In advance of his much-anticipated nomination speech tonight, an increasing amount of attention is being devoted to what Barack Obama would actually do as president.

In a luncheon panel convened by National Journal on Tuesday and moderated by veteran journalist Ron Brownstein, Obama domestic policy director Heather Higgenbottom said that Obama's top three priories in the White House would be ending the war in Iraq, passing universal healthcare and promoting energy independence. Higgenbottom said Obama was "still looking at what to do" about jumpstarting a faltering economy, but favored an immediate second economic stimulus package and an energy rebate to deal with high gas prices.

Obama's economic platform--and message--remains a work in progress. He's begun hitting John McCain on bread and butter issues, but has yet to propose--or prioritize--a grand plan to lift America out of recession and put people back to work, like Bill Clinton stressed in 1992.

Obama may be a visionary speaker, but he's very much a pragmatist when it comes to governing. "His ideology is what works," said Bruce Reed, President of the Democratic Leadership Council and Clinton's former domestic policy advisor. "Obama's new on the scene," says Reed, "so he has an opportunity to not come with a label. A clean slate offers all sorts of possibilities."

But pragmatism, as David Leonhardt of the New York Times recently wrote in a fantastic piece on "Obamanomics," is not necessarily an ideology. Obama has sent conflicting signals to both the center and the left segments of the Democratic Party. During the primary Obama criticized Bill Clinton's legacy of triangulation and economic deregulation and distanced himself from the DLC. But as the nominee Obama also backed a FISA bill unpopular with progressives and an energy compromise that promoted offshore drilling along with clean, renewable energy.

The real fight inside an Obama Administration may be less about ideology and more about whether to go big and bold or small and slow. Big change vs. incrementalism. Former Senator Majority Leader Tom Daschle, a top Obama advisor and rumored chief of staff in an Obama White House, seemed to advocate the latter apprach. "I think it's dangerous to overexploite a mandate," Daschle said. "Bush did that in '04 and he exploded." Given the complexity of issues like climate change and healthcare, Daschle said it would be easier to "take one step at a time," rather than introduce a sweeping energy or healthcare bill, like the Clinton Administration tried in 1993. Daschle's cautious approach is not without risks, however. On day one, the public will expect Obama to begin to improve people's lives in swift and concrete ways. If he fails to do so, he'll squander the gains of a Democratic Congress and Administration.

Representative Rahm Emanuel, one of the most important Democrats in Congress, said there was some bills Congressional Democrats could immediately pass for Obama to sign into law, specifically mentioning children's healthcare (S-CHIP) and stem-cell research.

Both Reed and Emanuel, proponents of the centrist DLC, downplayed ideologic tensions within the party and predicted Democrats would be united on big issues like taxes, healthcare and energy. Said Reed: "George W. Bush made a populist out of everyone."

Comments (40)

1. It won't be a "Nation" Christmas. Get ready for maybe ONE "toy" and some "oranges and pecans" in your stockings.

   The Right will squeal (of course they'd squeal if Obama doesn't make the Bush tax cuts ((which McCain once opposed)) permanent)...

   but the Middle will be happy.

   Posted by Maskdelta at 08/28/2008 @ 2:27pm

2. He will govern to the left, spend more dollars than Bush did, run up more deficits and raise taxes...---Posted by JOMAMMA at 08/28/2008 @ 2:26pm

   Because he WANTS to commit political suicide, MAASCH!??!???!?

   Posted by Maskdelta at 08/28/2008 @ 2:28pm

3. He will govern to the left, spend more dollars than Bush did, run up more deficits and raise taxes...

   Posted by JOMAMMA at 08/28/2008 @ 2:26pm

   ATTENTION JOHN THICKSKULL!!!!

   REPUBLICAN ADMINISTRATIONS HAVE CONSISTENTLY INCREASED DEBT AND DEFICIT FAR BEYOND ANY DEMOCRAT'S.

   AND THEY CONSISTENTLY LOWER INTEREST RATES TO THE POINT OF TURNING THE MONEY INTO CHEWING GUM.

