The Mind and the Obama Magic

Barack Obama should not move, or even appear to be moving, toward right-wing views on issues -- even with nuanced escape clauses. Arianna Huffington, Paul Krugman, and the NY Times Editorial Page all agree, for various reasons. I agree as well, for many of the same reasons, as well as important reasons that go beyond even excellent political commentary. My reasons have to do with results in the cognitive and brain sciences, as discussed in my recent book, The Political Mind: Why You Can't Understand 21st Century Politics with an 18th Century Brain.

But before I get into the details, it is important to get a sense of why Obama might be "moving to the Right." There are at least three possibilities. The first is for political expediency. The second is to reassure voters that he is a responsible leader, not a crazy radical. The third is that he thinks that nuanced positions don't have the effect of the moving to the right.

Let's start with the first possibility -- expediency, the one assumed by most observers.

The Political Expediency Argument

The usual political wisdom is (1) voters vote on the basis of positions on issues, (2) there is a left-to-right spectrum of voters defined by positions on issues, (3) most voters are in the "center." Polls are constructed to appear consistent with this tri-partite hypothesis. The Dick Morris strategy, based on this hypothesis, says: if a Democrat moves the Right, he will get more votes because he will "take away" the other side's issues. If Obama and his advisors believe this, then the more they more to the Right, the bigger their win should be. But all three hypotheses are false, and so is the conclusion based on it.

First, voters mostly vote not on the details of positions on issues, but on five aspects of what might be called "character," as Richard Wirthlin discovered in the 1980 Reagan campaign. They are Values (What are the ethical principles that form the basis of your politics?); Authenticity (Do you say what you believe?); Communication (Do you connect with voters and inspire them?); Judgment; Trust; and Identity (If you share voters' values, connect with them, tell them the truth effectively while inspiring trust, then they will identify with you -- and they will voter for you. Positions on issues matter when they come to stand symbolically for values. Reagan and George W. Bush understood this. Carter, Mondale, Gore, and Kerry did not. And in the primaries. Hillary Clinton did not get it (she focused on policy, while Obama and McCain focused more on character, on who he was).

Values, authenticity, communication, judgment, and trust are not irrational reasons for voting for a president, even over positions on specific issues. The reason is that situations change, and what you rationally wind up depending on are just those virtues.

Obama introduced himself to the primary voters not as a policy wonk, but as a person of character, who announced his values, said what he believed (no pussyfooting), communicated beautifully and powerfully, and gave examples of his good judgment -- he was someone you could trust and identify with. That was a major part of the Obama magic. If Obama even appears to adopt Right-wing views for the sake of getting more votes, he will appear to be giving up on his values, renouncing his authenticity and believability, clouding his judgment, and raising questions about whether he can be trusted. The Obama magic will be in danger of fading.

Let us now turn to the second reason. There are two major modes of thought in American politics -- conservative and progressive, what I've called "strict" and "nurturant." We all grow up with brains exposed to both and capable of using both, but usually in different areas of life. Some people are conservative on foreign policy and progressive on domestic policy, or conservative on economic issues and progressive on social issues -- or the reverse. There is no left-to-right linear spectrum; all kinds of combinations occur. I've called such folks "biconceptuals." Brainwise, they show a common situation called "mutual inhibition," where two modes of thought are possible but the activation of one inhibits the other. The more you activate a conservative mode of thought, the more you inhibit the progressive mode of thought -- and the more likely it is that the conservative mode of thought will spread to other issues.

Interestingly, many people who call themselves "conservatives" actually think like progressives on a range of issue areas. For example, many "conservatives" love the land as much as any environmentalist; want to live in communities where people care about each other, that is, have social not just individual responsibility; live progressive business principles of honestly, care for their employees, and care for the public; and have progressive religious values: helping the poor, caring for the sick, being good stewards of the God's creation, turning the other cheek. One view of "bipartisanship" for progressives is finding self-described conservatives and independents who have such progressive values and working with them on that basis. That's what Obama did when he went to Rick Warren's megachurch and it is his strategy in Project Joshua. Note that this is the opposite of the form of bipartisanship that involves really adopting right-wing values, or even appearing to. What this bipartisan strategy does, from the brain's viewpoint, is to activate the progressive mode of thought in the brains of conservatives, and thus tends to inhibit conservative thought.

