So Is This

Good pickup. I thought exactly the same thing when he said this.

Of course there a lot of empirical evidence collected lately that suggests that 'what works' is anything BUT what we've been doing.

We've officially proven that if you want to drown government in a bathtub, you still have to deal with the stinking corpse that results.

Talk about a welcome change from the ideology-first recent past.

Yes, but they're going to try to make it about ideology. I don't think Bill Clinton was ideological either. Not always right, but not ideological either. That didn't stop the right wing claque from going against him.

Obama's anti-ideological starting point is what I like best about him. It's interesting to compare him to Jindal and Romney, two very smart professional school trained exemplars who walk straighter ideological lines but still have a problem-solving approach by both training and probably nature. All three are light years apart from the reductionist absurdity of Bush/Cheney.

the ideology-first recent past.
-
If you mean the GOP of the last 15 or so years, I agree with every word in this post. As JJ points out, you can't call Clinton an ideologue. Yet the right wing did call him all sorts of nasty things. The GOP base has now been ordered and trained to believe that Obama is a socialist terrorist (and that congressman from Georgia appears to believe it too, because GOP is intellectually rotted from top to bottom). They'll evaluate everything through that POV.

JC
I am glad this is what stuck with you because you can be influential in making sure that the wingnut driven establishment Republicans don't use you to turn this into something it is not. Clearly, they have a compelling interests in making this about ideology. My question is how tough are you? Are you enough of a journalist to resist the temptation to follow Rush and Drudge into the dark side? Beware Jay they will want you to attack the evil Liberal.

JC is this lip service or do you really believe it?

Sure the Usual Suspects will continue to hammer away at Obama with the 'socialist/terrorist' line. But all the ideologically driven rhetoric by everyone from the Usual Suspects to McCain on down to Joe the Plumber didn't have much effect on this election, did it?

I think/hope that the politics of fear is waning.

Not that reporters don't need to watch out for it and call it when it happens. But with the apparent new focus on pragmatic politics and getting things done for the country, I suspect the right-wing doomsayers will be speaking to smaller and smaller audiences.

A number of things struck me as I watched the full interview:
-
1. Obama is so comfortable with himself that he is able to escape his ego and view a situation through the eyes of another. He describes the moment when it was clear to him that he would be the next president, and he said he thought of what was running through the mind of his mother-in-law who was raised in segregated, discriminatory Chicago. That's an astounding comment on Obama.
-
I dare say I would be thinking, "HELL, YEAH! I'M THE NEXT PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES!" Instead, Obama is putting himself in the shoes of his mother-in-law. Beautiful.
-
2. He is able to explain complex issues clearly and in simple terms. This skill will serve him well, of course. It allows people to disagree with his approach to any particular polcy issue while understanding why he is doing what he is doing. It doesn't mean he can't be criticized, but, unlike the Cheney-Bush administration, there is an air of openness about such a discussion of the "whys" and "whats" that has not taken place in the eight years of this administration.
-
3. Republicans and conservatives will continue to proclaim that "the sky will fall" under the "no-experienced" Obama, but, as you note, what a breath of fresh air to have an intelligent, thoughtful, well-informed, tough-as-needed and confident president. Obama will be no one's tool. I am certain that his cabinet members will understand that they work for him and that he is the Commander-in-Chief. (Unlike Bush who, judging by many reports, was uninformed, disinterested, and willing to cede control on important issues because it allowed him to do less work.)
-
I am sure there are conservatives who will watch that interview and who will still claim that Obama is "just words," but the vast majority of Americans are seeing a wise leader.
-
And thank god for that...

This actually is more FDR than Reagan. If FDR was anything, it was pragmatic "we have nothing to fear but fear itself" was a call to action.

Paul D: "they" may make it about ideology, but I think Obama is, strangely enough, much more politically adept than Clinton was, and will disarm some of his opponents. I think it's clear that most Republicans in Congress will get more of a hearing from Obama than they got from Bush, for example. Besides which, Obama is going in with more good will than any president in my long lifetime, I think.
.
Howard Dean had something interesting to say at a Smithisonian Association panel I heard on C-Span early this morning, in response to a question about whether we could succeed at being non-partisan. He said that last night he had been at an event where someone got up and said he hoped that now we were really going to make the Republicans pay for what they'd done to us, and Dean said he had to pause and get hold of himself, because there's a part of him that would like to do that too. But Dean said he thought the under 35 voters had said they didn't want that kind of partisanship any more, and that in 4 years it would be the under 39's, and then in another 4 the under 43's, and that we failed to listen to them at our peril. Dean said it's time for "truth and reconciliation."
.
I think Obama really means this, and I think he may have the strength of character to carry it off.

kathy,
-
You wrote:
-

... think Obama is, strangely enough, much more politically adept than Clinton was...

-
I agree. And here's the primary way they are different: Clinton needed acknowledgment, acceptance and approval. All the time. He was needy (and somewhat insecure) in that sense.
-
Obama is far more comfortable and confident in who he is. He does not need to be validated by others the way Clinton did/does. That makes Obama a far more powerful leader than Clinton, at least in potential.

Bravo.
-
Now let's see if he follows through on it. I voted for him because I thought he would, but I've been fooled by politicians before (Bush in 2000 for example).

Sean DeCoursey forgot his password Says:
.
Not that I want to sound mean - but I've always wanted to talk to someone who fell for Bush and ask them why -- no snark intended.

Not a big Reagan fan but the 86 tax bill and his handling of the fall of the SU were indeed pragmatic.

