I only thought about Social Security when I saw how big a bite it was taking out of my paycheck.

Two things standing in the way of privatization:

1. The recent financial meltdown

2. "Millenials" don't vote in as big of numbers as old fogies like us. According to some reports, many of the ones supporting BO don't even vote down ticket.

"The key marker of a Hillary Hater is the willingness to state, in almost the same breath, that it is out of control and then to plunge in for a full-throated round of it." - Anglachel

many of the ones supporting BO don’t even vote down ticket.

It makes me laugh whenever I hear an Obama supporter say he will help the down ticket races. Yes, in 2006, he went to bat, and helped elect a lot of Dems, but I think he did it to burnish his party creds, and get the SD luv. Now, it seems his presidential run is all about him, and his supporters agree. I've heard many say they want a Republican congress with a Dem President, which just goes to show you how young and naive they are. Hell, I was only 12 when Bill Clinton was elected, and I remember the BS Gingrich's Congress did. I bet if you asked Obama supporters who Gingrich is, a lot of "Huh? Who?" would be your answer.

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!

why I simply don't 'get' Obama's mystique.(New, different, and attractive!!!!!!)

I'm 30.

Whew!!!!!!

On the flip side...

I'm no longer coveted?

:(

There's always viagra?

Umm...

... is that you're not.

Yeah, it's going to be really easy to put the party back together. All we have to do is change the marketing strategy!

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

I have also noticed an increasingly anti-gay trend amongst obama supporters. First Obama surrounds himself with homophobic and "cured" gays. reaction to Obama's refusal to talk to PGN was quite homophobic (check out huff post piece and commentary for an example) sorry I don't have the link. there is also the struggle that has been going on within the DNC between gay and AA factions (the washington blade has covered this extensively). Now I see Paglia is jumping on the bandwagon (granted, she is a very disturbed individual).

http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2008...

didn't "progressives" give Ahhhnold hell for the exact same use of "girly men"? Why do the boiz hate gay people?? oh yeah, we're just women with penises......

said it best:

"There is one area in which I think Paglia and I would agree that politically correct feminism has produced a noticeable inequity.

Let me leap to correct this unfairness by saying of Paglia, Sheesh, what an asshole."

RIP Molly

myiq, thanks for that....I needed it.

oh, and before anyone points out that gay people includes women, which one might infer from my comment, I will clarify. For "the boiz" lesbians by default are women first and thus should be denigrated on that basis. lesbian is just a subset of women. (in fact it is one of their favorite epithets) "the gays" applies only to the "girly men". I'll have to post the "gay rules" for progressives at a later date to avoid confusion.

hysterical at the same time--they put it up really really early (bec it was leaked?)

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/13/magazi... -- Chris Matthews, Seriously. (O.K., Not That Seriously.)

and I respect and appreciate all the battles the older generation has fought. I worked hard to bring the older and younger generations together in my county because I think we all have much to learn from each other. The callous disregard that Obama seems to have toward the older generation has always bothered me.

Regarding Obama getting the youth vote, I am always reminded of something I noted last year: Hillary was the early favorite among young people.

(the young vote)

we certainly haven't seen anything like the black/white split.

I'm gonna need fast cars featuring beautiful women.

If we're gonna go there.

LOL

Preferably with Ms. Porschla Coleman as the star, poo-pooing mandates.

Don't disappoint me Obama!!!

There has been a bunch of postings at Valentine Bonnaire's site about connections among internet sites and people with ties to Obama. I know so little about this world, that I can't tell if it's the emerging equivalent of the VRWC or if it's tin-foil on the head stuff. The blog is linked to by Riverdaughter, which gives me some confidence in it. If someone who knows more about the old blogosphere and the players wants to take a look, here's the site link - http://vbonnaire.wordpress.com/

But since you brought up Obama's internet advisor, I thought this was a good a thread as any to show my ignorance.

I'm stereotyping. Gotta work on that.

I remember seeing a similar story about Pittsburgh, I think, in the NYT. Plenty of young people supporting Hillary.

Another demographic crying out for analysis.

I'm betting that branding doesn't work for everybody, regardless of the demo.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

How inconvenient for your argument that Obama has taken Social Security privatization off the table. But then, I'm sure some post Lambert wrote in response to someone on dailykos is probably all the evidence to the contrary you folks need. Who cares what Obama says, Lambert has gone to the trouble of interpreting his dog whistles for us.

You'll get it anyway. There are plenty of ardent Hill supporters who are young. Many of us are extremely passionate about her. But the exit polls are undeniable on this.