But the form of bipartisanship that involves adopting, or appearing to adopt, right-wing views has the opposite effect. It strengthens conservative thought in the brains on those biconceptuals and weakens progressive thought. In short, it actually helps conservatives. Rather than "taking arguments away from them" it strengthens their basic values and hence all their arguments. It give conservatives more reason, not less, for voting for conservatives.

If Obama adopts, or appears to adopt, right-wing positions, he may still win, since McCain is such a weak candidate. But it will hurt Democrats running for office all up and down the ticket, since it will strengthen general conservative positions on all issues and hence work in the favor of conservative candidates.

As has often been said, if you are a conservative, why vote for the progressive spouting conservative views when you can vote for a real conservative?

In short, if Obama adopts, or appears to adopt, rightwing views, he will not only hurt himself, but also hurt other Democrats.

The Responsibility Position

Suppose that Obama's motivation is not political expediency, but rather an attempt to counter both rightwing and centrist stereotypes of progressives as being irresponsible.

Adopting, or appearing to adopt, rightwing positions is not going to work, and will only hurt, for reasons given above. What is the alternative?

In The Audacity of Hope, Obama portrays what I would call progressive ideals as simply American ideals, and he continued that account throughout the primary campaign. I think it is a correct account. And I think it is the key to uniting the country without adopting rightwing views. From this perspective, responsibility and the strength and judgment to act responsibly works with empathy (caring about other people) to define the basic American ideals: freedom, fairness, equality, opportunity, and so on. One can speak from this perspective of "full responsibility" both social and individual as central to the American vision, and they say what it means to be both responsible and committed to American ideals in each issue area. Moving to rightwing views, and abandoning American ideals, is never necessary to win.

The Nuanced Policy Position

It is possible to add nuance to a policy to make it look like you are moving to the right without actually doing so in policy terms. This can seem to do double duty, avoiding criticisms without making really substantive changes. It is an illusion.

When Obama ran for Senator in Illinois he had to at least appear to support Illinois industries -- coal, ethanol, and nuclear energy. He has used nuanced escape clauses, such as if it turns out to be economically feasible, while aware that sequestered coal, corn ethanol, and nuclear could not be economically feasible. Is this good politics? It may have been for a new senator, but it is not for a president. The reason again is that doing so activates a conservative mode of thought and inhibits a progressive mode of thought, making the move to real alternative energy that much harder.

Positions like this depend on a deep mistake about policy. There are two aspects to policy: cognitive and material. Material policy is about the nuts and bolts, how things are to work in the world. Cognitive policy is about what the public has to have in its brain/mind in order to fully support the right material policies. Coal, nuclear energy, and ethanol are policy disasters, and even giving them support with nuanced escape clauses hurts the possibility of real energy reform, but it activates, and hence strengthens, the conservative modes of thought that lie behind those proposals.

The bottom line: A nuanced policy that looks like a rightward move has the cognitive effect of a rightward move. Cognitive effects matter awfully in presidential campaigns.

Can You Avoid Attacks?

No. No matter how many rightwing views you move toward, you will be viciously attacked as too liberal, as influenced by radicals, as inexperienced, as unpatriotic, as all words and no content. Stick to your core values. Be yourself. Voters will respect you.

Why Understanding the Political Mind Matters

Politics looks different from the perspective of the cognitive and brain sciences. That is why I have written The Political Mind. Your arguments change when you start with how the brain and mind really work.

From the brain's perspective, the pragmatic arguments and moral arguments converge: Don't adopt rightwing positions for the sake of political expediency (that will backfire) or to demonstrate responsibility (that too will backfire). The best way to be expedient is to be authentic, stick to your core values, show and discuss responsibility, and thus garner trust. That is how to lead our nation, and to do so responsibly and toward fulfillment of its ideals.

George Lakoff is the author of The Political Mind: Why You Can't Understand 20th Century American Politics with an 18th Century Brain. He is Goldman Distinguished Professor of Cognitive Science and Linguistics at the University of California at Berkeley.

Comments

[savethecountry]

Given that a number of these posts could be crafted by trolls, it's still amazing to me how little research people do before spouting off inaccuracies. On the issues Obama has spoken on lately, his positions have differed little since the primary season began. For example, Countdown tonight found quotes attributable to Obama on withdrawing from Iraq going back to the beginning of the primary season. Guess what? Those comments were remarkably similar.

