iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Obama Moves To The Center

First Posted: 06/20/08 06:12 AM ET Updated: 05/25/11 01:35 PM ET

Barack Obama

Barack Obama faces the difficult task of shifting his message away from the primary electorate to general election voters, while avoiding angering the more liberal primary voters who gave him the presidential nomination.

Obama appears at the close of this week to have overcome one of his first hurdles -- a furor among labor and activist leaders over his choice of a campaign director of economic policy.

On another potentially dangerous front -- building a general election foreign policy team -- there is less danger of hostile reaction to the integration of Hillary Clinton advisers into the Obama organization.

Obama's most provocative move in terms of economic policy has been to hire Jason Furman, who runs the relatively centrist Hamilton Project at the Brookings Institution as his staff director for economic policy.

Furman brings with him, as an unpaid adviser, his mentor and the founder of the Hamilton Project, former Clinton Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, as well as former Treasury Secretary and Harvard President Lawrence Summers. Both men have advocated pro-business policies and balanced budgets, and have been criticized by liberals who seek more government spending.

At the same time that the economy flourished during Rubin's and Summers' tenure (1995-2000) -- per capita income rose from $22,153 to $25,469 in inflation-adjusted dollars; median family income rose from $53,349 to $59,398; and unemployment fell from 5.6 to 4.0 percent -- both Treasury secretaries were accused of acceding to Wall Street pressure to eliminate deficit spending at the expense of the poor and unemployed.

The Furman appointment faced a flurry of criticism from such figures as AFL-CIO president John Sweeney and blogger-author David Sirota, leading to a substantial bloc of liberal Democrats quickly stepping in to quiet the discontent.

Furman pointedly noted that his circle of advisers will include economists viewed favorably by organized labor and its allies, including University of Texas professor James Galbraith and former Labor Secretary Robert Reich.

Also backing Furman were New York Times columnist Paul Krugman who wrote:

"Furman is a very good guy, with a solid track record as a progressive...my sense is that Jason Furman has become a proxy target for some Obama supporters who, now that the Great Satanness has been defeated, are suddenly starting to have the queasy feeling that their hero might be a bit of a .... centrist."

Other Furman supporters include SEIU president Andy Stern, who told The Huffington Post, "I am completely convinced after hearing from the campaign that Jason will serve Obama's interests and priorities not his own. And Jared Bernstein's involvement is also a good sign."

Bernstein, of the pro-union Economic Policy Institute, has been added to the list of those to be consulted by the Obama campaign. Bernstein said in response to a Huffington Post inquiry:

"The concern that's surfaced in the last few days maybe comes down to: will Obama be pro-worker in ways that we haven't typically seen from Jason, [University of Chicago economist and top Obama adviser] Austan Goolsbee, and Rubin, but have seen from EPI types like me? Obviously, I think so and that's what I'm doing there ... It's a work in progress but I very much like what I've seen so far."

Robert Reich was more cautious in his comments: "My hope is that Jason proves to be an honest broker, and that the views of Bob Rubin & company are balanced by other views and voices within the Party."

While the Furman controversy reflects the intensifying dispute on trade and globalization policies within the Democratic Party, intra-party tensions over foreign policy and the post-defacto-nomination directions taken by the Obama campaign have not yet been seriously exacerbated -- although all bets are off if differences over withdrawal from Iraq begin to surface.

The Obama campaign is reaching out to such Bill and Hillary Clinton stalwarts as former Secretary of State Madeline Albright, and one of her top aides, James Rubin.

In the international relations policy arena, sources in and out of the Obama camp described a more subtle process taking place, as Obama is forced to decide which Clinton experts to add to the team, and at what level in the hierarchy.

"While there are exceptions on both sides, one of the key differences between the Clinton and Obama foreign policy gurus is generational. And this generational split has significant consequences," one knowledgeable expert said, speaking on background. "In the main, the senior folks in the Clinton administration (1993-2001) went with Hillary, while many of the less senior people went with Obama."

