Obama's money quote

"It's not about black versus white. It's about the past versus the future."

UPDATE: Here's the full speech.

UPDATE 2: Here's the video:

Andrew Sullivan and Jonathan Cohn say it may have been Obama's best speech yet.

P.S. When Bill Clinton called Barack Obama's position on Iraq "a fairy tale," he wasn't playing the race card. On the other hand, when Bill Clinton said this...

Huh? Who said anything about Jesse Jackson? Why would his mind happen to wander there, pray tell?

Ugh. It's pretty obvious what the Clintons are up to here. Obama's people played right into their hands by making race an issue when it wasn't -- re: the "fairy tale" and MLK comments -- but that doesn't diminish the disgustingly cynical nature of what the Clintons are now plainly trying to do. The underlying strategy of their campaign has evolved into making the public perceive Obama as the "black candidate," thus creating a white backlash. Will it work? God, I hope not. But I fear it may be enough to tip the scales in Hillary's favor.*

Obama's victory speech tonight shows that he's doing exactly what he needs to be doing: rising above it all, or at least positioning himself so it seems like he's rising above it all. Put another way, it now behooves Obama to look more "presidential" than the ex-president -- and the way Bill's been acting, that shouldn't be too hard. Obama's shots at the Clintons need to be veiled but effective, something he pulled off effortlessly tonight. As Eric Scheie puts it, "I'm very impressed at his ability to go for the jugular in a respectful manner." (Hat tip: InstaPundit.)

For me personally, the Clintons' recent behavior has caused a major tipping point my personal outlook on this race and my plans for how I'll vote on February 5. I've gone from tentatively favoring Obama over Clinton, but leaning toward voting in the GOP primary (probably for McCain), to a solidly committed Obama supporter and voter. I will proudly cast my vote on Super Tuesday for the senator from Illinois -- end of discussion. Obama is far more liberal than I am, and I do still have concerns about his inexperience; I'd enter a McCain-Obama general election thoroughly undecided. But I desperately want the Clintons to move off the damn stage. Good grief: Enough! I've always been anti-dynasty in principle, but now I feel it much more deeply than that. They need to go. They're bad for the party, bad for the country, and bad for my stress levels. It's time to get rid of them. We can salute them for their service at the convention... and then let's nominate and elect somebody else, for the love of God.

*I suspect that only a minimal amount of "tipping" is needed, if any. The Super Tuesday format favors Hillary anyway. Obama does better when voters get to see a lot of him, and of his opponent. Hillary does better campaigning from afar; the more voters see of her, the less they like her. But voters in California won't be seeing nearly as much of her (or of the uber-charismatic Obama) as voters in, say, Iowa and South Carolina did. This bodes well for Hillary.

P.S. On a more optimistic (for Obama) note, Noam Scheiber's analysis is worth reading.

And then there's the NRO reader who writes, "I would argue that a black man winning 25% of the white vote in good ol' SC is HUGE." There's something to that. South Carolina is not representative of the rest of America when it comes to race relations; racial issues are, it seems to me, much more highly charged there than in all but maybe two or three other states in the whole Union. So let's not assume that South Carolina's racially polarized tallies (though not as badly polarized as some thought they might be) will be repeated to the same extent across the country on February 5. This is not the United States of South Carolina.

Comments

[Joe Loy]

Again Barack has delivered a fine Oration (which is like saying "Hillary gave another strong policyWonkish town-meeting performance", iow so what Else is new :) ~ albeit accessorized with more-than-a-little Payback, of which the nicely-ironic Punch line is the just-scheduled Feature Bout of Past vs Future: see 1940's warhero Bob Dole the Clintons, ex-Champeens of the 1990's, knocked cold off their Bridge to Nowhere into the River of No Return, by the 21st Century Boyz'n'Grrls of E Pluribus Unum.