We must separate what we believe he's said from what he's ACTUALLY said. And what he's said is not only remarkably consistent but remarkably thoughtful. What he's said is NOT what politicians typically say. It would have been INCREDIBLY easy for him to tow the "progressive" line on Iraq with no regard for reports on what's ACTUALLY going on there and with no regard for getting our men and women out SAFELY. Think about that for a minute. Is it better to "stay the progressive course" and endanger the lives of our own in the process? Have progressives become as ideologically entrenched as neo-cons and authoritarians?

You folks who are not trolls better wake up fast, or the things you fear the most from Obama, which are mostly Repub and MSM spin, will become true next year when McCain becomes president.

Think about that for a minute.

[luvangelHussein330]

Amen!! i couldn't have said it better myself. In this day in age unfortunatly people are thinking of Obama in two deminsional form he either has to be left or right, no bending, no thinking no movement. Obama is a thre deminsional politician. you have to take a look at both sides first. i agree if people would just relax a minute and think and go back to what he was saying origianly they will find that he isn't saying anything different. but we would be fools to think that some aspects are going to have to give being that where we are today isn't where we were at 6 mths ago. the situation we are in now as a country is because we had leadership that didn't think and didn't advance with the current situation. Also this is an election that we need to win. and in order to do that he is going to need to gain the trust of those whos views are more centered or on the fence.

[foxrw]

Believe your own clap trap and Obama's magic by escape clause. If you believe that Obama is not changing his positions since the primary then I suggest you are the troll. "Remarkably similar" is the phraseology that fakers drive trucks through. One man's view as thoughtful is another's view as cowardly.

The point is that he is now showing that he is not a different politician, running a campaign of change as an honest and honorable person, different from the rest.

He did make statements about making the soldiers safe and listening to the generals (the generals have performed sooo well). However, there is no question that he was running against Hillary, primarily, as the anti-war candidate and his emphasis was on getting the troops out in 16 months. He actually backed into that position by reversing his earlier statement that he wouldn't guarantee getting out before the end of his first term. There is also little question that he minimized any misgivings and caveats he had about the 16 months. Getting out safely goes without saying. Requiring stability is a whole other matter.


Should people of been more suspicious of him? Yes because he has always been a compromiser and corporatist.

Now he is placing the emphasis on another syllable and we are suspicious this means another escape route is being paved, particularly given his other surprises of the "remarkably similar" type.

[savethecountry]

So apparently you already had your mind made up about Obama. You most certainly can have your view of what is "thoughtful," AS CAN I. We'll see who's right on November 4.

As to your snarky comment about the generals performing SOOOO well, what the hell do you ACTUALLY know abouit it? I don't know anything about it. Obama's willing to find out more about it.

Honestly, you'd think being an adult in a sea of children would be applauded. Apparently not.

[foxrw]

You obviously don't know anything about it. Here's one clue Mr. Thoughtful­... count the number of generals George Bush has fired.

[rosal]

I don't understand all the surprise with Obama's centrist positions. If I remember correctly, since day one he told us he didn't want a red, or a blue country. Didn't he say he didn't want left or right, Democrat, or Republican? Didn't he say he wanted this to be the United States of America? I remember people cheering and screaming responding to those words.We all felt so tired of partisan politics, remember?
We have a short memory, maybe we don't listen, or maybe we just have selective memory.
Obama 08

[mrsbee]

Absolutely right rosal...if everyone who is complaining about Barack wanted a hard line liberal why didn't they vote for Kucinich as their candidate.­.. Obama has not changed his message at all ....he has always been a pragmatist and has realized you have to look at both sides...of course, he was against the war and remains so..he will bring the troops home...as it is Iraq wants us out anyway, so it may be easier than we think, as long as all our people over there cicians and soldiers are brought home carefully he will keep his promise, and of course, he had basic values but he also knows that sometimes there are situations where there is no black and white...or red and blue...as the case may be...but a situation where a decision must be made in a responsible way based on the situation at the time....as in the FISA vote...the­re is a clause in there that allows for the courts to oversee the wiretapping, which was not there before, also the part that allows for a later case being brought against the telecoms..­.he is a brilliant man, after all and thoughtful about what he does...hav­e some trust in the man you have believed in ... I most certainly do...Obama '08

[jlmealer]

Obama's economy will punish the investor class causing them to send money overseas for investment.
Obama's economy will drop kick the working class into realizing they have NO FUTURE as they would normally strive to become the middle class to investor class...