Hillary Clinton's foreign policy advisers came of political age during the Cold War, in many cases during in the Carter administration, and tend to see the world in terms of states and state conflicts, this source said. In addition, many of Hillary Clinton's top advisers "spent eight years dealing with Saddam [Hussein's] intransigence in the 90s," making them more receptive to the arguments for invading Iraq.

Conversely, this expert argued, many of the Obama advisers are post-Cold War theorists who tend to see the world in terms of failed states, the influence of technology, food crises, non-state actors like Osama bin Laden, the spread of nuclear weapons, and the uneven distribution of the benefits of globalization.

Albright has already voiced her willingness to help Obama, and she is expected to play a significant role -- in part because she is not viewed as a competitor for a major post in an Obama administration, and in part because she has hosted many gatherings of foreign policy experts that have included many of those now in the Obama camp.

Two other top Clinton advisers, former UN Ambassador Richard Holbrooke and former national security adviser Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger, face more difficulty in gaining entry to the Obama camp, according to sources.

Holbrooke, who is known to have sharp elbows, reportedly does not get on well with two of Obama's key advisers, Anthony Lake, national security adviser in Bill Clinton's first term, and former assistant secretary of state Susan Rice. While Berger has many supporters, he also damaged his reputation by pleading guilty to unauthorized removal and retention of classified terrorism documents from the National Archives in 2003. He was fined $50,000, lost his security clearance for three years, and was placed on probation for two years.

The likelihood that neither Holbrooke nor Berger will be absorbed into the Obama foreign policy staff or the advisory structure at a high level actually works to lessen the probability of divisive Democratic conflict on this front.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS

Barack Obama faces the difficult task of shifting his message away from the primary electorate to general election voters, while avoiding angering the more liberal primary voters who gave him the pres...
Barack Obama faces the difficult task of shifting his message away from the primary electorate to general election voters, while avoiding angering the more liberal primary voters who gave him the pres...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 678
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (11 total)
03:16 AM on 06/16/2008
Is it really worth the support of pro-business? This is the time for change not timidity. We either continue the pro-business narrow perspective on running a country or we start making a move away from this unenlightened and unethical approach to bringing peace and prosperity to all Americans. The economy is in a tragic state. You don't negotiate with tragedy and poor business ethics. If you do, you end up like everyone else stuck in the mire of self-interest.
05:32 PM on 06/14/2008
Larry Sinclair press conference confirmed for June 18 at National Press Club.
Mmmmmmm things are getting interesting.
12:44 PM on 06/14/2008
I am very disappointed in the appointment of a Rubin protege, but the inclusion of Bernstein, Golbriath and, hopefully, Reich will bring alternative voices to support and protect the middle class who are moving into poverty. My vote and trust in Obama's judgement has not moved, as he confirmed he would listen to all voices before making decisions.
03:36 PM on 06/14/2008
Obama Moving Toward the Center. Obama Lied Through His Teeth. Obama Setting the Stage for a Left-Right Wing Conspiracy.
There is that enticement to fear again. I think writers purposely give titles to their articles that will jerk the eye and yank, rather than draw one’s attention. I guess that's the idea. But, you just know it’s going to lean toward discrediting Obama. Such articles almost always start the timid to wringing their hands or the haters to licking their lips. Face it folks, Obama's administration is not going to look like Bush's administration, a politically homogenous group of people who sat around all day agreeing with each other or else. Obama is doing exactly what he said he would do from the beginning; listen to people, whoever they are, from the bottom, all the way to the top. What I see is a natural progression from his work at the Primary level to the work at the General election level. He is not afraid to listen to SANE, SINCERE, INTELLIGENT, KNOWLEDGEABLE people who have different points of view. GeeeWizzzz!!!
photo
illinoisan
We don't need no stinking badges
11:14 AM on 06/14/2008
This is going to be the easiest pivot from primary to GE in memory. Obama largely ran a GE campaign in the primary already. He cleverly let the right wing paint him as having the most liberal voting record in the Senate while he himself eschewed ideology on the stump.