And again, Barack do jumpeth the Gun. / Yes, in South Carolina We be Gullah and Yes We Can all Get Along. / But: Wait a week. The net beneficiary of the Palmetto Bump may prove so Counterintuitive that in future when you look up that compound adjective you see Her Picture. / "Wind is changing." ~ Ghan-buri-Ghan / "Again." ~ Joe Loy ;]

[Brendan Loy]

If you're suggesting that Hillary will be the one who gets a "Bump" from her 30-point loss, because the Palmetto State has effectively transformed Obama into a "racial" candidate in the public's perception, that's not really Counterintuitive; indeed it's practically Conventional Wisdom. For several days now, a whole ton of pundits have been pontificating just that. Obama knows it's a possibility, which I'm sure is precisely why he chose the rhetoric he did in this speech (and why the people on stage behind him were notably diverse, with an emphasis on whiteness). And of course, such a "backwards bump" is precisely what the Clintons are hoping for. Which I couldn't blame them for, if they were just sitting back and passively letting it happen -- after all, nobody turns down votes, no matter what the voter's motivation. But the fact that they're now deliberately trying to set things in motion to make it happen (Bill's Jesse Jackson comment being the latest and most blatant example) makes me really angry, especially in light of the fact that last week I went to the mat defending the Clintons against false charges of race-card-playing. Now they really are playing it, and they deserve to be roundly condemned for it. "First black president" my ass. They'll say and do anything for power, those two.

[Joe Loy]

Well, I hadn't seen your Update 2 before commentposting the above. / However, as I figured likely anyway, you've been seduced by Barack's brilliant rhetoric ~ Again. :}

So, your Fatigue with the Clintonian decade of your HS graduation leaves you so emotionally Exhausted that you're left caught exclusively between the severely Bipolar options of: Barack Obama and John McCain. "Think of that." ~ Vonnegut (RIP).

Actually, IMHO those are probably going to be Exactly your available choices, and mine, and All of ours, next November ~ with the possible-to-Probable addition of Lou Dobbs or some comparably-odious Surrogate on a 3rd-party Know-Nothing ticket ~ after Edwards, defying the Primaries Popularvote Plurality, has Kingmade Barack at the Convention. // In which case, I'll join you in happily voting for Obama. / I only wish you could See it the same way, i.e., for Hillary, if somehow she breaks the Johnboy Fix and gets Nominated pursuant to the upcoming Preference of the People. / John McCain is a Good Man but he would be a Dangerous president ~ possibly More so than the Incumbent, precisely Because he is at once so much Smarter & so much more Volcanic. {AND: don't yet count out former Governor Willard Milton Romney, either. Just like Snakeoil Johnny, the serpentine Mitt will not Quit: and Unlike po'boy John ;>, he can truly Self-fund through The Super Pooper & beyond. / Come to think of it, at the GOP convention Ayatollah Huckabee may play the Shah-crowning part of the Republicans' Edwards. Shudder. ;]

"... that's not really Counterintuitive; indeed it's practically Conventional Wisdom."

Y'know, conventional wisdom isn't Always wrong. Just Usually. :)

"For several days now, a whole ton of pundits have been pontificating just that."

Y'know, the pontiff isn't Always wrong either. Just Usually when he's speaking Ex Cathedra ;}.

"And of course, such a 'backwards bump' is precisely what the Clintons are hoping for...But the fact that they're now deliberately trying to set things in motion to make it happen ...makes me really angry, especially in light of the fact that last week I went to the mat defending the Clintons against false charges of race-card-playing."

Yeah. Can't blame ya. / Ingrates. ;>

"Politics ain't beanbag." ~ Mr. Dooley :]

[Brendan Loy]

In which case, I'll join you in happily voting for Obama. / I only wish you could See it the same way, i.e., for Hillary

I don't think I said that I'm ruling out the possibility of voting for Hillary in the general election, if she wins the nomination. If I did, I didn't mean to. I might very well end up voting for Hillary in the general election. But I really don't want her to be there. I want to turn the page from the Clinton chapter in American politics, now.