McCain's 3R Plan give the investor class new investments in USA mfg which can also be grouped as commodities to compound the amount of tax revenue from investor's profits.
McCain's 3R Plan will give the working class edication and a chance to strive to become first the skilled mfg class, business owners and eventually the middle to investor class.

Obama=Stifled economy and stifled working class=DEAD AMERICA
McCain's 3R=Supercharged economy and superhcharged, educated working class=RALLIED WALLSTREET and BOOMING US ECONOMY!

We are putting this together and Obama's plan prevents it, so think with your BRAIN and not your emotions. This is not a basketball game and there is no reset button once Obama crushes America's fragile economy situation.

Please. take time to read the 3R Plan.

We are in this for America's future not a few bucks thrown our way while we crush the investor class that America so desperately needs right now.

www.betterconstructed.com/mccain3R.htm

McCain's 3R is WIN WIN WIN
Obama's lame ideas are Robin Hood thinking at best and we all lose!

[johngw]

You are an idiot.
The last 8 years -- heck the last nearly 30, all the way back to Reagan, have seen a steady decline in America's economic fortune. And we've been following you're "3R" program the whole time. Wall Street is killing the working class here, making us look more like a banana republic each and every day. McCain's ideas are reheated Bush free market, consumerist nostrums-- and look where that has us! McCain's economy will make the Great Depression look like the post-WWII boom!

[Quitcherbichin]

So you are saying you are against the free market? Wall street is killing the working class? Man you need to crawl back under the rock from whence you came. Are you old enough to remember price and wage controls? That really worked didn't it?

As far as wall street goes, there are tens of millions of "working class" individuals who have, or will, retire thanks in part to their wall street investments. The market goes up and down, but historically it is what makes this country grow.

[cmhmd]

As Calvin (and Hobbes) might say,

Your density exceeds that of a high school gym teacher...

Read some progressive economics, why don't you? You might get a better grasp on how things really work.

Cheers,

[itmaybetoolate]

Why is Obama so well supported by Wall Street?

[Acebass]

It was his pandering to the right in the Democratic primary that made me have doubts about him then. I'm not feeling anymore comfortable now. I hope he takes your advice and remembers he's running as the Democratic candidate, the Republicans already have one.

[mythoughts1]

I totally agree. I was for Hillary Clinton in the primary.
I am totally uneasy with Obama and his policy flip flops.
If he doesn't stand solidly for core democratic party issues, who will?
Why vote for him if he is a democrat in name alone?

A lot of us have always liked John McCain.
I hear and agree when people whisper that "at least they can TRUST him."
Don't be surprised when a lot of dem's go McCain- Obama FISA, Obama Faith Based Charities/ religious schools, Obama/ Black Liberation Theology, Obama Iraq, the list is longer every week.
This article underscores the psychology behind this phenomenon.

[Winterwood]

I did not even finish reading this article. Why? Because you gave three reasons why Obama is "moving" right, and they are ALL wrong! What the h-e double hockey sticks is wrong with everyone? Is there NO-one "out there" who remotely understands this man? He has said since he was a senator in IL that he isn't a hardliner and wishes to draw everyone together to combine the best ideas of all sides. That's part of what sold me on the man. As long as he adjusts his positions to fit the circumstances I feel reassured that he isn't a G. Bush or a Hitler who "rules" with the intractability of the iron fist and the concrete block skull! Thank GOD that even with all the horrendous experiences he's had during this long, long, campaign he hasn't become totally deranged! The SADDEST experience I see for him is the number of supporters that mistakenly view him as "weak" rather than expedient, intelligent, and privy to a depth of information not available to most of us; or suspect that he has some underhanded, and even cheap (like in making a change to garner votes) motivations. The chicken-livered flapping I've been reading and hearing in the past two weeks is making me sick to my stomach! I can't understand why he gives a damn about so many stupid fools that can't see that he's the real thing; and there is nothing that can change that kind of person.

[Halcyon]

keep it up, George, you've broken the Code. If nothing else, I'd like to thank you for that.

For the rest of you, please read one or two of his books before you go spouting off because:

"It is better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt"

----old New England Proverb

Obama, Listen to the guy!!!!

[neville]

Halcyon,

I agree with you. Mr. Lakoff is a very insightful gentleman, I've read a couple of his books and have been very disheartened and alarmed by Obama's sudden lurch to the right.