Unless and until he betrays the promise to fundementally change how business is done in DC, he'll keep his growing coalition safe in '08 and make a governing coalition in '09.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
jmpurser
See My micro-bio
10:56 AM on 06/14/2008
And the American conundrum rolls on. If you want to run successfully you have to promise to be a failure at governing.
01:16 PM on 06/14/2008
Obama put together one of the best teams in ages, that absolutely ran circles around the clinton machine and beat them down to win this nomination. he will fine the correct balance and the people he needs to go forward. He will also combine Both camps and use the best out of each. Give them time and the money and they will fly away with this and set up a great administration to boot. You have to remember it is the time to combine the young with the old, and use the best of both. NAFTA wasn't a terrible idea ! It wasn't regulated correctly to protect Americans interest. If it had to proper safe guards, inport tax's and regulation the idea and programs would have been good for america. there will be a huge amount of trolls on this post, I am sure. Just don't fall for their crap and spin. Mr Obama has several months to put together his policy's and he will certainly have it together in a working program very soon by tapping the best of the best, and combineing it with the voice of the young, old an center it around his idea'a. have faith in him!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ScapeGoat
Facts are stubborn things. Science Rocks!
11:29 PM on 06/15/2008
Yes, beware of the trolls. They hid under bridges and make pronouncements to misdirect the average person. I was fouled by them but now realize that a lot of the anti Obama blogs are from the trolls. I love the name trolls for these people. It is an apt description.
09:44 AM on 06/14/2008
Senator Obama will disappoint those who believe he was for change. If you look beyond his rhetorical flourishes, you will see a calculated politician that is dedicated to maintaining the status quo. His speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee reveals that he adheres to US government policies of dominating the Middle East. His declaration that Iran is a threat to the United States is, despite whatever television news claims, totally ridiculous.
On economics, it is not very surprising to see a Wal-mart apologist as advisor. The more things change, the more they become the same.
01:53 PM on 06/14/2008
All the major candidates support the status quo. Senator Obama is still by far the best of any of the major players. He will restore the constitution, one status quo I like.
02:36 AM on 06/14/2008
It's probably unwise to assume what type of President Senator Obama will be based upon advisors he now makes use of or what he HAS to say or do to win the White House. That Obama's Presidency will be much different than anything seen since JFK, is far more likely the case than not. Greater disaster for OUR country lies in NOT following through on the ideals of a changed Washington, one that no longer bends pro-corporate and lobby influenced paths putting industry profits above OUR Constitution, the Rule of Law and the well-being of every citizen.

An obstructionist CONgress, refusing to throw off the shackles of legalized bribery (lobbying) and continuing to fund re-elections through industry greed, is the obstacle that prevents restoration of OUR nation to it's people and the ideals of equal and inalienable rights for ALL citizens. Reform that eliminates the influence of ALL lobbies is the seemingly insurmountable barrier, as the Legislative branch that would enact such reform is MOST firmly in its grip.

Influential persons of governments-past do not necessitate forgone conclusions about directions for an administration yet to be. The hurdles crossed in a successful route to the White House cannot accurately predict what happens once that goal is attained. If such were the case, we would NOT be illegally occupying Iraq, as the 'candidate duhbya' vowed his would NOT be a government of 'nation-building'. We KNOW how that worked out.
02:53 AM on 06/14/2008
Please tell me why manufacturing jobs won't come back to Ohio?
Then tell me how we will have a middle class without a manufacturing base to the economy?

His free trade policies are no better than the Clinton's....
02:58 AM on 06/14/2008
NAFTA .

'nuff said.

He didn't vote for it, so to associate blame based on party is unfair.
03:52 AM on 06/14/2008
Because of the lobbies here representing foreign governments, OUR legislature was bribed (lobbied) to change laws saying companies selling here must employ and manufacture here in the USA. Worker protections here aren't enforced elsewhere, and manufacturers were allowed to move to places where products are made much cheaper because workers accept much less money, and no benefits - just to survive. OUR workers have been sold out for Wall Street profits. This began with 'Ray-gun's union busting' era and was accelerated by free-trade agreements (NAFTA) that said companies no longer had to manufacture here to sell here, with NO restrictions.