   Posted by frosty zoom at 08/28/2008 @ 2:47pm

4. If he gets out of Iraq and undoes the Bush tax cuts, he can't possibly have deficits as large as Bush. There is no way he can get the votes to expand social programs to equal the budget impact those two actions. He might equal the Bush budget deficits on paper, though, because the Iraq war has been kept off the books. Zero is right, JM looks ridiculous saying that Obama will run up the deficit at a greater rate than Bush. Any true conservative that wanted to maintain credibility would be attacking the Bush Administration for its prolifigrat spending especially in the bloated Dept. of Homeland Security.

   The historical track record of running up deficits is all on the Republican side.

   Posted by Guiles at 08/28/2008 @ 2:51pm

5. The historical track record of running up deficits is all on the Republican side.===Posted by Guiles at 08/28/2008 @ 2:51pm

   Every Republican President and every Republican running for President since Reagan to McCain today...has promised to "cut taxes and cut spending and balance the budget"...

   EVERY ONE (that became President) gave us a deficit and ballooned the National Debt. Every one.

   And every "fiscally conservative" Republican has given EVERY ONE of them, a pass or an "excuse" for doing it. Every one.

   Posted by Maskdelta at 08/28/2008 @ 2:57pm

6. feel free to hate Obama and vote Republican, that is your right, but don't disrepute yourself and annoy others by declaring silly things like some of what you wrote. Posted by Zero at 08/28/2008 @ 2:35pm

   Jom just has a hatred of anything Democrat. He doesn't care who they are he has convinced himself of one thing, that Democrats are the enemy to everything America and we would be better off if they were dead.

   Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/28/2008 @ 3:05pm

7. MAASCh, I'd like an answer to MY question to you...

   You apparently were saying Obama will enact a DISASTEROUS economic program...

   is he politically suicidal?

   Posted by Maskdelta at 08/28/2008 @ 3:11pm

8. How would Obama govern? Just like John McCain. Progressives need to voter for Nader.

   Posted by john lowell at 08/28/2008 @ 3:23pm

9. JM.....no one could spend more than Dumbo & Dickrod. Period!

   Posted by leftofcenter at 08/28/2008 @ 3:25pm

10. Posted by JOMAMMA at 08/28/2008 @ 3:12pm

    Hollywood trappings? Last I checked he's from Illinois. And last I checked you guys elected an actor before. Your problem is like many left and right you carry such a bias that can't say anything positive about someone from the other side. You carry and aversion to anyone who even slightly liberal. You're not as bad as say LVL who doesn't even consort with liberals and believes everything in this world is a Marxist conspiracy, but I do get sick of the partisan BS every once in a while.

    Explain to me how McCain lack of judgement proves any worth of his experience? Like Biden laid out. McCain has voted 98% with Bush. If 70% of America dislikes Bush then the math only says that 70% of them should dislike McCain. It's just that enough of them are buying the Republican lie.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/28/2008 @ 3:27pm

11. Jo - I would say that George Bush's Resume isn't that great either, nor is John McCain's.

    Politicians are salesman. The issue for me is the degree to which Obama can deliver on what he and his backers have been promising. I will listen to what he proposes tonight and try to evaluate for myself what is realistic.

    I think Universal Healthcare may be his achilles heal, as I don't imagine that it is possible with the current state of insurance and pharmaceutical companies. Furthermore, as far as the economy is concerned, which is a big issue for me, he doesn't want to promise too much of what he won't be able to deliver on because he will be rode hard for four long years, paving the way for 8 years of "more of the same". :)

    A lot rests on Obama and his candidacy.

    Posted by Brannu at 08/28/2008 @ 3:31pm

12. It would appear that the Nation is now officially a Democratic Party magazine. For progressive viewpoints you'll want to look elsewhere.

    Posted by geezjan at 08/28/2008 @ 3:38pm

13. Posted by Zero at 08/28/2008 @ 3:28pm

    JM often makes claims without evidence. It's partisan politics. It causes you to say things with 0 proof. He hates Obama as a principle. Not because he has any proof to the things he holds against him.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/28/2008 @ 3:46pm

14. And every "fiscally conservative" Republican has given EVERY ONE of them, a pass or an "excuse" for doing it. Every one.