No, I'm not going to bash the Senator, I already have a yard sign & bumper sticker on my car, Supporting retroactive immunity, pledging to continue and expand faith based initiatives, and waffling on the Iraq withdrawal, have really shaken my faith in him though.

Thank You again Mr. Lakoff, I hope the Senator and his staff read this short article. "Dont Think of An Elephant" is a book that every progressive American should read!

[GLS350]

Hold the "faith" neville as at least two of those three issues you brought up are nothing to worry about!

On retroactive immunity: Way back in February he co-sponsored an amendment to the FISA bill which sought to remove the Immunity. When voting for this bill, he did so clearly stating his disapproval for Immunity, his willingness to vote against it if the Senate were able to hold a separate vote on it, and his desire to see it removed once he is in office. So in no way has he "supported" the Retroactive Immunity section of the bill.

On withdrawal from Iraq: He has always stated that while he wants all "combat" troops out of there in 16 months, he's willing to listen to the people on the ground there and make adjustments as needed to get us out safely. The fact that he's willing to listen doesn't change the fact that he wants us out.

The faith-based initiatives are a bit of a wash but I don't really see it as surprising considering he has said he's a man of considerable faith.

As others have said better than myself, he's always believed in taking the best ideas from both sides in order to move forward and was cheered on in the past. It confuses me now that he gets criticized for it when he puts that belief into practice.

[anney]

"Faith-based initiatives" and surveillance of Americans without warrants or oversight are both Constitutional violations. You can gloss over them if you wish, but many of us are very focused on them and supported Obama because he has the background in Constitutional law to know what's required to bring America back to its Constitutional strength that GW Bush has destroyed.

It is horrifying that he's willing to reverse his position on Constitutional matters and shaft us all.

=====

Mr. Lakoff, I think the Bush administration's flagrant violation of so many laws and Constitutional principles makes this election particularly urgent, unlike any in my 68 year lifetime. Who would have thought any candidate could win an election without standing strong against these violations and vowing to do whatever it takes to make America healthy again. This, to my thinking, is Obama's failure and the reason for my utter loss of trust in him after he had it all.

[anney]

"Faith-based initiatives" and surveillance of Americans without warrants or oversight are both Constitutional violations. You can gloss over them if you wish, but many of us are very focused on them and supported Obama because he has the background in Constitutional law to know what's required to bring America back to its Constitutional strength that GW Bush has destroyed.

It is horrifying that he's willing to reverse his position on Constitutional matters and shaft us all.

=====

Mr. Lakoff, I think the Bush administration's flagrant violation of so many laws and Constitutional principles makes this election particularly urgent, unlike any in my 68 year lifetime. Who would have thought any candidate could win an election without standing strong against these violations and vowing to do whatever it takes to make America healthy again. This, to my thinking, is Obama's failure and the reason for my utter loss of trust in him after he had it all.

[JanP]

I do not understand how politicians move right and move left at the drop of a hat and the voters and supporters don't see through it. it doesn't matter if they are left, right or centrist politicians. It all seems so phony - just to get votes.

In Obama's case, we are told he locked up the leftist vote. (Judging by the comments, it 9is busy getting unlocked.) Now, with some magic words, he is going to move to the center or right to get people to vote for him who wouldn;t vote for him in the primary.

So, now he is backtracking on Iraq (fortunately - we should win, not be defeated).

He has taken a stance in support of conservation, against increasing or maintaining energy supplies. Can we expect him to want to drill in some places now because he wants the vote of people who don;t want high energy costs and the inflation that goes with it?

All of you have to decide what you think Obama will do if elected and is it what you want?

[bookeramez]

It is not phony; Obama is an excellent, shrewd politician, period. Politicians must win the election before they can affect change. It is naive to think that a person can run for the office of President in the U. S. and win without playing the game of politics. If a politician is not proficient in his or her craft they will likely be defeated.

Obama hopes that intelligent people, like those who read the Huffington Post, will understand what he is doing. America missed out on a few great candidates that would have made exellent presidents but they could not win the elections. They were simply out-maneuvered polictically. He had the least shot at defeating HRC, and yet here he is. He didn't defeat the powerful Clinton machine by accident; he needed to play the whole game, not just a half, and that early start gave him a win against a formidable opponent.

