Cass Sunstein's OpEd: "The Obama I Know"

Cass Sunstein, a University of Chicago law professor, wrote an OpEd in yesterday's Chicago Tribune entitled The Obama I Know. Sunstein provides some insight into Obama's thought processes which is quite interesting and revealing.

For example, Sunstein describes a conversation he and Obama had recently concerning President Bush's wiretapping program:

....Before taking a public position, Obama wanted to talk the problem through.

In about 20 minutes, he and I investigated the legal details. He asked me to explore all sorts of issues: the president's power as commander in chief, the Constitution's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the Authorization for Use of Military Force and more.

Obama wanted to consider the best possible defense of what Bush had done. To every argument I made, he listened and offered a counterargument. After the issue had been exhausted, Obama said he thought the program was illegal, but now had a better understanding of both sides. He thanked me for my time.

In the rest of the OpEd, Sunstein talks about some of the concerns people have about an Obama presidency. He also points out, if it wasn't clear already, that Obama is certainly not a dogmatic liberal. For example, Sunstein highlights Obama's general approach to the mortgage crisis:

Transparency and accountability matter greatly to him; they are a defining feature of his proposals. With respect to the mortgage crisis, credit cards and the broader debate over credit markets, Obama rejects heavy-handed regulation and insists on disclosure above all so consumers will know exactly what they are getting.

Sunstein didn't point out that transparency is also a facet of Obama's own campaign. Obama is the only candidate of the three still running that has released his tax returns and provided full disclosure of earmarks. Both Clinton and McCain have failed to provide that level of disclosure.

While there are policy areas — the lack of health insurance mandates for mid-life adults, as one example — that might bother his most liberal supporters, Sunstein claims that Obama is no triangulator:

....Internationally and domestically, he is willing to think big and to be bold. He publicly opposed the war in Iraq when opposition was unpopular.

He favors high-level meetings with some of the world's worst dictators. He would rethink the embargo against Cuba.

He proposes a $150 billion research budget for climate change. He wants to hold an unprecedented national auction for the right to emit greenhouse gases. He has offered an ambitious plan for promoting technological innovation, calling for a national broadband policy, embracing network neutrality and proposing a reform of the patent system.

The rest of the OpEd contains additional insight into how a President Obama might approach governing. Sunstein is one of Obama's intellectual peers, and often such individuals do not talk about their conversations with politicians, especially before an election. Sunstein does address areas of concern people have directly, but he also provides reassurance in several areas. It's an interesting read.



Display:


re: (none / 0)

b-b-b-b-b-but his pastor said some dumb things for half a minute when he wasn't there one day a decade ago.  He can't possibly win.  The superdelegates will realize this and thieve the nomination.

So it doesn't matter.


It's all about McCain/Bush now...
by thereisnospoon on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 08:20:16 PM EST

Re: re: (none / 0)

You must be a misogynist of some type.

/lolz


by Cycloptichorn on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 08:23:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: re: (none / 0)

obviously.  The fact that I despise Terry McAuliffe, Mark Penn, Alan Greenspan, James Carville, Harold Ford and basically every other DLC apparatchik the Clintons have ever allied themselves with, means I must have a serious problem with anybody with a vagina sitting in the oval office.

that must be it.


It's all about McCain/Bush now...
by thereisnospoon on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 08:31:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: re: (none / 0)

I'm right there with ya.  The problem with the DLC is that they have blurred the lines in people's minds, weakening the Dem position and adding to the sense that there's no difference between the parties.

It's damaging to the Dem party - and made a lot of money for some big-business Dems.  Not what I'm interested in.


by Cycloptichorn on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 08:40:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: re: (2.00 / 1)

Then why doesn't bother you that Obama's chief economic advisor, the famous Austan Goolsbee, is also the chief economist for the DLC?

This also helps to explain why "Obama rejects heavy-handed regulation"--such as, for instance, a cap of 30 percent on credit card interest rates. That's sooo old-school. Regulations? We don't need no stinkin' regulations! With a little bit of transparency, the free market can solve all our problems!


Fortune strums a mournful tune for those whose campaigns peak too soon. --Bored of the Rings
by Inky on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 08:45:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It Might Bother Him (none / 0)

It bothers me that Austan Goolsbee is with the DLC, and it might bother the person to whom you are replying.