As for my being "seduced by Barack's brilliant rhetoric," I beg to differ. I think you're the one being seduced, by Clinton's bogus "experience" argument. Obama nailed it tonight when he said that "real leadership is about candor and judgment," not just "longevity in Washington or proximity to the White House." That last dig is especially effective because that's essentially what Hillary is arguing: "I lived in the White House for eight years, so I know what I'm doing!" I bought into that argument myself for some months, but when you really stop and think about it, what "experience" does Hillary have? It's not like she was sitting in on national-security briefings and making decisions about foreign policy. She was the First Lady, not the Secretary of State or something. And her own policy initiatives were failures (as, I might add, was her husband's foreign policy with respect to confronting the growing threat of Islamist terrorism). So what exactly is this "experience" that she brings to the table? By all accounts she's a good senator, and she's got four more years of that than Obama, but I'm not entirely convinced that makes a whole hell of a lot of difference. If Clinton had more real "experience," I might be more willing to overlook her other flaws; or alternatively, if Clinton and Obama were equally appealing candidates otherwise, Clinton's "experience" advantage, such as it is, might be a tiebreaker. But as things stand, the "experience gap" doesn't even come close to making up for the vast gulf between the candidates in terms of who has more of a backbone versus who will simply go whichever way the winds of public opinion blow, as she and her husband always have. Hillary says she's "ready to lead," but that's a crock: the Clintons don't lead, they follow, but then they run to the front and pretend they were leading all along. Four or eight years of the Clintons means four or eight years of endless pandering, triangulation, and the most bitter kind of partisan bickering imaginable. It would be terrible for the country. Whereas Obama, while admittedly less experienced, at least appears to have a moral center and a genuine passion for what he believes in (not just his own power), and on top of that, he's got charisma, likeability, rhetorical talent, the ability to unite and inspire, and various other leadership qualities. And while those things aren't everything, they aren't nothing -- it'd be nice to have a president who can inspire us now and then! And that doesn't even touch the "dynasty" thing, which is truly a huge problem for the health of the republic. This is America, we are not supposed to have royal families!! I just... I guess I really just absolutely do not see the argument for Clinton. I'm precisely the sort of voter the "experience" argument is tailored to (a centrist who believes the war on terror is a big deal), but it's not NEARLY enough for me to buy into her candidacy... and as far as I can tell, it's all she's got. (Well, that and the woman thing, but COME ON -- how can any self-respecting feminist feel all that good about the first woman president being someone who created her political career by blatantly riding her husband's coattails? She's more Lurleen Wallace than Ella Grasso.) For heaven's sake, I can understand why people support Edwards more than I can understand why people support Clinton. And yet she appears poised to win the nomination basically by default, as the establishment candidate. I don't get it. I feel like the Democratic Party is really passing up an amazing opportunity to nominate a potentially transformational candidate. Hillary's the devil we know, and yes, Obama's a risk. But sometimes you have to take risks!! And Obama has got, as they say in sports, a "great upside" -- whereas Hillary has practically no upside at all. Ugh. If the Dems nominate her over Obama, it'll be like the Trail Blazers drafting Sam Bowie instead of Michael Jordan!

Oh, and Clinton will lose to McCain in November. Obama would beat him.

[Brendan Loy]

P.S. "Politics ain't beanbag" is no excuse for letting a candidate get away with blatantly playing racial games with the electorate, using race as a wedge issue for the umpteenth time in our nation's sad racial history, without regard for the long-term consequences for politics or race relations or the party or the country, caring only about the immediate benefit to herself.

You said the other day that I was "very Commendably stationing [my]self stoutly on the 'Ought' rim of the yawning Is-Ought Chasm" with regard to race relations. "The day will come when your Reasoning will be Vindicated," you said. Well, maybe it will -- or maybe it won't. I lean toward the latter if voters like you, who agree that the race card ought not be played, are nevertheless willing to vote for candidates who play it as unabashedly and blatantly the Clinton are doing! If no one demands anything better, then of course the status quo will stay in place; of course the Is-Ought Chasm will remain yawningly wide. The only way ideals can ever become reality is if people demand it!

