Counterpoint: Maybe Obama Knows What He Is Doing

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 03:03:57 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Via Atrios and Kevin Drum, Charlie Peters argues Obama knows how to enact progressive policies:

Consider a bill into which Obama clearly put his heart and soul. The problem he wanted to address was that too many confessions, rather than being voluntary, were coerced — by beating the daylights out of the accused....The bill itself aroused immediate opposition. ....He responded with an all-out campaign of cajolery....The police proved to be Obama's toughest opponent, [but] by showing officers that he shared many of their concerns, even going so far as to help pass other legislation they wanted, he was able to quiet the fears of many. Obama proved persuasive enough that the bill passed both houses of the legislature, the Senate by an incredible 35 to 0. Then he talked Blagojevich into signing the bill, making Illinois the first state to require such videotaping.

Like Kevin, color me unimpressed. This was Illinois. This was a Democratic Governor. As Kevin says, the vote was 35-0 so how much opposition could there have been? Archpundit argues there was vehement opposition. Well, no apparently there was not VEHEMENT opposition. I'll go even further, who did Obama win over on S-CHIP? On Iraq? On anything in the Congress?

Heck, this gives me even more pause because he probably thinks he CAN do it in Washington.

< Neo-High Broderist Joe Klein Claims Obama As His Own | Heading Home: Open Thread >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Counterpoint: Maybe Obama Knows What He Is Doing | 34 comments (34 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Archpundit (5.00 / 2) (#1)
by Maryb2004 on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 03:25:20 PM EST

knows every archaic detail about the Illinois legislature and what goes on there. So if he says there was vehement opposition, I know of no reason to think there wasn't.

I don't equate the Illinois legislature with Congress though. No matter how often Obama supporters try to impress me with his experience there.

And It's Fair to Not Equate It (none / 0) (#28)
by archpundit on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 08:45:26 PM EST

But I think the more interesting aspect isn't so much the legislative effort in the Lege, but the working with interest groups and parties outside of the legislature to kill the strongest opposition.

There are many ways to compare the situations and whether it's transferable and that's all a fairly complex discussion.

Where I think it challenges BTDs point about the politics of contrast is probably the most interesting and I don't think there's a clear answer in all cases, this is a case where the politics of contrast was on the losing end of the public's views of the issue and he found a way to still adopt a series of reforms.


: It's fair to bring it up (none / 0) (#32)
by Maryb2004 on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 09:59:30 PM EST

but he's saddled by the fact that he hasn't done anything comparable in the US Senate. So there's no way for us to really judge whether he has the ability to translate that to the federal level.

err... (none / 0) (#29)
by archpundit on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 08:46:08 PM EST

Rated if the substantive point, not the nice things about me. ;)_


No offense (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by tommyg on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 03:53:46 PM EST

but I trust Archpundit and Charlie Peters much more on this than you and Kevin Drum.
It's not even close.

But by all means, discount his acheivements in the Illinois Senate and focus on picking out words in his speeches you don't like. This is why the blogosphere is so out of touch with reality.

You trust (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 04:10:07 PM EST

Obama's persuasive powers as demonstrated in the US Senate?

Kumbaya!


Archpundit's grasp of Illinois politics (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by sphealey on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 04:40:39 PM EST

Archpundit's grasp of Illinois and Illinois-Missouri politics is unmatched AFAIK. I don't know where BTD lives, but Kevin Drum is a California Dreamer who by his own admission has only been in Illinois once in his life to get a genealogy record.

That is not to say I am impressed by Obama's Illinois record personally. 1-1/2 successful terms as Governor would have impressed me but Obama chose the fast track.

sPh


That is not to say . . . (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 04:55:06 PM EST

renders the rest meaningless.

The point to me is that it is that Washington, as demonstrated by Barack Obama's utter lack of effectiveness there, ain't Springfield.