One thing I find interesting is that Clinton was criticized for being pragmatic. That always seemed strange to me.

He is able to explain complex issues clearly and in simple terms
.
This is his exceptional talent. It reminds me of then opening to Living Color's "Cult of Personality" (Vernon Reid can play the guitar. Just sayin') where they sample FDR's "We're going to speak in simple terms that everyone here can understand" from an early, maybe the first, fireside chat.
.
I had a freaky realization. Two of our best presidents, FDR and Lincoln, were preceded by two of our worst, who were in office at very difficult times and found the situation beyond them. I'm really hoping Bush is in line with Hoover and Buchanan. And Obama is not.

Not a big Reagan fan but the 86 tax bill and his handling of the fall of the SU were indeed pragmatic.
.
Do keep in mind that the net effect of the 86 tax reform was more regressivity. The broaden the base, lower the rate part of the personal income tax was good, but the increase in the payroll tax rate, rather than a more rapid raising for the cap, was not.

One thing I find interesting is that Clinton was criticized for being pragmatic. That always seemed strange to me.
.
that is why we ended up with the government we deserved. for too long we listened to people who claimed that if you weren't tied to a particular ideology then you had no convictions and a person without conviction is not to be trusted. then we got Bush and realize that adherence to dogma above all else is the reason for the inquisition, the crusades, and Katrina.
.
Oh well lesson learned.

Pretty simple really. I was sick of the corruption and duplicity and triviality of the Clinton years. You're the President and you have an affair with a young impressionable intern that works for you? In the military that would have been a prosecutable offense. In most civilian companies it would have been grounds for a lawsuit. No pop stars or actresses or models were available? I also really, really didn't (and still don't) like what Clinton did to the military while he was in office. Rumsfeld never could have happened if the military hadn't been purged of warriors in favor of CYA bureaucrats during the Clinton years.
-
Bush I was a very underrated president. He made real political sacrifices for the betterment of the country, like going back on his "read my lips" pledge when it was apparent a tax hike was needed. I thought Bush II would govern in the same manner as his father and restore dignity to the Oval Office. I was incredibly, massively wrong.

Talk about a welcome change from the ideology-first recent past.
--
Ideological isn't the right word to describe the Bush Administration; It suggests a coherence his Presidency lacked. What would Bush's ideology be? Certainly not conservatism or progressivism. I'm happy to see Obama taking such a pragmatic approach, but I think in some ways the failures of Bush's Presidency show the merits of ideology, especially for people who are not as intellectually gifted as Obama. If Bush had been reading conservative thinkers - or reading at all - during his time in office, maybe he would have been able to impose some kind of order and coherence to the administration's policies.
--
Ideologies arose for a reason: they provide an intellectual structure with which to examine policies and issues. Clearly those structures can become too confined, and it's great to see Obama's commitment to pragmatism (which isn't so much a rejection of ideology, as an awareness that many ideologies have value). But maybe one decent ideology is better than no ideology, no pragmatism and no exceptional intelligence.

jay,
-
You wrote:
-

"I had a freaky realization. Two of our best presidents, FDR and Lincoln, were preceded by two of our worst, who were in office at very difficult times and found the situation beyond them. I'm really hoping Bush is in line with Hoover and Buchanan. And Obama is not."

-
I had a wise political friend, an elder statesman who was once part of the Clinton administration, tell me in September of 2004 that the American people always found a strong leader when the country needed a strong leader. (This despite the nation's stupidity in electing someone like Bush -- TWICE.) He cited the same two examples you cites: Lincoln and FDR. I asked who that next leader would be, and my friend said he didn't know, but a leader would emerge and would be propelled forward by the people.
-
Eerie...
-
When the chips are down, Americans go for the smart guy. Even if he's black and young and not that experienced.

Sean DeCoursey
.
I don't agree with a lot of your post but I do respect your opinion on most of it save one thing. To give props to Bush I for raising taxes and breaking his pledge is to praise a bald faced liar. He knew before he ever got into office that he would have to raise taxes. He ONLY said no new taxes because he knew Bob Dole had too much character to make the same bullsh!t pledge and thats how he secured the nomination. That was put on full display in the Lee Atwater documentary and he should NOT be given any credit for bullsh!tting his way to the presidency in my opinion

You're the President and you have an affair with a young impressionable intern that works for you? In the military that would have been a prosecutable offense. In most civilian companies it would have been grounds for a lawsuit.
.
For me, what ticked off is that he and Hillary were both strong proponents of feminist policies, particularly the enforcement of rules against sexual harassment. For a senior executive to get involved, in any way, with a very junior employee broke all those rules.
.
Bush I was a very underrated president.
.
I think this is true. One reason Clinton had a bad first couple of years is that there were no obviously wrong policies for him to reverse by executive order. Obama, on the other hand, has a field of primroses to pluck from.

Rose--
.
You're right in calling out Jay on "ideology." Part of the point, and the problem of both the Bush administration and the press is related to this mistake. W was NOT ideological. He was partisan. He had no ideological ideas. He just wanted to loot the treasury for his friends and engage in policies that would keep him in office, able to do that.
.
The largest tradmed failure is trying to balance left/right politics, when the republicans aren't playing left/right politics. They are practicing kleptocracy, increasingly nakedly as they lose elections.

Sean--
.
One more thing on Bush I. I hope Obama reaches out to him. I honestly believe that he was sincerely a public servant, in his own mind. I disagree, in many ways, about how policy should be made, but I don't doubt his commitment to public service. He and Carter are both people I hope Obama looks to. Carter was very prescient, Cassandra like, in the event.