[The Telegraph, U.K.]

 

 

O Globo, Brazil

Obama's Flaw: The Electorate Doesn't Understand His Plans

 

"The problem here in electoral terms, is that Obama's detailed and well-formulated proposals don't have the obvious ideological appeal that, perhaps, if they were easier to understand, would be more acceptable to the electorate he has to win over. Ironically (or tragically, if you wish), what seems like a rationally crafted proposal lacks the easy "appeal" that the Republicans know how to exploit so well."

 

By William Waack

                                 

 

Translated By Brandi Miller

 

August 25, 2008

 

Brazil - O Globo - Original Article (Portuguese)

Game Changer: Hillary Clinton after giving a speech on behalf of Barack Obama that brought down the house on the second day of the Democratic National Convention in Denver. Aug. 27.   C-SPAN NEWS VIDEO: Senator Hillary Clinton issues a call to arms - asks supporters to back her former Opponent, Aug. 27, 00:32:51

For some time, American commentators have been asking Barack Obama to better define himself. Obamania is over (although less so abroad), and what's left is a Democratic candidate with never-before-seen conditions favorable to defeating a Republican opponent, see his advantages with likely voters rapidly slip away.

 

Does one thing have anything to do with the other? I won't risk a hunch here, although I intuitively believe so. But let's turn to what the American press (not necessarily Republican) laments as the central area of "vagueness" by Obama: the economy.

 

It is not easy to attack Obama as a "liberal" within the American definition of the word. He simply DOESN'T defend greater intervention by the states, and he does NOT advocate a redistribution of wealth carried out by regulatory bodies and bureaucratic agencies.

Posted by WORLDMEETS.US

 

But neither is it possible to attack him as a Clintonista, concerned about fiscal balance and letting the market correct its problems for itself. In other words, it is NOT possible to say that Obama has decided to favor of those "adept at the market," the old ideological battle between economists who assisted Clinton (the debate is important, because Clinton presided over the longest period of uninterrupted economic expansion in recent American history).

 

Where is Obama, when it comes to economics? David Leonhardt, a columnist who writes on the economy for The New York Times and is one of the most recent interviewers of Obama, received an answer from the candidate that he describes as dubious: "My core economic theory is pragmatism," Obama said, "and figuring out what works ."

 

There's no room here to discuss, point-by-point, all of Obama's specific proposals, but he has left the impression that he intends to reconcile the irreconcilable. Not in terms of economic theory, but above all, in terms of the political impact of what he proposes.

Posted by WORLDMEETS.US

 

[The Times, U.K.]

 

Obama proposes tax cuts that would benefit more people, but his message hasn't "reached" the middle class. Obama proposes public works and a federal investment program that harkens back to the time of Roosevelt, but workers that have lost jobs recently due to the emergence of new technologies still haven't "heard" the message. And so it goes.

 

For the American voter today, the economic data that is at once simple and at the same time extraordinarily complex is the fact that the country's economic growth over the past two decades hasn’t translated into prosperity for the majority of families. In other words, this is something unprecedented in the country's collective consciousness: the current generation will not have a better standard of living than previous generations.

 

The problem here in electoral terms, is that Obama's detailed and well-formulated proposals don't have the obvious ideological appeal that, perhaps, if they were easier to understand, would be more acceptable to the electorate he has to win over. Ironically (or tragically, if you wish), what seems like a rationally crafted proposal lacks the easy "appeal" that the Republicans know how to exploit so well.

 

The verdict of columnist Leonhardt, who I quoted above: "Obama has not settled on a compelling message about how to put the economy on the right path." It may be that the Democratic challenger is paying a high price for this. And that price should be a warning to us all: Obama has established with considerable accuracy the connection between development, prosperity and sustainability.

 

It seems, however, that the idea doesn't sell.

 

 

CLICK HERE FOR FRENCH VERSION

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Posted by WORLDMEETS.US August 27, 12:45am]