I think the 18-24 demographic is easy to explain. I've worked with the national College Democrats and have a fair bit of campus organizing experience. It's really easy to have GOTV efforts on "traditional campuses" (that is, colleges where most students live on campus). Combine that with a "peer pressure effect" when other candidates are visually absent (Dean was similar in '04), and you have a good way for Obama to win that group.

It's notoriously hard to reach the non-college 18-24 year olds so that skews the results, IMO. In a state like CA where there are many "commuter schools" and Hispanic communities that have been organized, the college vote described above can be offset. Hillary won the 18-29 demo in CA.

I blame the Hillary campaign for being almost completely silent on campuses. They had the early lead but didn't make any real effort to court this demographic. The race would have been long over had they put even the tiniest bit of effort in campus organizing. It's cheap and really efficient at "traditional" institutions.

Thank you. Maybe we need to shoot Penn after all (though I never could figure out why he was any worse or better than Axelrod; I always just figured it was the Boiz trying to take down somebody who wouldn't hire them.)

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

which is music to my ears. Arf!

++++

Exactly so, and that would be the problem. If Hillary's campaign had been in Wolfson's hands from the start instead of Penn, she'd have wrapped it all up long ago. With friends like Penn, who needs enemies?

It will be interesting to see if Wolfson will pull Hillary's message more to the progressive side. Certainly plenty of room in that direction.

I’m gonna need fast cars featuring beautiful women lesbians. : )

And Paglia is an asshole. Clever of Molly Ivins.

The BO boyz thinking of lesbians as women rather than a sexual minority, hell, who says they think? It's as if their brains have been kidnapped by a conservative black-and-white mindset--male vs. female--which reduces the full range of sexuality into two groups. Not exactly thought-filled.

On the 18-29 age group, from 2006, "Democratic Donors Seeking Young Vote," WaPo:

They cite the results of the 2004 presidential election in which those 18-29 were the only age group to back Democratic nominee John Kerry. The Massachusetts senator won that group 54 percent to 45 percent, according to exit polls.

About 47 percent of Americans 18-24 voted in 2004, up from 36 percent in 2000, according to the Census Bureau. No other age group increased its turnout by more than 5 percentage points. Even with the increase, the youngest voters still had the lowest turnout rate. Nearly three of every four people aged 55-74 voted in 2004.

Luis Miranda, a spokesman for the Democratic National Committee, countered that the party has made several efforts to mobilize young voters, including the creation of a youth coordinating council and leadership training for College Democrats in 40 states.

Except with clarinets.

Or, possibly, Boiz playing poker.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

when he found out how unpopular it is with the voters.

When exactly did he take it off the table anyway? When the market began tanking? Even G-Dub figured out it wouldn't fly back in 2005.

--------------------------------------------------------

"The thing about democracy, beloveds, is that it is not neat, orderly, or quiet. It requires a certain relish for confusion." - Molly Ivins (RIP)

they're almost all women tho, and not connected to the blog boys or other larger online groups, and are just not as visible to those of us outside.

there was something online recently about a guy at one who volunteered and was active--and was the only guy in that campus' group. i'll try to find it.

Or do you believe everything that's on the Internet, myiq2xu?

I put a lot more credence in what they say, personally, because we can hold them accountable for that. Nobody can hold a website accountable -- not that this would explain why the OFB are so anxious to have you look there for policy, of course.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

It's actually a link to a site that distills each candidates positions in short, easy to understand sections, and puts big, bold titles over each citation so that the reader can quickly get the gist said citation. Here are the relevant ones:

Privatization puts retirement at whim of stock market

Q: Would you raise the cap for Social Security tax above the current level of the first $97,500 worth of income?

A: I think that lifting the cap is probably going to be the best option. Now we've got to have a process [like the one] back in 1983. We need another one. And I think I've said before everything should be on the table. My personal view is that lifting the cap is much preferable to the other options that are available. But what's critical is to recognize that there is a potential problem: young people who don't think Social Security is going to be there for them. We should be willing to do anything that will strengthen the system, to make sure that that we are being true to those who are already retired, as well as young people in the future. And we should reject things that will weaken the system, including privatization, which essentially is going to put people's retirement at the whim of the stock market.

Source: 2007 Democratic primary debate at Dartmouth College Sep 6, 2007

Stop any efforts to privatize Social Security

Obama believes we need to preserve Social Security by stopping any efforts to privatize it and will work across party lines to maintain Social Security's solvency for generations. Obama wants to make private saving easier, cheaper, & more automatic for middle-class workers. He supported the Save More for Retirement Act, which encourages automatic 401K enrollment. Obama also voted for new rules to force companies to properly fund their pension plans so taxpayers don't foot the bill.