Obama knows how to win, so let him do his thing. His strategy is to first win the presidency. If he doesn't focus on that task above everything else, we can forget about change and hope for a better America.

[Querent]

Mr. Lakoff is saying that if the voters perceive Obama's campaign as a "game" then much of his support will evaporate. You are saying that the source of support in the voting booth is how well someone has played the game. Lakoff is right. You have simply missed the point.

[Adrienne4Dean]

Lakoff leaves out an obvious third possibility: that Obama is a liar with no deep commitment to any position. Also, if Hillary made a mistake focusing on policy vs. character (even though I deny that she did this), why did she get half the votes? Clearly, that proves that Lakoff’s entire theory about one approach being markedly superior to the other is bs to sell books.

*****A

[shaunmarie]

Somehow, the author managed to trigger your conservative thought positions.

I am not sure that you have considered this, but is it possible that every person who ran for president this year (McCain included) is doing so out of a sincere desire to serve their country in the best possible way?

Nah, thoughtless an reactionary thought is simpler for you, isnt it?

[Kwaayesnama]

Do you ever wonder why so many people are getting on the Barack Hussein Obama bus?

Could it be that this nation is becoming colorblind and does not care if a good person is black, white, red or tan?

Could it be that the American people don’t care if a person worships as a Christian, Buddhist, Muslim, Hindu, or Jew?

Could it be that people remember the scandals of the Clinton And Bush years?

Could it be that the American people know that if it was not for the Clinton’s filth and scandals that Al Gore would be completing his second term in office.

Could it be that the American people remember Bush and McCain looking into our eyes and saying, believe me there are weapons of mass destruction?

Could it be that the American people are shell shocked that over 4,000 precious lives have been lost fighting the wrong war in the wrong country against the wrong enemy?

Could it be that the American people realize that Carl Rove politics brought our nation to where it is today?

[Pete Ross]

Could it just be that all of the dimwits who voted for Bush because they cared more about Clinton's hummer and what women could choose to discontinue growing in their bodies than they did about their country are responsible for Bush getting enough votes to allow Nader to enable Bush & Co to steal the election in 2000 and therefore cause Gore to loose the presidency in 2004, again due to Republican election shenanigans, and therefore deserve the blame for enabling our invasion of Iraq based on lies, our destroyed economy, the outrageous price of gas, the government's incompetent handling of Katrina and the wars and all the other catastrophes wrought on our country by the Republicans since Bush was appointed by the Supreme Court - and that too many of them are still dimwits?

[mom2sons]

Good comments all of you, but we cannot forget that the Rethugs have ran this country in the ground. Just take a look around you. I trust that Obama will do the right thing by the American people. Just look at how they are bashing him for holding his nomination speech at the 75,000 seat stadium. He said that it starts from the bottom up, not top down. The people are the ones who should be able to see and hear the candidate of their choice, not only people who have been chosen as delegates or whatever. For the people, by the people is how Barack will govern this country. Yes, sometimes we have to do what we have to do, so we can do what we want to do when we WIN! Keep the faith and hold on. This is the most important election in our lifetime. Think positive and pray.

[kudabux]

PeteRoss, you are a genius at summing up in one sentence the travesty of the last eight years.

[Capaneus]

Most people vote on emotion, rather than reason. Reason tells us--if you happen to be an average citizen, and not one of the mega-rich--that a vote for Obama will benefit more people, and hence the country, than a vote for McCain, who has promised to continue the ruinous policies of the Bush Administration.

So why are progressives so upset with him now that he has become the presumptive nominee? They claim that Obama is taking right-wing positions for political gain. Some of them are now saying that they are not going to vote--knowing full well that this behavior adds to the likelihood of McCain's getting elected--irrational behavior based solely on emotion.

What they forget is that Obama was never a progressive like Dennis Kucinich. If they had read his book, The Audacity of Hope, they would have realized that he is a centrist who wants to gain bi-partisan support for his policies. So his supposed swing to the "right" is nothing more than Obama being Obama. Progressives who thought they saw something else in him were under the illusion that he was just like them. What remains true, however, is that Obama is by far the lesser of evils when compared to McCain. The Principle of Negative Utility says the rational thing is to choose the lesser of evils, and this should translate into a vote for Obama. Whether it will is yet to be determined

[Marilyn Ferdinand - Huffpost Blogger]

" I believe that Obama has the capacity to become not only a popular president but the most polular president in our history. That would also mean the greatest!"