    Posted by Maskdelta at 08/28/2008 @ 2:57pm

    To be fair, the above is not accurate, and it's not just JOMAMMA who has complained about the profligate ways of the Bush Administration. Besides the Paleo-Conservative and Libertarian pundits who have written about the issue, cutting federal spending was a major plank in Ron Paul's platform, and polls have indicated that Bush's spending spree was one of the main reasons rank and file Republicans finally started losing their patience with him.

    Posted by cka2nd at 08/28/2008 @ 3:50pm

15. No, to him it is not suicide..he simply will fulfil his promises...and congress will comply...

    ...and blame the Bush years for its failure...----Posted by JOMAMMA at 08/28/2008 @ 3:24pm

    So he's stupid? He'd ignore the fact that a bad economy is a near-death sentence for a President (Carter, Hoover, etc.)...try to blame it on Bush (which nobody would buy)...all to fulfill a promise he could easily break and have a robust economy (by YOUR theory)?

    Odd thing...the guy went to Harvard, you figure he'd be smarter than that?!?!??!

    (of course Dubya went to Yale, so what good did that do!)

    Posted by Maskdelta at 08/28/2008 @ 3:50pm

16. Judging by what little of this convention that I've seen, Obama will be both running and governing - if he can get elected - from the center. Both Pat Buchanan and Joe Scarborough were arguing this morning that Obama and the Dems should be running a more left-wing and populist campaign, that Mark Warner's keynote shouldn't have been so centrist, and they need to hit McCain hard and often.

    Even though his actions over the years identify Obama much more closely with the centrists in the Democratic Party, including Joe Lieberman and the DLC, his media-generated image is as a hardcore liberal. Running as a centrist who distinguishes himself less and less from McCain and the GOP on major foreign policy and economic issues could very well sink Obama, just like it did Dukakis, Gore and Kerry. And if he were elected, wasting Democratic majorities in the House and Senate with an excessively cautious "go slow" approach would sink his ratings, just as the Democratic Congress' gutlessness has disappointed most of the public.

    As I've said before, the best we can probably hope for is for Congress to force Obama to sign some good, progressive reforms that will lay the basis for improving people's lives and, even more importantly, empowering the working class to fight back against Capital.

    Posted by cka2nd at 08/28/2008 @ 4:03pm

17. The govt will grow...more unionised... next year than this year.

    Posted by JOMAMMA at 08/28/2008 @ 3:01pm

    From your mouth to God's ear.

    Starting, I hope, with all of those Homeland Security employees who lost their right to collective bargaining when that buereucratic nightmare of a department was set up (Thank you Joe Lieberman for the idea and the GOP for the implementation) and ending, if there is any justice in the world, with a unionized military!

    Posted by cka2nd at 08/28/2008 @ 4:08pm

18. Posted by cka2nd at 08/28/2008 @ 4:03pm

    Actually, cka, the best way for Obama to govern is to find the things that will get YOU and MAASCH pissed at him.

    That should strike the chord with about 80% of America!

    heheh

    Posted by Maskdelta at 08/28/2008 @ 4:08pm

19. Jom just has a hatred of anything Democrat. He doesn't care who they are he has convinced himself of one thing, that Democrats are the enemy to everything America and we would be better off if they were dead.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/28/2008 @ 3:05pm

    We don't want Democrats dead. That is pure hyperbole. I have a brother and sister who are Democrats (and I still love them).

    But there just isn't anything positive that they bring to the US politically other than providing a comparison.

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/28/2008 @ 4:28pm

20. Actually, cka, the best way for Obama to govern is to find the things that will get YOU and MAASCH pissed at him.

    That should strike the chord with about 80% of America!

    heheh

    Posted by Maskdelta at 08/28/2008 @ 4:08pm

    Mask, given that I'm one of the only honest to God leftists who actually post here, I would think it was pretty clear that Obama and the Dems will piss me off. What I have said a number of times, however, is that those of us who do stand for the working class and progressive change might see some, probably only a little, good reforms coming out of D.C., and those probably pushed through by Congress over Obama's head.