Source: Campaign website, BarackObama.com, "Resource Flyers" Aug 26, 2007

No privatization; but consider earning cap over $97,500

Q: We all know that Social Security is running out of money, but people who earn over $97,500 stop paying into Social Security. The Congressional Research Service says that if all earnings were subject to payroll tax, the Social Security trust fund would remain solvent for the next 75 years.

A: I think that it is an important option on the table, but the key, in addition to making sure that we don't privatize, because Social Security is that floor beneath none of us can sink. And we've got to make sure that we preserve Social Security is to do the same thing that Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill were able to do back in 1983, which is come up with a bipartisan solution that puts Social Security on a firm footing for a long time.

Source: 2007 YouTube Democratic Primary debate, Charleston SC Jul 23, 2007

Stock market risk is ok, but not for Social Security

If the guiding philosophy behind the traditional system of social insurance could be described as "We're all in it together," the philosophy behind Bush's Ownership Society seems to be, "You're on your own." Relying on the magic of the marketplace is a tempting idea, elegant in its simplicity. But it won't work.

Take the Administration's attempt to privatize Social Security. The Administration argues that the stock market can provide individuals a better return on investment, and in the aggregate they are right; historically, the stock market outperforms Social Security's cost of living adjustment. But individual investment decisions will always produce winners and losers. What would the Ownership Society do with the losers?

That doesn't mean we shouldn't encourage individuals to pursue higher-risk, higher-return investment strategies. They should. It just means that they should do so with savings other than those put into Social Security.

Source: The Audacity of Hope, by Barack Obama, p.178-179 Oct 1, 2006

(Empahsis added so that Lambert doesn't have to read any more than is necessary.)

Are there any words you'd like me to define, Lambert? Probably not. You just want to continue holding your hands over your ears, screaming "Lalalalala! I can't hear you!"

Is 2006 early enough for you myiq2xu?

I'm afraid I've only posted portions of transcripts from two debates. Do those count as things Obama actually said Lambert? Or should I dig up some youtube video? Would that be sufficient proof?

at least as early as October 1, 2006.

Take the Administration's attempt to privatize Social Security. The Administration argues that the stock market can provide individuals a better return on investment, and in the aggregate they are right; historically, the stock market outperforms Social Security's cost of living adjustment. But individual investment decisions will always produce winners and losers. What would the Ownership Society do with the losers?

Source: The Audacity of Hope, by Barack Obama, p.178-179 Oct 1, 2006

And of course he said it during at least one of the debates.

Q: We all know that Social Security is running out of money, but people who earn over $97,500 stop paying into Social Security. The Congressional Research Service says that if all earnings were subject to payroll tax, the Social Security trust fund would remain solvent for the next 75 years.

Source: 2007 YouTube Democratic Primary debate, Charleston SC Jul 23, 2007.

I don't know if he said it any earlier than October of 2006.

I'm Jeff by the way. I posted once before but it was on a music thread that didn't get generate much interest so I'm introducing myself again.

I'm so happy to see you cite Obama's book for his social security position. Perhaps you can explain why Obama attacked Hillary Clinton for holding the same position he advocated in his book? Or as the incomparable Bob Somerby noted at the time:

By now, every well-informed Democrat knows there is no “crisis” afflicting this program—that the claims of a crisis which Russert pimps came to us from right-wing spin-tanks, where they were conjured decades ago. The question: In recent weeks, why has Obama been going out and reciting this tired old right-wing cant? On this question, Krugman is a bit more generous than we may be. But then, we just read Obama’s book.

Why has Obama peddled this cant? Krugman calls his recent statements “mistakes”—mistakes made by a “sucker.” This preserves the possibility that Obama has been engaged in good-faith, bone-headed error. On the other hand, Krugman suggests that Obama had a motive for adopting this know-nothing stance:

KRUGMAN: I don’t believe Mr. Obama is a closet privatizer. He is, however, someone who keeps insisting that he can transcend the partisanship of our times—and in this case, that turned him into a sucker.

Mr. Obama wanted a way to distinguish himself from Hillary Clinton—and for Mr. Obama, who has said that the reason “we can’t tackle the big problems that demand solutions” is that “politics has become so bitter and partisan,” joining in the attack on Senator Clinton’s Social Security position must have seemed like a golden opportunity to sound forceful yet bipartisan.
Obama “wanted a way to distinguish himself from Clinton,” Krugman speculates. According to Krugman’s speculation, this led to his recent pronouncements.

We’re inclined to agree with part of this—but we’ll be a bit less generous about Obama’s conduct. Reasons? First, we just reread his book. Second, we remember Bill Bradley.