[Joe Loy]

OK, OK. Sufficient unto the Night is the Evil thereof. :) Also I don't see what the hell the hypothetical drafting of Jim Bowie has to do with all this; granted, yer man invented a verygood Knife but he didn't need to be Drafted any more than did Sam Houston, or Col. Crockett of the East Tinnissee Volunteers for that matter, and Remember the Alamo sez Benjamin Gunn, not to mention the Maine, notwithstanding that Santy Anna gained the Day in both Instances. :> What? Hah??? Oh. / Nevermind :}

Then again Finnegan: the woman whom I so selfishly wish had foolishly chosen to personally restore Camelot instead of wisely pursuing a (semi-) private life, Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg, has just endorsed Obama. / And the Rumors on the Cablenewsies have it that Uncle Teddy, Himself, is considering doing Likewise. / Oh, woe is me: whatever shall I do? :} I'm equally devoted to the Castle Irish & the Black Donnellys but this is goin' beyond the Pale. ;>

[Brendan Loy]

One more thing. :) About the electability argument: read Frank Rich's column. I don't always agree with the man by any means, but I think he's spot-on with this one.

[Brendan Loy]

Okay, okay, one more, also from the Times. :) This column expresses pretty well how I feel.

[anonamom]

Brendan,
You are not being seduced by a fine orator. You are finally seeing the Clintons for who they really are---incredibly arrogant folks who feel the end justifies the means.
I'm a 52 year old professional woman, who voted not once but twice for Senator Clinton's husband---the first time after wearing a button for months with Hillary and Tipper Gore's picture---I was all "two-for-one." (Excellent op-ed in Saturday's NYT btw about why that is NOT a good idea, and was rejected by our founding fathers.)

Barak Obama is not a "young man"---he's 46 years old. He's far from inexperienced. Hillary Clinton was never even even managing partner at her law firm. And where are the inside folks from WJC's presidency---they haven't been coming out in support of "this woman" in any major fashion, letting us know what a key role she played.

And there is nothing, absolutely nothing, wrong or even naive about calling on the people of this country to be all they can be--or at least try. For God's sake, we've got Bill Gates and Warren Buffet telling us we need to create a safety net that functions, and that the developed world must and can address global poverty.
Certainly our politicians have every right to do the same.

And you are correct--she is not electable.

[Mike's brother Matt]

See, the way I see it comes down to this. Hilary and Obama are about equally likely to screw things up. But, at least in Obama's case, he'll be trying to do the right thing in the process. If he puts into place programs that turn out to be wrong, well, at least his heart was in the right place. Whereas Hillary's a coniving, self-aggrandizing carpetbagger who cares nothing whatsoever about the damage she does, as long as she makes herself look good in the process. So, even if we take the worst case, at least in Obama's case I won't be disgusted as things go wrong. I also think the potential upside of Obama's vastly higher. If things go well with him, and he receives good advise to help with his inexperience, he could help heal much of the divisions in this nation. On the other hand, Hillary has no such outcome. With her, we're certain to continue the pathological hatred both parties have for each other. As best as I can tell, there was actually a time when the elder statesmen types were widely respected, both in Congress and amongst the general public, regardless of party affiliation. Whereas now we have maybe Jimmy Carter in that position, and he gets it primarily by having done so little as President it's hard for Republicans to truly hate him. So, overall I'm pulling for Obama to be the Dem's candidate, even if I'm not sure I'd vote for him in November. At least I feel I could vote for him without hating myself for it.

[4-7]

I watched Obama's speech. It was pretty inspiring. I will be very surprised if he does not finally take of as the Next Gen Kennedy. He seems quite sincere and motivated. Of course, I am a raging true constitution conservative so I will likely never vote for the man. But a good speech.

