And to add, I’m also a libertarian for Obama. In fact, it’s not hard to imagine a libertarian voting Democratic. The R and D parties are both about half right on reigning in government–they just focus on different areas. And these days the Reps’ claim to smaller government simply don’t match their behavior. The government is the size it is and probably won’t change that much. Only its behavior will change, and that’s where Obama fits in nicely.
Sorry to hijack.
I think a lot of people don’t know that Obama’s chief economic advisor is Austan Goolsbee, who is of the Chicago School (in economics).
The Chicago School has included economists like Milton Friedman, about whom Goolsbee wrote a beautiful eulogy in the NY Times. That school is very closely tied to the Austrian School, which inludes huge names in libertarian economics, like Nobel Laureate FA Hayek, and the god of Austrian economics Ludwig von Mises, who wrote Liberalism in the Classical Tradition and Human Action, the former being the reason why I call myself “Liberal” and the latter being the most important economic treatise in history, in my opinion. Both texts can be read in their entirety online at the links I gave.
Incidentally, some people who do know of Goolsbee might be inclined to call him out as the Obama advisor who allegedly told the Canadian government that Obama didn’t mean what he said about NAFTA. But as Keith Olbermann reported on his show, that accusation was a lie, and actually came from Hillary’s campaign.
True 'dat, Lib.
Meanwhile my prediction for yesterday was off. I had predicted seven supers coming out as the means to get the story line off of Clinton’s WVa margin and instead we got 3 1/2, those three former SEC commissioners, and Edwards. Still, it did the job. 
Edward’s pledged delegates are now, according to DemConWatch free to announce their support for whomever they wish. There are 16 available to do so. Will a chunk of them announce for Obama by the week-end? How many supers will announce by then as well?
I wasn’t aware that Goolsbee was Chicago School. That may actually be my first data point to tarnish Obama…we have Chicago School to thank for Pinochet’s Chile (actually, all of the right-wing dictatorships in South America in the 70s and 80s), for the utter anarchy of the post-Soviet Russian economy, for the wrench to Poland’s economy post-USSR, for an IMF and World Bank that are running extortionary scams on poverty-stricken nations worldwide…
Friedman ranks right up there with Satan in my mind. I’m hoping Obama can temper the Chicago School enthusiasm for disaster capitalism (read “opportunism”). Now I know who to keep an eye on in the eventual Obama administration, anyway…
This is very good news.
No, we have Pinochet to thank for that.
So as not to hijack the thread or, even more important, so as not to sabotage your and my newfound respectful relations (:)), I’ll refrain from rebutting your … interpretation of those matters.
I will, however, say two things.
One, don’t be afraid. Obama has surrounded himself with advisors from all four corners of the political spectrum. You can rest assured that he will listen to authoritarians and central planning meddlers as they make their case just as much as he listens to libertarians and free-marketers. What makes him so unique is that his intellect is trustworthy. His decision making process is methodical and deliberate. That is not to say that he takes a long time to make decisions, but rather that he can think reasonably and efficiently.
And two, it behooves us to check out the candidates before we lend them our support. 
With an assist by Nixon and Kissinger.
Does anyone else feel that if Obama play’s his cards right, he could win in a landslide? Or is that silliness? I just don’t think this election is going to be a squeaker.
You mean in November? He’s drawing a very different electoral map than the one Pat Oh-My-God-He’s-Dissing-West-Virginia Buchanan and his ilk are familiar with. It’s a bold and brilliant strategy that, if successful, could result in a substantial win even if the popular vote is close.
I think most political prognosticators are underestimating the enormous increase in the number of voters who have recently registered as Democrats. I think it could be a lopsided win.
Yes, I do. McCain has been extraordinarily lucky. He backed into the nomination due to the collapse of Guiliani and Thompson and having Huckabee and Romney split the right wing vote. He is a candidate tied to an unpopular war and unpopular economic policies and really hasn’t made a case for his election yet. He has endlessly sucked up to the religious right and they still can’t stand him. Now he’s trying to look like an environmentalist and that has infuriated the corporate right. The Republican brand is increasingly unpopular and even among Republicans he is not trusted or admired. Add to that the inevitable campaign gaffes, his propensity for exploding, and the contrast in age and vigor between him and Obama and I think Obama can easily win 300+ electoral votes.
Don’t forget the electoral system. The number of voters per se doesn’t matter; what matters is how they’re distributed.
And this is historically where Obama has done the best. Rooting out the hot spots and capitalizing on them.
He has the potential to win with the proverbial mandate and my sense has been that he will concede very few states. In the VP thread this has come up. If he wants to win the 50 plus one way fairly safely but decrease the chance for that mandate then he will choose someone like Strickland or Rendell who could assure him of winning one or both of Ohio and Pennsylvania which between them have 41 electoral votes. Add those to the big states that are safely Democratic (California, Illinois, New York) and you have 148 right off. With that he can be pretty sure of a solid if not huge electoral win. But if he wants to go for a mandate then he will contest some purple and red states even at the cost of increasing his risk of losing one or both of those two. His choosing someone like a Zinni or even a Sebelius would telegraph that intent.
It is a higher risk strategy but the pay-off is being able to claim the historic game-changer that he’s been advertising and that has attracted such a diverse lot to his side. With that kind of win and a set of solid Democratic wins in Congress (and the pre-season shows every reason to expect that) many Republicans in Congress would opt for his “new bipartisanship” … of course it could backfire too. I just don’t think so.
I am trying not to get too excited by those numbers. They include at least some Republicans who switched their registration solely for the purpose of monkeying with the Democratic primary. How many? Who knows?
Obama is going to absolutely trounce McCain in the GE. I, for one, don’t believe it’ll be close at all.
I predict republicans will begin jumping for the life rafts as McCain publicly goes all asplodey in frustration every couple of weeks.
I don’t know about you guys, but looking at the way things are, it looks like Obama is poised to give McCain an outright, behind-the-woodshed ass-whipping this November.
I am very much looking forward to the debates between the two. When pressed at all on policies, pass statements, or his mounting contradictions, McCain gets overly defensive and makes himself look silly even with Jon Stewart’s kid gloves on. Where as Obama has grown tremendously over the 20+ debates he has done; what was once his weak spot, he even out debates Clinton anymore.
This all assumes that the questions will be at least half way relevant of course. Unfortunately that does seem to be a fairly large assumption.
I certainly haven’t heard anyone claim more than 2% of the Democratic turn-out to be the result of “Project Chaos.” Most of this turn-out is organic and real.
Compare these numbers: Kerry’s numbers in the 2004 general; and Democratic turn-out in these primaries.
Ignore caucus states of course.
Even West Virginia, held after the nominating process was over in all but name and uncontested in any serious way by Obama, had more Democratic voters come out in this primary than voted Democratic in the last Presidential general! Indiana? 30% more voters in this Democratic primary than in the last general. More voted in the North Carolina primary than voted Democrat in the general in 2004. And so on. Turn-out in the primaries isn’t over 2004 election numbers across the board but it is high enough to impress. Now to keep 'em all in the tent while winning over disaffected Republicans and independents. That’s the ticket!
Nope. Not gonna fall for that again. I was sure, positive, without a doubt, sanguine about Bush losing in '04. I mean, there was no way that moron could win again!
This time it isn’t Bush and it is a black man. I am hopeful but by no means am I sure. A blow-out? No way.