    I have no doubt that Obama will govern as an imperialist, that he will do little to restore our Constitutional protections and natural rights, will resist any efforts to restore some semblance of checks and balances between the Executive and Legislative branchs, will have fiscal and trade policies firmly rooted in the parameters allowed by Wall Street, and that John and Larry will be dissapointed when his brand of health care reform does almost as much to preserve the profits of the insurance companies as the Clintons tried to do in 1993. But if the Employee Free Choice Act passes, we might just see some reform driven from the bottom and an empowerment of the working class and the rest of the non-plutocrats. And if abortion rights are protected, gueers are allowed to exercise their rights more freely and science rightfully trumps religous ignorance, those will also be "good things."

    Posted by cka2nd at 08/28/2008 @ 4:31pm

21. Posted by cka2nd at 08/28/2008 @ 4:31pm

    CKA, I acknowledge that.

    Unlike LVLIB who sees everybody left of Calvin Coolidge as a "leftist"....I KNOW that you are the one true, declared socialist here.

    And what I'm saying is that 80% of the country isn't with you...isn't with MAASCH (or especially LVLIB who wants to scrap everything but the Interstate and NASA) or you.

    So if Obama cuts that line, he'll do fine with them.

    Posted by Maskdelta at 08/28/2008 @ 4:41pm

22. How will Obama govern?

    I'd suspect very very carefully at first and wholly dependent on how well the dems also do in securing congress.

    Controlling the filibuster will have to be carefully weighed against crossing the line in the other direction from incompetence and neglect, in order not to weaken an Obama admin. But it will allow for the proper oversight that was lacking of this current petty dic'tatorship.

    I'm pretty sure the entire of the hsuB/cHeney admin may wish to commit seppuku upon the appointment of a new Dem DoJ... (Nah, they'll just turn on one another and/or flee tail between legs.)

    But just imagine a real DoJ carrying out congressional subpoenas! Audits of the no-bid contracts, the most severe of crimes actually investigated, tried and prosecuted!

    I know the war is at the top of the priority list, then the economy, but once the DoJ is cleaned up, all bets are off what the prosecutors will 'not' focus on as prosecuting crime is their job 1.

    To tell the truth, as long as Obama does a half decent job, it'll be a million times better than what we currently have. So I'm not seeing a major radical shift from just doing a 'good' job if just following the law and having a functional gov; much much better than the crime ridden incompetence of the hsuB/cHeney admin. The bar is sooo low already.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 08/28/2008 @ 6:38pm

23. Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/28/2008 @ 4:28pm

    Funny. Because some of the biggest growth spurts in this country were under Democrats.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/28/2008 @ 7:14pm

24. Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/28/2008 @ 7:14pm

    Ask LVLIB (or MAASCH) if they thought the US had a good economy in the 1950s under Ike....

    then ask them what the top mariginal tax rates were then.

    Posted by Maskdelta at 08/28/2008 @ 7:39pm

25. 1> run on fiscal responsibilty and balanced book keeping.

    Posted by JOMAMMA at 08/28/2008 @ 3:08pm

    example, please.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 08/28/2008 @ 7:47pm

26. Posted by JOMAMMA at 08/28/2008 @ 8:47pm

    No, just saying the basic "High taxes on the rich collapse an economy" theory doesn't work all the time.

    Yes, top marginals WERE 90% during the 50s (hence JFK's tax cut proposals).

    AND it's also true that Bill Clinton's tax on the rich (NOWHERE close to 90%) didn't crash the economy either.

    Posted by Maskdelta at 08/28/2008 @ 8:52pm

27. Clinton: eight years of peace, expansion, and economic boom

    Bush: eight years of war, collapse, economic, financial and social disaster

    Jomamma, can you clarify exactly where you are coming from with this implication that Dems are bad for the economy? I sure as hell want to know how you decided this.

    Posted by maddox at 08/28/2008 @ 10:07pm

28. but the economic boom was just a mirage........