[becky]

If Hillary wins the Democratic nomination, I will volunteer for whoever runs against her. If she represents the kind of leadership that we had in the 1990s (when she got so much of her valuable experience), then I want nothing to do with her. The Clinton administration pushed for the deregulation of banking and now we have a housing crisis. The Clinton administration ineptly responded to the global humanitarian crises in Kosovo and Rwanda. The Clinton administration deadlocked with Congress and brought on the temporary ascendency of the religious right. The Clinton administration ineptly responded to numerous terrorist assaults on our troops, arguably emboldening an enemy that later butchered our people on our own soil. Yeah, that's the kind of visionary leadership that I want back.

Idiotic people credit the Clintons with balancing the budget but I'd credit the Republicans and their Contract With America for that. After all, Congress controls the purse.

Idiotic people credit the Clinton administration with economic prosperity when any moron could see that those years would have been prosperous regardless of presidential leadership courtesy of the tech boom, or more controversially, Reagan's peace dividend if you're inclined to buy that assertion.

Bill's presidency was a disaster for America. His "leadership" managed to produce the worst partisan bickering our government has seen since Andrew Johnson. What kind of Dumbass Establishment Democrats want to choose THAT for the future of the party?

All of Hillary's experience in the White House led to abject failure. She FAILED to reform health care (and her proposals to do so would have enriched corporations at the expense of taxpayers) and she FAILED to reform education. As a first lady, she accomplished far less than most. I mean, Betty Ford left us with knowledge about alcoholism and breast cancer. Laura Bush's campaign against heart disease has been widely applauded by health educators, credited with saving thousands of lives. What has Hillary done? What does she have to show for her "experience"? Nothing. People seduced by Hillary's bogus experience argument are like lemmings that would blindly follow the establishment off a cliff.

Hillary might win the nomination, but I think her victory would be bad for the Democratic party and would practically guarantee at least four more years of Republican leadership in the White House.

[Mad Max, Esquire]

What I think may have hurt Hillary is her bringing up Obama's relationship with that con-artist in Illinois. Seriously, does the woman behind FBI Filegate, Travel Gate, Whitewater, etc, REALLY think it is a good idea to call the kettle black (no pun intended)?

[Mad Max, Esquire]

Here's Hillary's money quote...

"It's my turn! Give it to me! I've done nothing on my own to deserve this! Give it to me now!!"

[JD]

Every time I hear Obama speak, and every time I see articles about Republicans having trouble, I get the distinct feeling some Republicans fear re-experiencing 1980 but on the other side.*

*Disclaimer: The only connection I have to the Carter administration is that I was conceived during it. Someone who was actually around then may have a different opinion.

[Mad Max, Esquire]

I really get the feeling this is more like 1992. It seems like Obama is bringing along Gen Y voters the way Bill Clinton brought in the Gen X'ers in 92.

[CORNHUSKERS 94 95 & 97]

The Clinton's have done everything in there power to paint Obama as the black candidate and if you look at the exit poll numbers you see that blacks supported Obama and white's supported Clinton and Edwards EXCEPT for the non-black vote 18-29yr olds Obama got trounced with non-black voters yet its black people coming under fire for the appearance of racist voting....my fear in this campaign is that at then end of the day, thanks to Bill and Hillary, there are going to be white people who are not going to be able to bring themselves to vote for a black candidate eventhough they claim to be liberals.

think I'm making this up then go to cnn.com and take a look at the exit polls for yourself. before you claim that blacks are being blind racist by voting for Obama you had better take a good look at how the race vote have been broken down since Iowa and you will see that older white people are not looking forward to having a choice between Hillary and a black man.

I said on another blog that Bill Clinton has gone out of his way to point out to white voters that, a) Obama is a black man b) he is a young black man and c)he is a young black man with some youthful indiscresions in his past.

see Bill's lawyerly words of fairytale, calling Obama a kid and last but not least referencing Jesse Jackson as Obama's comparison.

if McCain, Romney or Huckabee was using these tactics liberals would be screaming bloody racism from every corner of the U.S. but because it's Billary/dems doing it you seem to be caught flat footed and not sure how to express your disappointment.

and eventhough it was a primary he was going to win if white people were truly disgusted with what transpired of the last week then they should have voted that way and sent that message clearly to Billary.

racism happens both ways.

