Reality: Why Obama Is Exploiting Racism

Obama is trying to divert attention 1) from his stinging loss in New Hampshire, and 2) from his inadequacies as a presidential candidate, mostly his cluelessness about what he’d actually do if he were president — most recently, about what he’d do to stimulate the economy.

“He speaks with so much passion, but I’m not sure what his views are on a lot of things,” says [Maurice] Frye. He worries about a poor economy and sagging U.S. dollar. He wants more substance. “I think he speaks too generally. Not being specific hurts him because no one knows him that well yet.”

Meekaaeel [DeBradley] agrees. “It’s good that he keeps saying what the problems are over and over again, but I need to hear the solutions, too,” he says. — From the Reno Gazette-Journal, January 13, 2008

People aren’t stupid. People can see that substantive plans are missing from his rhetoric. People can see that how he’ll make “change” happen isn’t spelled out. Well, at least those people who haven’t drunk the Kool-Aid.

Renowned economist and NYT columnist Paul Krugman writes a devastating dissection of Obama’s economic stimulus package today. “Disreputable” is the term that Krugman uses to describe the Obama campaign’s first weak attempt. About Obama’s second attempt, delivered on Sunday, Krugman says it’s “tilted to the right” and that Obama “really is less progressive than his rivals on matters of domestic policy.”

We’ve heard that before, haven’t we, about Obama’s use of GOP talking points on Social Security and more. That Obama’s policies, such as they are, are far more conservative than those of Sen. Hillary Clinton and former Sen. John Edwards. Krugman also points out:

Last week Hillary Clinton offered a broadly similar but somewhat larger proposal. (It also includes aid to families having trouble paying heating bills, which seems like a clever way to put cash in the hands of people likely to spend it.) The Edwards and Clinton proposals both contain provisions for bigger stimulus if the economy worsens.

And you have to say that Mrs. Clinton seems comfortable with and knowledgeable about economic policy. I’m sure the Hillary-haters will find some reason that’s a bad thing, but there’s something to be said for presidents who know what they’re talking about.

Dr. Krugman has joined the ranks of those of who dare question the Obama “hope” machine, hence his reference to “Hillary-haters.” He knows that, having published that column today, he will be deluged with hate mail.

It’s a disturbing phenomenon. For all their rapturous adoration of Obama’s message of “change” and “hope,” his followers — they’re really not so much supporters as they are Hari Krishna-like followers — are filled with ugly rage at anyone who dares to question their irrational beliefs.

Here’s what Dr. Krugman writes today about Obama’s “disreputable” first plan and right-leaning second plan:

The Obama campaign’s initial response to the latest wave of bad economic news was, I’m sorry to say, disreputable: Mr. Obama’s top economic adviser claimed that the long-term tax-cut plan the candidate announced months ago is just what we need to keep the slump from “morphing into a drastic decline in consumer spending.” Hmm: claiming that the candidate is all-seeing, and that a tax cut originally proposed for other reasons is also a recession-fighting measure — doesn’t that sound familiar? [NOTE THE REFERENCE TO BUSH'S PLAN.]

Anyway, on Sunday Mr. Obama came out with a real stimulus plan. As was the case with his health care plan, which fell short of universal coverage, his stimulus proposal is similar to those of the other Democratic candidates, but tilted to the right.

For example, the Obama plan appears to contain none of the alternative energy initiatives that are in both the Edwards and Clinton proposals, and emphasizes across-the-board tax cuts over both aid to the hardest-hit families and help for state and local governments. I know that Mr. Obama’s supporters hate to hear this, but he really is less progressive than his rivals on matters of domestic policy. …

It must also be noted that Dr. Krugman gives John Edwards his due — which makes Edwards a far more serious candidate than Obama will ever be:

On the Democratic side, John Edwards, although never the front-runner, has been driving his party’s policy agenda. He’s done it again on economic stimulus: last month, before the economic consensus turned as negative as it now has, he proposed a stimulus package including aid to unemployed workers, aid to cash-strapped state and local governments, public investment in alternative energy, and other measures.

Krugman is deadly serious about the need for sound, progressive economic stimulus packages because of a looming recession:

Suddenly, the economic consensus seems to be that the implosion of the housing market will indeed push the U.S. economy into a recession, and that it’s quite possible that we’re already in one. As a result, over the next few weeks we’ll be hearing a lot about plans for economic stimulus.

Since this is an election year, the debate over how to stimulate the economy is inevitably tied up with politics. And here’s a modest suggestion for political reporters. Instead of trying to divine the candidates’ characters by scrutinizing their tone of voice and facial expressions, why not pay attention to what they say about economic policy? ( Read all of Krugman’s column today.)

The only time I indulge in “hope” is when I think about the voters in the upcoming elections in South Carolina and Nevada. I “hope” they’ll keep wondering when Obama is going to talk more substantively about the issues. I “hope” they’ll read Paul Krugman. I “hope” they’ll read this guest column today at Taylor Marsh’s blog by Michael K. Fauntroy, an assistant professor of public policy at George Mason University and author of Republicans and the Black Vote. A registered Independent, he blogs at: MichaelFauntroy.com.

Fauntroy, a black man, is suffering the same fate as Paul Krugman, Larry Johnson, Taylor Marsh, me and others who dare to look past the message and assess if Barack Obama is able to be president:

It’s hard out here for Black pundits/analysts/commentators who haven’t come around to drinking the Barack Obama is the best-thing-since-sliced-bread-how-did-we-ever-exist-as-a-nation-without-him-this-is-our-last-best-chance-to-elect-a-Black-president-so-we-better-support-him-see-I-told-you-racism-is-dead Kool-Aid. I have learned an unfortunate lesson in observing the Democratic presidential nomination fight: In too many segments of the country – Black and White – to express any skepticism about Barack Obama is considered political heresy. I’m blown away by this discovery, because it suggests a dangerous group think: Obama is the only agent of change and to not praise him at every opportunity is to support the status quo. …
[...]

While I got slapped around by a few callers [on a radio show] (and gently by the host, an Obama supporter), one caller was particularly unhinged. … and went on about how Obama showed leadership in the Illinois legislature in opposing the war and that I was out of line for not giving him credit for this. I reminded the caller that Obama has not opposed one nickel of Bush spending to continue this travesty, but, alas, I was deemed unduly critical of “the Brother,” not to be taken seriously. By the way caller: Do you know how easy it is to oppose something when you have no skin in the game? Can anyone say for sure that he would not have voted to authorize Bush’s foolishness in Iraq if he were a member of the Senate in 2002? I’m willing to bet that Obama would have done as all the Senate Democrats who wanted to be president did: vote to support Bush so that their Republican general election opponent couldn’t say they were soft on terrorism.

All I’ve tried to do is add some reason and caution to the over-the-top response that many voters have for Obama. And I’ll keep doing it. I have thick skin, so it’s no big deal to me.

I also “hope,” as Krugman suggests, that political reporters “pay attention to what [the candidates] say about economic policy” instead of obsessing about this racism non-issue kerfuffle that Obama’s camp is pushing to divert attention from his woeful lack of substantive, progressive economic policies.

Hey, reporters! How about starting with this key point in Krugman’s op-ed?

the Obama plan appears to contain none of the alternative energy initiatives that are in both the Edwards and Clinton proposals.