But this nomination is a binary choice, Obama or Clinton, and neither one is perfect. (Jesus Christ isn't running this year, and if he were Fox News would claim he's too soft on terrorism.) The person to whom you are replying has a much longer list of Clinton advisors he does not like. So it's perfectly understandable why he might prefer Obama and yet also be concerned about Goolsbee.


by BBCWatcher on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 10:13:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It Might Bother Him (none / 0)

And I have a much longer list of Obama supporters I don't like:

   Jeff Liebman
   David Cutler
   Dennis Ross
   Anthony Lake
   General McPeak

I might have mentioned Zbigniew Brzezinski, but it would appear that Obama threw him quietly under the bus a few weeks ago for the one of the few things I actually respected Brzezinski for--his defense of Jimmy Carter's book on apartheid and Israel, which was sympathetic toward the plight of the Palestinian people.

In a meeting with Cleveland Jewish community leaders on Feb. 24, Obama stated that he does not share Brzezinski's views with respect to Israel. Moreover, Obama said, "He's not one of my key advisers. I've had lunch with him once. I've exchanged e-mails with him maybe three times.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/ statements/395/

I fully know that Hillary is not a sturdy pillar of progressive values (although her Senate record is better than most people think, and by many accounts better than Obama's record). But I'll never ever understand why so many progressives are gaga over Obama.


Fortune strums a mournful tune for those whose campaigns peak too soon. --Bored of the Rings
by Inky on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 10:56:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama and Progressives (none / 0)

I don't think most progressives are "gaga" over Obama. I think most have eyes wide open.

As I said, it's a binary choice. My hunch is that it's a combination of factors. They like certain policy positions, such as his comprehensive IP reform and network neutrality plans. They like putting more red and purple states into play in November, and they like the impact of that realignment on Congressional and local races. (They are 50 staters.) They like broad-based campaign finance structures with one million donors rather than a club of $2,300 check writers. They like growing the party and energizing its base. They like his rejection of lobbyist contributions. They like the fact he didn't rubberstamp Bush's War in Iraq.

But I don't think progressives view Obama as perfect by any means. Take a look at what Matt Stoller carps about, for example, even while voting for Obama. A lot of progressives aligned with Edwards or held out hope Al Gore would run, but neither of those candidates proved viable in 2008.


by BBCWatcher on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 11:28:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama and Progressives (none / 0)

Well, I was a hardcore Edwards supporter. My support for Hillary is extremely soft, but I will say this. Neither candidate is particularly good, from a progressive standpoint, on foreign policy. In fact, I agree with Jeremy Scahill when he said (in testimony before the winter soldier hearings) that the role of people who want to end the war in Iraq is not to drink the kool-aid of Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, as neither candidate have any intention of ending the occupation in Iraq. He also said he also thinks it's a good thing that Clinton is still in the race so that both candidates can be pressured to really end the war.

And then we get to economic matters, where it turns out that Obama is actually to the right of Hillary on issues such as health care reform and whether to end or to mend NCLB (he wants to mend it, which is probably one of the reasons he won Teddy Kennedy's endorsement). Hillary at least tries to pander to my vote with her stand on those and some other issues. Apparently Obama is too high-minded for that. And while some people apparently love all his talk of bipartisanship, that kind of rhetoric makes me gnash my teeth.

They like broad-based campaign finance structures with one million donors rather than a club of $2,300 check writers.

Obama has plenty of $2,300 check writers; in fact that's where the bulk his money comes from, even though he's got lots of contributors as well, thanks to his (and his merchandise's) popularity among younger and AA voters. But Obama was vetted by Wall Street early on and found to be a perfectly acceptable vehicle for its predatory interests. That's where he got much of his early money and with it, his media attention, and that's why he always stood a better shot at this nomination than true progressives such as Edwards. Spend some time reading up on his troika of economic advisers, and you'll understand why Wall Street finds him so appealing. You can read all about his contributors and the loophole that allows him to say that he's not taking lobbyist money when he's raking in the dough from lobbyist firms here:

http://www.blackagendareport.com/index.p hp?option=com_content&task=view& id=548&Itemid=34

As I said, it's a binary choice.

I understand that, but I've never been so dismayed by my fellow progressives in my whole life. For instance, if you are going to apply binary logic to your choice of candidates, then you had better not trash Hillary for allowing her husband's administration to pass welfare "reform" because Obama, in his book The Audacity of Hope, cites his approval of that same welfare reform. And yet I read progressives attacking her on that issue again and again.

Btw, what are you referring to when you mention "comprehensive IP reform"--does "IP" stand for immigration policy? And if so, how is Obama's plan better than Hillary's?


Fortune strums a mournful tune for those whose campaigns peak too soon. --Bored of the Rings
by Inky on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:22:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: re: (none / 0)

You've hit upon a good point - something I disagree with Obama with!  Shocking, isn't it, that us Obamabots can name things we don't like about him or his campaign.