Agreements MUST be re-visited and industries forced to help protect jobs here to do business here There's little doubt though we'll STILL be forced to accept less for an hour of work to compete on the world market.
Completely turning back the clock is impossible, but forcing companies that wish to sell their products here to accept slightly less profit and do right by workers, regardless of the country of manufacture, is what MUST happen.
The word 'deregulation' (of industry) should forever more be equated to employee and consumer 'enslavement'. Complete deregulation in favor of corporate profits equals poverty and destruction of humanity everywhere.

I've no answer to bring back manufacturing jobs gone and being performed cheaper elsewhere, other than maybe how we once forced Japan to build cars here being sold here. It IS anti-free trade, but it seems OUR country WILL eventually fail otherwise.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
damianmann
02:13 AM on 06/14/2008
There are more disappointments to come. It's inevitable. ...but kind of sad.
02:35 AM on 06/14/2008
Don't worry too much, in my mind he's still an extreme leftist with many of those high taxing policies of true liberals.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
dm92
07:21 AM on 06/14/2008
you are going to have high taxes regardless - the difference is where the money gets spent. For those making under $250k taxes are likely to fall - his proposal is getting lied about from the other side.
12:30 AM on 06/14/2008
So you all are so worried over Obama moveing to the right he told us he was going to hire some republicans, moderate democrates, and liberal democrates so why is everyone so surprise? If Hillary had of been the nominee she would of moved right right. She was already right. I dont know why she is still being brought up in these discussions. Put your trust in Obama and I think he will take us on the right road to a prosper economy.
12:07 AM on 06/14/2008
Can someone clarify Obama's platform on the taxing of dividends and capital gains? Would the tax rates on this type of income go up only for taxpayers who have AGI of over $200,000 (single) or $250,000 (joint), or is it his intention to raise the tax rates on this type of income for all taxpayers? This is not a trick question and could potentially impact millions of middle income taxpayers who don't have large monthly pensions to look forward to. For early retirees who don't have large incomes and depend on dividends to pay part of their bills, this could be a major factor in their voting decision. It's one thing to hit up affluent residents living in multi-million dollar condos in Manhattan or San Francisco or Beverly Hills. It is quite another to hit up a middle income household on Long Island or in Montclair, NJ for an additional $1,000 or $2,000 in extra dividend taxes, when that household is already struggling to pay its property taxes and gas bills.
12:25 AM on 06/14/2008
Ok. From what I gather from a little online reading and from his speech, it appears that the Social Security payroll tax is capped. It appears that the income cap is $250,000. So if I understand correctly it appears that if you make over $250,000 you only pay out to social security as if you were only making $250,000. Removing this cap would allow for them to take the same percentage amount that every other American pays, regardless of income, above and beyond $250,000.

The problem here is twofold. All businesses are required to pay a match to Social Security of what they pay their employees(I am still not sure if this is a dollar for dollar match or if it is a percentage). This would immediately become a tax on business as well, except for people making income in rental property or any other entity that did not have to employees on payroll, and reduce money spent on employment.

Secondly, this would be removing a small but noticeable amount from the economy that is considered expendable income and thus is spent on luxuries and services. Now I'm not saying the poor bastards will be broke by any means. But it sets more precedent for class politics rather than solving the problem.

I need to know more though, as I am pretty ignorant to the detail of the plan and how great it's impact would be. But from the basis of my rudimentary knowledge, that's what I gather.
02:11 AM on 06/14/2008
Check http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/taxRates.html for present rates.

For 2008 you pay on the first $102,000.

There is no such thing as a free lunch. This is economics 101. You want Social Security, federal highways, an Army, etc ya gotta pay for it!!!
12:30 AM on 06/14/2008
Oops. Sorry. I thought you were asking about his Social Security proposal from today. He said he may be in favor of raising Capital Gains taxes to as high as 28%. I saw more earlier but now cannot find it.
11:52 PM on 06/13/2008
Why does Obama have to run from the center to get elected???

Bush didn't run from the center, but from the very far right!!!

If the country is ready for Obama they are ready for a single payer health system as enjoyed by every other industrial country.