    Posted by frosty zoom at 08/28/2008 @ 10:43pm

29. You really do not know what a balanced budget is?

    Posted by JOMAMMA at 08/28/2008 @ 8:20pm

    john, please.

    give me an example of an administration that has balanced the budget.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 08/28/2008 @ 10:46pm

30. hey john,

    what is inflation and why does it happpen?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 08/28/2008 @ 10:48pm

31. Let's' reverse the American decay of the last eight years and elect "the senator" from Illinois to the presidency of the United States.

    Posted by lachatte at 08/28/2008 @ 11:11pm

32. you have no idea john.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 08/28/2008 @ 11:56pm

33. give me an example of an administration that has balanced the budget.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 08/28/2008 @ 11:56pm

34. give me an example of an administration that has balanced the budget, please.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 08/29/2008 @ 12:15am

35. here jm,

    http://farm1.static.flickr.com/168/368978847_9f70bfd9c3_o.gif

    Posted by frosty zoom at 08/29/2008 @ 01:30am

36. December 28, 2000

    Today, President Clinton will announce that The United States is on course to eliminate its public debt within the next decade. The Administration also announced that we are projected to pay down $237 billion in debt in 2001. Due in part to a strong economy and the President's commitment to fiscal discipline, the federal fiscal condition has improved for an unprecedented nine consecutive years. Based upon today's new economic and budget projections for the coming 10 years from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB):

    THE UNITED STATES CAN BE DEBT-FREE THIS DECADE. BY DEDICATING THE ENTIRE BUDGET SURPLUS TO DEBT REDUCTION, THE UNITED STATES CAN ELIMINATE ITS PUBLICLY HELD DEBT BY FY 2009. THE NEXT ADMINISTRATION AND CONGRESS WILL NEED TO DECIDE WHAT PRIORITIES TO ADDRESS: ELIMINATE THE PUBLIC DEBT BY FY 2010 AND STILL USE PART OF THE SURPLUS FOR RESPONSIBLE TAX CUTS, PRESCRIPTION DRUG BENEFITS FOR MEDICARE RECIPIENTS, AND INVESTMENTS IN KEY PRIORITIES LIKE EDUCATION AND HEALTH CARE.

    <<<<<<<>>>>>>>

    oops.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 08/29/2008 @ 01:39am

37. 1978-2005 Democratic

    Federal Spending 9.9%

    Federal Debt 4.2%

    Gross Domestic Product 12.6%

    1978-2005 Republican

    Federal Spending 12.1%

    Federal Debt 36.4%

    Gross Domestic Product 10.7%

    <<<<<<>>>>>>

    JOHN MAASCH, LVLIBERTY, HAPPY:

    do you understand this?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 08/29/2008 @ 01:51am

38. http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy06/pdf/hist.pdf

    hey, jm:

    check out pages 25-26

    the biggest proportion of gdp/budget deficit

    fell under whose presidency?

    ha ha.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 08/29/2008 @ 01:59am

39. JoMamma....things don't seem to be working as they are - so how do you propose getting out of our hole? If it were up to Bush/Cheney we'd be in Iran next. I'd rather spend that money on issues at home.

    At least Obama proposes remedying some of our most trying issues...like health care costs which is the number one reason for bankruptcy.

    Our leadership is so freakin off-base. If Obama is in office the Republicans will be looking for a way to do him in as they'll start gearing up for the next election (the same would probably be true of the democrats if the republican's win)...and once again nothing will get done. I'm so sick of the game of cat and mouse. For once, I wish that our leaders would create an agenda and work together to get things done.

    Posted by jenjenjen at 08/29/2008 @ 03:31am

40. The stakes are sooo high for the new con repubs corporate dic'tatorship followers per all their crimes, incompetence, neglect; their many layered false myths being cracked wide open an that they need to keep buried in history just long enough to die and let their children be brutalized with their shame-- that I do believe we have not seen to what depths their BIG lie will possibly take.

    But sure to be seen soon.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 08/29/2008 @ 09:58am