[Derek]

Looking at the exit polls, it suggests (at least to me) that the racial gap is more startling than it first appears because of the age gap. Among those non-black voters under 30, Obama won a whopping 52%; but among every other band, he couldn't break 25% (including the largest age group, 60+, where he scored a mere 15% of the vote). He won 63% of first-time voters.

"Only" (I use scare quotations intentionally) 22% said that American is not ready for a black president, and 23% of those who said so still voted for Obama. I would think that "not ready" includes a strong segment of the racist voters, which means that about 18% of voters thought American's not ready for a black president and voted for a white candidate. (How many were lying to the pollsters is obviously a matter for debate.) Therefore, perhaps the black-white divide can't be attributed to the unique position of South Carolina.

Going back to Nevada, equal amounts of black and Latino voters turned out, 15%. Black voters cut 83-14 for Obama, but Latino voters cut 64-26 for Clinton.

The story (so far) is this: Obama worked hard in Iowa and got an amazing victory. But it's hard to saturate so many markets as successfully as he did in Iowa, and he's quickly becoming the "youth choice" and the "African-American choice." That story can change... but that's where it is for now, I think.

[Brendan Loy]

Unfortunately, I think your last paragraph is dead-on. It'll be a truly sad day for the Democratic Party if they turn down the amazing opportunity Obama represents and instead nominate someone as utterly uninspiring and divisive as Hillary.

It's times like these I almost wish people's votes were weighted to reflect how much (or how little) attention they're paying to the race. Racists aside, Hillary is basically depending on the loyalty of rank-and-file Dems, old people, e-mail chain letter recipients, etc., who haven't followed the race closely enough to realize that Obama is the superior candidate. I know that's an arrogant and elitist thing for me to say, but it's also true.

[Wobbly H]

I have not once seen you discuss Obama's position on any substantive issue, or explain why he is more competent than Hill Dog. Perhaps that's where these uneducated people who vote the way the DNC is telling them are actually deciding their vote.

[Brendan Loy]

1) I didn't say "uneducated." I said "not paying attention." Uneducated and uninterested in politics aren't the same thing. There are lots of highly educated people who don't sit around watching CNN's live coverage of each primary/caucus, and who don't spend many hours each week reading political blogs.

2) Obama and Hillary are largely quite similar on the issues. Their differences are around the edges. In light of that, I think their leadership and character qualities are far more important.

[CORNHUSKERS 94 95 & 97]

Wobbly

1st tell anyone what the differences in Obama's, Edwards and Clinton's positions that really require much debate.

Outside of Hillary's gaffe about freezing mortgage rates for 5 years they are pretty much standing for the same things, granted Obama maybe a little more left than both but not so significant as to draw cries from the Left.

[CORNHUSKERS 94 95 & 97]

Brendan, does your blog accept post from a blackberry?

[Andrew]

They'll say and do anything for power, those two.

It's been amusing for us GOP vets to see the rest of the electorate slowly coming to this conclusion -- it's only been, oh, a sixteen-year lag in accepting the reality of how the Clintons operate.

~ with the possible-to-Probable addition of Lou Dobbs or some comparably-odious Surrogate on a 3rd-party Know-Nothing ticket ~

Has anyone, anywhere, in the media, actually posited Lou Dobbs as a potential third-party candidate besides Joe Loy?

{crickets}

Okay, I think we have our answer and can put that absurd notion to rest.

Four or eight years of the Clintons means four or eight years of endless pandering, triangulation, and the most bitter kind of partisan bickering imaginable. It would be terrible for the country.

And yet you still cherish the memory of those glorious, Clintonian '90s? In addition, even though it'd be "terrible for the country", you leave open the possibility that "I might very well end up voting for Hillary in the general election." So who is more "terrible", and how? I simply don't see how you can possibly ever vote for HRC if you truly feel this way, unless the GOP nominee is David Duke or something.