What does Obama actually think about the Social Security “crisis?” It’s perfectly clear that, just last year, he didn’t believe there was one. Last year, he published The Audacity of Hope, a superbly written compilation of his political views. But uh-oh! Here’s what he wrote in that book, just last year, concerning Social Security:

OBAMA (page 182): Just as government policies can boost workers; wages without hurting the competitiveness of U.S. firms, so can we strengthen their ability to retire with dignity. We should start with a commitment to preserve Social Security’s essential character and shore up its solvency. The problems with the Social Security trust fund are real but manageable. In 1983, when facing a similar problem, Ronald Reagan and House Speaker Tip O’Neill got together and shaped a bipartisan plan that established the system for the next sixty years. There’s no reason we can’t do the same today.

That passage is slightly shaky on the facts; Social Security was in much worse shape in 1983 than it is today. But in that passage, Obama seems to propose the very thing Clinton is proposing today; he says we should craft a “bipartisan plan” to address this “manageable problem.” On the next page, he continues to sketch his view of the situation:

OBAMA (page 183): As vital as it may be to raise the wages of American workers and improve their retirement security, perhaps our most pressing task is to fix our broken health-care system. Unlike Social Security, the two main government-funded health-care programs—Medicare and Medicaid—really are broken; without any changes by 2050, these two entitlements, along with Social Security, could grow to consume as large a share of our national economy as the entire federal budget does today.

Unlike Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid really are broken, he says. This is exactly what Clinton says now—and Obama attacks her for it. Just last year, this outlook displayed the audacity of hope. Today, it’s a sign of bad character.

It seems to me our choices are that either 1) Obama is a closet privatizer or changed into one, or 2) adopted a right-wing frame he knew to be untrue in order to negatively attack Hillary Clinton. The Audacity of Hope, indeed.

I should quit waiting for that Nigerian prince to deposit the funds in my bank account?

------------------------------------------------

"The thing about democracy, beloveds, is that it is not neat, orderly, or quiet. It requires a certain relish for confusion." - Molly Ivins (RIP)

Way to change the subject, BDBlue. Lambert's pushing a blatant lie about Obama? Look over there, Obama's "attacking" Hillary!

that Obama had attacked Hillary for the same position he took in his book. If you can, provide me with a link to something where he does that.

The only point I was making was when he made the statement not why he made the statement.

likes Obama the most.

------------------------------------------------
"The thing about democracy, beloveds, is that it is not neat, orderly, or quiet. It requires a certain relish for confusion." - Molly Ivins (RIP)

Go to the 50 second mark.

Couldn't find an easily embeddable video for the second debate quote, so here's the transcript (the last item in the transcript on this page). But then, we all know MSNBC is in the tank for Obama so they probably just doctored the transcript.

The Hillary groups on campus are around (I'm a member of one), but they are much less visible and much less of an integral part of the Hillary campaign. To get young people involved, you have to make them feel they are important. Obama did this, Hillary did not.

I’m gonna need fast cars featuring beautiful women lesbians. : )

Even better. ;P

Prudes might object...but I'm all for it.

important?

an important distinction--

very very very related--"... Dean has sometimes repeated the mistake of empowering the grassroots for its own sake. In the early days of the 50-state strategy, outsiders assumed it would increase coordination among Democrats: Dean would provide needed resources and, in return, would receive valuable voter information from state parties. ...

By contrast, Obama hasn't turned his campaign over to the grassroots so much as channeled grassroots energy into a more traditional campaign structure. Obama's Internet supporters have become precinct captains and canvassers; they help plan local campaign events. But strategic decisions always flow down from Obama's Chicago brain trust. ..." -- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...

Lambert, it is a bridge too far when you extrapolate a problematic stance from Obama's campaign, i.e., to make an issue of SS, and to extend an assumption about his policy position.

There are good reasons for regretting that he opened up the rightwing meme that SS is in trouble, and criticizing him for it. But it is very clear both in The Audacity of Hope and in the debates that he has taken a public stand against privitization, whatever the history of any of his economic advisers.

I've heard him on many occasions make that statement regarding privatization, and he has no history of supporting personal medical accounts.

Frankkly, it strikes me as ridiculous to portray him as a stealth Republican, just as ridiculous as it was to portray the Clintons that way.

Remember, it's Hillary who has mentioned a bi-partisan commission in regards to SS; thankfully not lately, and I will admit that Obama's embrace of bipartisanship as one of the changes he wants to bring to Washington doesn't work for SS, because there is simply no reason to consider any form of privatizing, which is all any Republican has to offer, as any part of an answer to solving a problem that is only tangentially a problem some thirty to forty years from now. The most specific fix that Obama has embraced is lifting the cap on how much of earned income is subject to SS taxation, and that is certainly a progressive idea.