According to the "CIA World Fact Book" the US of A has an "Infant mortality rate" of 6.30 (per 1,000 births). Ahead of us are such countries as Cuba 5.93 (thats right CUBA), Macau and Slovenia at 4.30, Hong Kong 2.93 and Singapore 2.30. Isn't about time for the Democrats to make our dismal health care system a priority???
12:01 AM on 06/14/2008
Actually, Bush ran very center with his fiscal and foreign policy ideas prior to the election. Remember non-interventionism?
12:11 AM on 06/14/2008
I think you are right. He ran as a compassionate conservative and as someone who did not believe it should be US foreign policy to be get actively involved in foreign nation building. Things changed after he got elected.
01:34 AM on 06/14/2008
Remember his pandering to the Christo-fascists???Remember his speech at Bob Jones University? Do you know how to read between the lines? Did you notice he had trouble reading the teleprompter?

I'm a life long Republican (Nixon was the first President I voted for) and I didn't vote for Bush 1 or 2!!! Maybe my "jerk detector is better than your's ;-0
photo
brighterside
Fall seven times, stand up eight
12:27 AM on 06/14/2008
I believe that Obama is for universal healthcare. I haven't heard one word from him opposing it.

He knows its a problem and he stated it before several times in his speeches. We all deserve universal healthcare.

Right now, his trying to tackle the economy. That I believe is what he was focusing on this week. He also brought some advisors to his team in which some people here felt oppose to. Sure they have a history of bad judgments and some hits and misses here and there. But I think that Obama will stick with his principles and focus on what's important for our economy.

Keep in mind he is the only President that I know of in 20 years that wants to give tax breaks to the middle class -- a class that is overtax and under-appreciated by the rich cronies of Washington. That is no easy feat and will rely on the most capable, experienced and dependable fiscal policy thinkers in our nation. He's doing the right thing and despite some criticism, will bring our economy going the right way.
01:25 AM on 06/14/2008
There is a huge difference between "universal health care" provided by for profit insurance companies and "single payer" systems used by the rest of the world. Requiring everyone to have insurance is a lot different providing it for free. Want to make the US competitive in the world market? Then take away the very expensive health benefits that companies now have to buy from insurance companies and replace it with "single payer"!!!

Look at France's (3.36) health care system to see a good example or maybe Cuba's if you want to see what can be done with very little money.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
CAPTAINSKIPPY
from the Far side of Frostbite Falls
11:11 PM on 06/13/2008
So this is change - as in: - the more things change, the more they stay the same!
10:31 PM on 06/13/2008
The emperor is beginning to disrobe.
A policy change here, a back step there and soon he'll be like any of the folks he beat to get where he is. What will he tell the flocks of adoring fans? Will they accept the news that he is mortal?
10:47 PM on 06/13/2008
Do you honestly expect anything else from someone who is certified by the CFR?

The only real choices were Gravel, Kucinich, and Paul. The others are all working for the same team.
I pray Obama is just playing along with the global elite until he takes office, and then exposes them for what they are.

And since I'm dreaming, I think I'll take this opportunity to wish for a pony, too.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
racetoinfinity
restore Glass-Steagall now!
12:16 AM on 06/14/2008
"The CFR" is "The Council on Foreign Relations". Check out the board of directors -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_on_Foreign_Relations
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
tbone99
cruisin' duality
11:00 PM on 06/13/2008
I fear that since many Obama supporters see everything he does as above reproach, that he could go center to right very quickly before there is resistence.

Since one man is is being presented as the solution , organizations that have been built to ensure civil liberties, peace, & racism etc could fail for funding and be unable to keep up the pressure to obtain goals important to the left.

Of course he has to run as a centrist in this country ,so we shouldn't delude ourselves that change was ever the plan.But we need to continue our organizational work to get the U.S out of the war, push for healthcare and effective enviromental solutions. Too bad Move On abdicated their advocacy position to back a candidate that has missed 42% of the Senate votes, leaving us with an incomplete potrait of the candidate,
photo
brighterside
Fall seven times, stand up eight
12:56 PM on 06/14/2008
I highly doubt that he is going from left to center to right. Also, there is no indication that his going to automatically abandon his principles just because he appointed a few men that were considered "centrist". What I like about Obama is that he is willing to see all sides of the issue even though it's from people with questionable backgrounds. These people know about fiscal policies and are some fresh newbie that just finished college and I think Obama will want to know how it would best be tackled through someone more experienced than he is.