Really? I think Ronnie Reagan was pretty damn popular.

[pdsimdars]

Is that the benchmark we want for our presidents - a popularity contest? I'd prefer to have history say they were the president who did the most to ensure the rights, freedoms and blessings of America the most. You know, the opposite of this administration who corrupted everything.

[Pete Ross]

"Really? I think Ronnie Reagan was pretty damn popular."

Only among the brain-dead morons in our country.

[kudabux]

Pete Ross, made me laugh at that one "only the brain dead morons" Ronnie Raygun was a puppet for the mega rich corporate hacks (Nancy's buds) whose idea it was for him to run for President.

[Quitcherbichin]

I suppose you conveniently forgot about Reagan ending the cold war huh?

[spyda]

I agree totally that everyone should let Obama be Obama.Its sad that now even people say they support him are now jumping on the GOP and MSM bandwagon and criticizing everything he does because of lack of the truth and the spin zone.The way Bush has schrewed up this country its scary how many people are even considering putting another Rep. in office.Thi­s is scary!!And its so disssapointing to see Hillary supporters on MSM news advertising their support for McCain and claiming that Sen.Obama inflicted sexism into his campaignin­g.This is crazy and its not true.There is no way they could have been real Hillary supporters and now choose to back John McCain!Damn wake up and stop being so gullible to the smears and lies being put out on Obama by the Repubs!!!!Haven't anybody learned anything in the last 7 and a half years!!!!!!!

[uc1000]

Sexism! How about Clinton voting for the war as a reason not to vote for her. Politicians will say anything to get a vote including Obama. This country has no heroic figure in our politicians cause they don't have the courage to going against big business and do right. It is deplorable that Israel doesn't have Palestine integrated. If blacks can live next to whites in America with our history, why can't it happen there? McCain will get at least 50 million people to vote for him which is insane. It is still a black and white issue. People ask why Obama can't get through to lower educated white voters. No one asked why Hillary couldn't get her message across to the more educated voters. White women have benefitted from white supremacy as well. Hence, the fervor some of them have toward Obama. When America can be honest about race, it can truly heal not just by putting a black man in charge.

[LTCKal]

Lakoff does not mention a quality of the US collective psychology which is highlighted by Meredith Willson in "The Music Man," e.g. Americans love a big con. I can't help but have this uneasy feeling that we on the liberal side are "being played" -- and step, by step, the rules change ever so slightly. First the grand speeches, then, a little more distance from the press, now the little shift to the right. If you doubt, there will be a stadium full of people cheering, as witness, today, the plans for the Democratic Convention (which needs money, after all). Are we liberals as vulnerable to the con on the left as the Evangelicals were on the right with the Bush campaign?

[Lanark]

Obama is nothing but the big con. Invented by back room bosses, consisting of platitudes and pandering to the socialistic leanings of what calls itself the Democratic party. So it is "76 trombones times". You deserve nothing less and you will really screw up the country in the process. A pox on all of you.

[pdyoung]

Hey Lanark:
You have made some pretty wild accusations . What exactly has Barack Obama conned us about and do be specific please? To your other comment about Barack Obama screwing up this country, Newsflash! Take a good look around, this country is already screwed up and in a disastrous state and that is due to the handy work of the Republicans. You say that Barack Obama has conned us but the real con is McCan't who has promised to balance the budget. LOL.

[ChiMan1]

George, for your next literary journey may I suggest a Fairy Tale, this piece is a good start on that type of literature. you could start with the "O" taking BIG money from those Evil Capitalists and putting the Big Money under the pillows, of Elitist defined, more deserving recipients, he could ride around on a Ray of Light, (but not from GOD, separation is important), you know an Obamatized LIGHT; and while your at it Kill Off that old geezer Santa, he just annoys the Hell out of Progressives. Good Day!

[Doubtom43]

I'm an independent and have been one for longer than Obama has been around. I'm also an ardent supporter of Ralph Nader. That said, I believe that Obama has the capacity to become not only a popular president but the most polular president in our history. That would also mean the greatest!
He has to stick to his core values and not pander to the reicht wing wackos. His current waffling and flip-flopping indicates that he fears that he doesn't have the numbers with just the Democratic party and needs the boost from the Independents and republicans. (small "r" intentional) I think he has sufficient numbers with just his Democrats, but I could be wrong.