On the other hand, Medicare is in crises, and his ideas on dealing with the health care crises we are facing now I agree are inadequate.

It seems I was a minute too fast in posting it.

He's in his freshman year at Oberlin. Before the Xmas holidays he was home and wondering why anyone would vote for Hillary since all he heard around campus was how she was "this huge bitch." My sister flat out told him she wouldn't discuss the primary until he did his own research - reading at the candidates' websites, looking up their votes, watching some debates. When he was more informed, she would revisit. He's never visited a political blog, but did watch the debates, read the sites, and pay more attention to the news in general. Free of the blogoshpere (at least those not focusing on all things Mac), he came to an odd conclusion on his own - HRC gets treated like scary smart girls were in AP calc or physics, and there is a cult of Obama on campus that scares him.

: >

I'm no fan of the Unity Pony, but the bipartisan commission on Social Security isn't about unity, it's about forcing Republicans to fix Social Security in a responsible way and preventing them from blaming Democrats for any resultant tax increase.

Social Security is one of the few issues where the Dems own the Republicans. The program is simply too popular. The reason for a bipartisan commission is because, in the long run, there might have to be tweaks to stabilize Social Security - those tweaks could mean raising FICA taxes or some other potentially unpopular fix. But however unpopular the fix, it won't be more unpopular than doing nothing. The reason you have a bipartisan commission is that it forces Republicans to join with Democrats in the fix so that we don't hear for the next 50 years how the Democrats raised your taxes or cut your benefits.

And this is why Clinton resisted talk of any Social Security crisis (that implies immediate and severe action is needed) and that her solution was the bipartisan commission to protect Dems from accusations that they wanted to raise taxes. Since the Republicans are no more going to let SS fail than the Democrats are, let them co-sponsor any tax increase.

As for Obama criticizing Clinton for his position, jeffazi, I'll need to go pull the links, but my recollection is that in October/November of last year, Obama started using the crisis language and essentially claiming Clinton was dodging this incredibly important issue that could not wait when, in fact, he knew very well there was no crisis and had specifically endorsed a bipartisan commission in his book. But some of the links I've found are old and no longer working. When I get more time, I'll put them up.

And I'm sorry you think I was trying to distract from your point, dmd76. I thought I was being clear, but in case I wasn't, let me say that I agree with you that, to the extent you can believe anything Obama says about his positions (he does have a habit of hedging and changing positions), I do not believe he intends to privatize Social Security. I pick door number two - he merely adopted a right-wing frame he knew to be untrue to take a cheap shot at Clinton (and suck up to the Village).

Which brings me back to the initial issue of this post, demographics. Looking at that debate transcript linked to by dmd76, I see the generational pander in Obama's Social Security talking points. You see, even though he knows Social Security isn't an immediate problem, apparently a lot of young people don't realize that and think it IS in a crisis and so Democrats must take this issue on. Apparently it has never occurred to Obama that the reason so many young people are under the mistaken impression Social Security is in trouble is because leaders like him tell them it is.

there's no need for any kind of commission--just Congress raising the income cap.

That's what's otherwise known in GOP ads as a tax increase. Or, heck, Hillary has pointed that out herself in her critique of Obama's plan to raise the cap (an attack from the right, of which I don't approve, but cannot deny the effectiveness or even the truthfulness in the sense that if you force people - even upper middle class people - to pay more taxes that is, in fact, a tax increase). Why should Dems take that on when they can force Republicans to join them? Especially when the candidates are already advocating rolling back the Bush tax cuts and some other targeted tax increases. Why should the Democrats take all the blame. Again, it's not about the solution, it's about the politics around the solution.

there's nothing wrong with SS. that's plain fact. it has money, a rev stream, it's popular, it's effective (at some minimum level). of course it's hated by republicans.

By contrast, Obama hasn’t turned his campaign over to the grassroots so much as channeled grassroots energy into a more traditional campaign structure.

dingding! if you want to explore what is relevant, this is the point that matters. campaigns need to seem more than they are. and that's important, if you're wondering about outliers and indications for future performance and suchlike. good point.

they're needed for basic operating costs which have been cut or neglected or thrown at Iraq, etc.

SS has a dedicated payroll FICA thing--tweaking and raising that deduction happens anyway--it's no big deal to most Americans. It's appropriate and fair, since rich people get SS too, even when they don't need it--but they don't pay on all their income or even most of their income in many cases, while i and the vast majority of Americans do.