Secondly, I think that Obama will really be a candidate of change. He doesn't have the stigma of having to kowtow or bend backwards for lobbyist -- he repeatedly slams big oil and wealthy corporations all the time. Now ask if McCain would like to take a swipe at big oil companies. I don't think he can do it. But most importantly his really trying to tackle these problems. These problems aren't just going to disappear overnight thanks to Bush. It will take a lot of hard thinking and hard work and not everyone is going to like it. He is on the right direction though. His the only president that I know in the last 20 years that want to cut taxes for the middle class. Although his plan has questions yet to be answered he seems to be going in the right direction in my opinion.
09:43 PM on 06/13/2008
Robert Rubin's disciples and now the 250K+ soc sec tax.

What we have here is what you would have got with Hillary.

While I applaud these moves by Obama, the fact is we would have been better with the real thing: Hillary.

We shall see where Obama heads from here. I am very skeptical and recommend that Hillary's supporters do everything possible and concentrate all their energy on strengthening Hillary in Congress by supporting those legislators who supported her and replacing those who didn't by those who do.

If this long term effort is successful it will result in lasting power and a Clinton legacy that can't be forced out by the Presidential term limits.

Sometimes events occur that while not to our liking, have a way of showing a path to a better future. As Hillary says: "It's not about her, it's about us.".
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
dm92
07:23 AM on 06/14/2008
do you have a picture of the Clintons hanging in your house - what gives with this idol-like worship?
photo
Trollstakeyourmeds
Always happy Lib!
07:02 PM on 06/14/2008
An Obama worshipper has no place accusing anyone else of worshiping a politician.
09:38 PM on 06/13/2008
Oh well. If he's going to move to the middle, he may as well bring Hillary Clinton in as his VP. Both he and Hillary started the primaries on the left. If pandering is the game, lets get it on. But if it looks like more special interest corporatism, don't expect the left to play like all is well.
10:25 PM on 06/13/2008
When did fiscal responsibility become intellectual property of only the left or right? I'm not a fan of social programs, but wouldn't it make sense to make sure they can sustain themselves instead of implode like social security?

Pandering would be sitting in lockstep with the base, which is exactly what got us this miserable Congress that we have now. Corporations in this country pay more taxes than they would in most Socialist countries. It makes it very difficult to invest in people and R&D when 40-50% of your revenue goes to taxes. The only way to address our economic woes is to reduce spending and up the output of capital to the middle class. Pro-business and pro-tax cut economists aren't the problem. It's the lobbyists and congress who provide loopholes and the such that are making things worse.

See: Sarbanes-Oxley Act
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
tbone99
cruisin' duality
10:39 PM on 06/13/2008
those poor corporations.How do they manage to pay their executives millions with all the taxes.?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
thinklib
I will not mince words.
11:02 PM on 06/13/2008
Well said, cuomofied.

Taxing corporations that create more jobs and more wealth for everyone is not the answer. Curbing spending is the answer. And neither party can do that. The Republicans say they will, and fail. The Democrats don't even say they'll cut spending. They'll only increase it.

The solution?

People must demand less spending. Any wasteful spending bill should be attacked by the public like the illegal immigration bill was attacked. Basically, threaten our representatives with voting them out if they vote more spending.

Alas, most people are too lazy, too dumb, or too busy to do this.

So do we want a president that will try to cut spending and probably fail? Or do we want a president that promises to increase spending even more?
12:26 AM on 06/14/2008
Closed single party primaries tend to lead to the extremes of each party dominating the process. In a national election, the winner of each party has to move to the center to appeal to a broader portion of the electorate in the main contest. In a more localized election where one party is overwhelmingly dominant (Democrats in the California assembly district that includes Berkeley), the primary effectively determines the winner. Republicans don't run candidates in Berkeley, for obvious reasons.