detailed, in some key areas, such as health care, than Mr. McCain.” So instead they come up with this complaint, Obama hasn’t laid out in sufficient detail which issues are the issues on which he’d be prepared to agree to legislation that doesn’t precisely match up with his preferred policies:
Where would a President Obama stand firm on principle? Where would he bend to achieve consensus? How would he balance the competing, and to some extent mutually exclusive, imperatives of mobilizing for leftward change and forging bipartisan agreement? These are difficult questions to answer in the abstract; they cannot be fully resolved by four days of speechifying or even a brilliant reprise of Mr. Obama’s Boston performance. But many voters will be looking for clues this week.
But, look, surely we understand why neither Obama nor John McCain nor any other presidential candidate would want to outline in advance which positions they’re prepared to retreat from in the face of congressional opposition. When Cindy McCain’s buying beach condos, she doesn’t say “I’ll give you $1 million for that one in Coronado, but I’d be willing to pay as much as $1.5 million if you’re not amenable to my first offer.” That’s common sense. Of course it’s true that I, as a citizen and generally curious person, would like to know what Obama’s real bottom lines are — McCain’s, too, for that matter — but he’s not going to tell me, so what’s the sense in complaining about it?
38 Responses to “Clarify What?”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
August 25th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
In fact, Obama has already done such a thing, a few weeks ago when he acknowledged that he would be willing to consider expanded oil drilling here and there if that were part of the “price” for passing legislation supporting greater energy efficiency and so forth. That “nuanced” statement was quickly misrepresented by the GOP and in the press (see, for example, the Washington Post) as a “flip flop” or change in position by Obama.
Anyway, didn’t I read somewhere that Obama was a pretty good poker player? In the meantime, the Post wants to play Go Fish. very juvenile.
August 25th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
But many voters will be looking for clues this week.
Across our great nation, Republican concern trolls will be waiting with bated breath.
Meanwhile, the cud-chewing mass of “undecided voters” will be watching reality TV, drinking beer, and occasionally catching glimpses of the candidates 30-second spots if they’re not getting up to use the potty.
Why the kabuki fiction that undecideds care about any of this? I hope the Obama campaign know enough to ignore all this stuff, and just keep putting on a show for the rubes. That’s how the GOP has succeeded over the last 40+ years.
August 25th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
Hey Fred Hiatt – Be SPECIFIC. Like…
See how much clearer things are when you don’t speak and write like a weasel?
August 25th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
bush 43 is famous for “don’t negotiate against yourself.” if the wapo can produce a single editorial it wrote during the bush years in which it complained about that, i’ll take this editorial seriously.
which, admittedly, would be a first during fred hiatt’s reign of error.
August 25th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
As usual, Mr. Yglesias grossly, unfairly,
and purposefully
misunderstands what WP is trying to say.
Will it be too much to expect Mr. Obama to
tell us what brand of koolaid he needs to be offered
in order for Republicans to roll all over the
Democratic nominee? After all our nation is
in dire straits, and it will be too selfish of
Barack to keep all this information to himself.
August 25th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
I blame all this on the fact that the primary season started so early. Journalists don’t have all that much to do but criticize and create issues where there are none because they need to get paid for doing something. If they really want to know what Obama stands for, how about listening to what he actually says? Or actually reading some of his positions on policy. But no, it’s easier to just pretend that he has all kinds of problems that they, in their infinite wisdom, can solve for him.
August 25th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
Matt: This is why you would make such a poor concern troll. Too much logic and reason. Back under the bridge!
August 25th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
I once read a description of the novel as “an extended piece of prose there is something wrong with”. similarly, a candidate is a person with flaws, and a proposal is a flawed plan.
The only safe thing to do is lie repeatedly and bribe the media.
August 25th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
As far as I can see, the only unanswered question is whether we will simply sell all Republicans into slavery or whether we will put all the men to death and enslave their women and children.
That point aside, I think Obama’s policies on taxes, energy, global warming, and Iraq are perfectly clear.
August 25th, 2008 at 1:37 pm
If Obama said anything specific and detailed policy-wise, he’d be boring and dry and unable to connect with regualr folks, like Michael Dukakis.
August 25th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
Most of them disguised as “objective” “professional” “journalists”.
August 25th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
It’s just business as usual for McCain’s base. Or take the article on page 1 of the Times New of the Week yesterday. It starts with the dilemma of Obama as rootless, never having really properly lived anywhere. After convincing you as best it can that he’s surely not like you, it does get around to mentioning that, oh, McCain was an army brat and then moved to get a senate seat. Finally, after this step, it’s able to conclude on an upbeat note about how thoroughly American this is. But if I’d put in his time as a community organizer (or with the church he was reluctant to break with), I’d feel pretty proud to speak of my roots in my community.
August 25th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
Oh, please. The WP’s problem is that they’re mainly interested in the “Will he or won’t he govern as a partisan?” question, which is deeply uninteresting. But David Leonhardt hit the nail on the head yesterday when he pointed out that when Obama moves from discussions of the economic woes of middle-class Americans to suggesting solutions, it’s like a shift from poetry to prose. Few Americans can judge the intricacies of policy details [and that number includes quite a few bloggers who presume to], but they can judge a candidate’s priorities and central concerns. Obama’s entitled to keeping his bottom lines secret; he’s not entitled to votes from people who might see him as a pig in a poke for doing so.
August 25th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
It is a debate tactic to force one party to define,define, define and then poke at each and every detail within the definitions. It soaks up time focusing on the opponent’s potential weaknesses and deflects away from you having to provide definitions. It also allows you, when pressed, to seem the more logical one by saying “In negotiations, all cards are on the table but I believe…”
In other words, the attacker gets all the benefit and still is applauded for his vagueness.
August 25th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
lampwick,
I think your proposal is unnecessarily extreme (as well as sexist). I am convinced that executing the political, media, and military-industrial elite will solve all of our problems. No more than 5-10 million vermin. Talking about executing all Republicans is both unecessarily bloodthirsty as well as needlessly provocative.
August 25th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
“These are difficult questions to answer in the abstract; they cannot be fully resolved by four days of speechifying or even a brilliant reprise of Mr. Obama’s Boston performance.”
In fact, they can only be resolved once Mr. Obama (along with a new Congress) is elected and the negotiations for enacting his agenda begin. So if the WaPo editorial page writers really want to know the answers to these questions, I guess they will have to vote for him and see what happens.
Works for me.
August 25th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
Lampwick’s comments were snark.
I don’t read the WaPo so I don’t know if they have covered McCain’s and Obama’s policy proposals in any detail, but most media coverage doesn’t focus on policy. It’s not surprising that a lot of voters don’t know what Obama or McCain wants to do- our stupid media isn’t interested, so they don’t report it.
August 26th, 2008 at 9:17 am
Obama has left two huge problems with his presidency completely unaddressed:
1. What is he going to do about him being a Democrat?
2. What is he going to do about him being black?
If he can’t fix these two problems, op-ed pages nationwide will never accept him.
March 1st, 2009 at 5:59 am
viagra
I want to say – thank you for this!
March 1st, 2009 at 7:01 pm
cialis
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
March 2nd, 2009 at 5:31 am
levitraI want to say – thank you for this!
March 11th, 2009 at 4:53 am
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
March 12th, 2009 at 11:51 pm
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
March 14th, 2009 at 5:39 am
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
xanax
March 17th, 2009 at 2:32 am
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
tramadol
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:23 am
tramadol
Great site. Good info
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:20 am
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
cheap brand pfizer viagra
April 9th, 2009 at 6:57 am
It is the coolest site,keep so! viagra