I just think he's the better candidate.  And that he would do a better job.  It doesn't mean that he's perfect in every way.


by Cycloptichorn on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:51:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: re: (none / 0)

Shocking, isn't it, that us Obamabots can name things we don't like about him or his campaign.

I'm glad to hear it--it's certainly true about us "Hillbots" as well, as you can see from my responses above. Maybe both camps would be better off treating the other with a little more respect.


Fortune strums a mournful tune for those whose campaigns peak too soon. --Bored of the Rings
by Inky on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:24:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: re: (none / 0)

why use such a blunt word.  I can't imagine the reaction if I used the pe--s or pr--k to describe Obama.  I think America has more of a problem with being sexist than racist


by bradydundee on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:39:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: re: (none / 0)

because that's exactly what we're talking about here: accusations that we don't want Hillary president not because of her positions, but because of her body parts.

It's utterly preposterous, and the use of the word "vagina" (isn't part of of feminism the de-tabooization of that word?) reinforces how preposterous it is.


It's all about McCain/Bush now...
by thereisnospoon on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 06:05:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: re: (1.00 / 1)

Obama's pastor of twenty years, the man who married Obama and his wife, baptized his children, brought him to Jesus, worked on his campaign, accepted over twenty thousand dollars in donations from him. The main who said "Not God Bless America, God DAMN America." The man who said America would plant weapons of mass destruction in Iraq just like the LAPD planted evidence on O.J., the man who said America is responsible for 911, the man who said AIDS was a U.S. plot against blacks....on and on.

You can try to trivialize it. Perhaps you don't care. Perhaps your friends don't care. Your candidate is radioactive. Your candidate is no longer viable.

I see from your quote that you are blinded by your hate of the Clintons.

It is going to take you a while to process this.
I feel sorry for you.


by cc on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:19:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: re: (none / 0)

Are you not "blinded by your hate" of Obama?

If not, can you say here and now that in the interest of the Democratic party and the country you will vote for him  this fall if he is the nominee? Will you work to convince your Clinton-supporting peers?


by vadasz on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:39:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: re: (none / 0)


 No on both counts
Wisdom Is The Reward For Listening Over A Lifetime
by gunner on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 10:37:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: re: (none / 0)

Amen, Gunner.  

And from me...no I won't convince people to vote for Obama in the fall and no i won't say that I will vote for him.  I voted Clinton, Clinton, Gore, Kerry...but not Obama.


by MidwestTracker on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 11:39:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: re: (none / 0)

Have you now lost all respect for Michael Jordan, Tiger Woods and Oprah Winfrey. They all are members of TUCC.

http://www.minnesotamonitor.com/showDiar y.do?diaryId=3434

They went through the initiation. They sat through sermons there - probably for years. Are they racists too?


by elrod on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:59:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: re: (2.00 / 1)

 Never had any respect for them before so it`s a non-starter


Wisdom Is The Reward For Listening Over A Lifetime
by gunner on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 11:03:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: re: (none / 0)

hmmmm...no respect for Obama, Jordan, Oprah or Tiger Woods.

I detect a pattern here.


It's all about McCain/Bush now...
by thereisnospoon on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 06:06:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: re: (none / 0)

Typical Obama supporter--ready to impute racism at the drop of a hat.

I don't have much respect for Obama, Jordan, Oprah or Tiger Woods either, because to me, a corporate shill is a corporate shill, regardless of skin color. I can name dozens of white celebrities and politicians whom I don't respect either, but that hardly makes me anti-Caucasian.


Fortune strums a mournful tune for those whose campaigns peak too soon. --Bored of the Rings
by Inky on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:34:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

About Pastors (2.00 / 1)

I haven't agreed with my pastor on everything since I was baptized. And even then we had a debate.


by BBCWatcher on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 10:06:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: re: (none / 0)

Bull.  Nobody cares about this the way that desperate Hillary supporters do.

This whole 'blinded by hate' thing is EXACTLY what the Republicans said about people who criticized Bush, for years.  They used that tactic to attempt to minimize legitimate and valid complaints about the guy.  And now you're doing the same for Clinton.  Hope you're proud of that.


by Cycloptichorn on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:55:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: re: (none / 0)


 You need a new calender. His last rant was Dec 2007
Wisdom Is The Reward For Listening Over A Lifetime
by gunner on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 10:34:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "The Obama I Know" (none / 0)


Fortune strums a mournful tune for those whose campaigns peak too soon. --Bored of the Rings
by Inky on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 08:47:52 PM EST

Re: "The Obama I Know" (none / 0)

Sorry about that . I wasn't trying to spam this diary. Apparently I hit the wrong button.


Fortune strums a mournful tune for those whose campaigns peak too soon. --Bored of the Rings
by Inky on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 10:24:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.