"Politics ain't beanbag" is no excuse for letting a candidate get away with blatantly playing racial games with the electorate....

Okay, and who is the referee that is going to step in and regulate Clinton's ass? They got away with much worse in the '90s and nobody stopped them. Is the Democratic Party leadership suddenly going to find integrity? I doubt it. I mean, these are the same people that like to claim with a straight face that George W. Bush invented political divisiveness, even as the political ghost of Robert Bork still wanders aimlessly inside the Beltway.

[Sidenote: Now that the NYT columns have been pulled back out from behind the subscriber wall, they include loads of links throughout the articles, almost as if they were blogs. I tip my hat to them catching up to the times.]

Hilary and Obama are about equally likely to screw things up. But, at least in Obama's case, he'll be trying to do the right thing in the process.

Overall I agree with the sentiment, however one must not forget that some of the most awful, destructive policies in history were inflicted by well-intentioned do-gooders. One's true intentions have zero to do with how smart and effective the policy actually is.

[Brendan Loy]

Has anyone, anywhere, in the media, actually posited Lou Dobbs as a potential third-party candidate besides Joe Loy?

Um, yes?

[Andrew]

Your link speaks for itself:

Lou Dobbs for President? Don’t laugh.

...

My friend Melissa McEwan, noting this bizarre scenario, added, “That’s the craziest sh*t I’ve ever heard.”

Steve M., meanwhile, suggests this seems to have “publicity stunt” written all over it.

Thank you for proving my point.

[Brendan Loy]

If you'd phrased your point more carefully, maybe. (E.g., if you'd said, "Does anyone other than Joe Loy think Lou Dobbs is a serious threat to actually run?") But that's not what you said. You suggested that no one in the media has even mentioned such a possibility.

But this is nitpicking, of course.

[Alasdair]

becky - for this - "Idiotic people credit the Clintons with balancing the budget but I'd credit the Republicans and their Contract With America for that. After all, Congress controls the purse. " - you just earned a major Gold Star !

Why do so few Americans admit (or even seem to realise) that Congress controls the purse ?

[Wobbly H]

Beckles,
When Alasdair agrees with you, there's a very good chance you are just plain wrong. Presidents are in charge of presenting a coherent budget to Congress. The Budget Reconciliation Act, Clinton's economic plan, was passed with no Republican votes, and deserves more credit for sculpting taxing and spending than anything a Congressional body can achieve.

[Andrew]

Wobbly, you're off the map on that one. The "Budget Reconciliation Act" was just a massive tax hike, and projected deficits continued as far as the eye can see.... until the Democratic Congress was thrown out and the Gingrich budget hawks came in. But as recent history shows, GOP control of the purse strings doesn't lead to balanced budgets either when there's a spend-happy GOP president in the White House.

The real reason for the temporary budget magic was ridiculous amounts of cash pouring in from capital gains taxes, along with budgetary stalemate ensuing from GOP holding Congress and the Democrats having the White House. If you look at state budgets from that time period, they exhibited the same boom-and-bust of the stock market. The federal budget surplus looked gargantuan in 2000, but as Alan Greenspan explains in his book, that was largely because our actuarial forecasting sucks ass at guessing how much money will come in from stocks and other capital gains. Our revenue-predicting abilities have improved quite a bit since then, but even in recent years the deficit has come in well below expectations because of unanticipated revenues from a variety of sources.

Bottom line: Discussions of surpluses and deficits is meaningless, and the only thing that matters is finding a politician who will actually hold down spending (they all say they will, but few actually vote that way).

[Alasdair]

Wobbly - nice sound bite - taken from where ?

According to my understanding of the Constitution of this country, the Congress controls the purse-strings - the President gets to spend what Congress appropriates ...

So, according to you, Carter was fully responsible for the 20+% inflation in 1980, and Reagan was responsible for getting that inflation under control in the early 80s ?