No, the rest isn't meaningless (none / 0) (#10)
by Maryb2004 on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 05:03:31 PM EST

It's responding to a portion of what you posted:

Archpundit argues there was vehement opposition. Well, no apparently there was not VEHEMENT opposition.

and then agreeing (most of us) with the rest of your post.

You think you know the Illinois legislature? Well, no apparently you don't. That's the meaning.


I think I know the DC system (none / 0) (#13)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 05:58:10 PM EST

Illinois seems irrelevant to me.

What is described as working in Springfield has not worked in DC has it?

As described it will NEVER work.


Details please (none / 0) (#19)
by sphealey on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 07:32:26 PM EST

> Illinois seems irrelevant to me.

Where do you live?
Please provide a complete and detailed explanation of your experience and knowledge of Illinois politics.

Otherwise your analysis is worthless.

See? (none / 0) (#21)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 07:33:52 PM EST

We're discussing Washington, not Illinois.

Or at least, my post is discussing Washington.

you folks seem to want to discuss Illinois.


: Isn't that the tragic flaw of blogging though? (none / 0) (#22)
by oculus on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 07:51:15 PM EST

People insist on changing the subject.
For example, turns out I'm vindicated in comparing Obama's speaking style to the visiting midwest protestant preacher:
GUARDIAN

You are so funny (none / 0) (#31)
by Maryb2004 on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 09:57:28 PM EST

You wrote the sentence - an unsubstantiated conclusion that AP was wrong about what went on with respect to a bill before the Illinois legislature:

Well, no apparently there was not VEHEMENT opposition.

Then when we decide to attribute more weight to AP, who is far more knowledgeable about the happenings of the Illinois legislature than you, suddenly you have amnesia about what you wrote and can't understand why we are talking to you about Illinois. LOL!


In your mind (none / 0) (#17)
by sphealey on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 07:30:44 PM EST

> enders the rest meaningless.

In your mind.

Which is not definitive.

: To the point (none / 0) (#20)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 07:32:48 PM EST

in this post I think it is meaningless.
Since I wrote the post, I think I am in a good position to judge.

Utter lack of effectiveness? (none / 0) (#33)
by Geekesque on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 03:12:00 AM EST

Come on. He's gotten legislation passed on ethics reform, security contractors in Iraq, and non-proliferation, for starters. Considering that the Senate Majority leaders during that time have been Bill Frist (R) and Harry Reid (D minus) not too bad for a first term Senator.

It is silly to hold him to the standard of a miracle worker. Moreover, he would have much more leverage as Preznit than as the junior Senator from Illinois.


: Waiting for G and here he is. Good. (none / 0) (#34)
by oculus on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 02:25:10 PM EST

But is Illinois a "podunk" state? (4.00 / 1) (#7)
by oculus on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 04:44:00 PM EST

Here is a link to Archpundit's discussion (none / 0) (#6)
by sphealey on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 04:43:43 PM EST

Archpundit's discussion of Obama's work on this bill here.

: Still meaningless (1.00 / 1) (#9)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 04:55:30 PM EST

Small Pond to Big Ocean (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by BDB on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 05:27:03 PM EST

It occurs to me that previous politicians thinking they could do things in D.C. just like back home have come in for a rude awakening. Clinton thought he could do in D.C. what he'd been able to do in Arkansas and it took nine days for Sam Nunn to kneecap him over gays in the military. George W. Bush promised he'd be able to work with Democrats like in Texas, but - while he's beaten Dems like a drum - he hasn't really been able to work with them. When he's tried to actually be bipartisan (immigration), he failed miserably, undercut by his own party.

Now Obama has some U.S. Senate experience so he should at least have an idea of what he's getting into. That could help. And he'll probably have a larger majority in the Senate than Clinton or Bush and that should help. Otherwise, I'm not sure that recent evidence indicates that folks successful at the state level can turn that into success at the presidential level.

Blagojevich (4.00 / 1) (#2)
by chancellor on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 03:50:28 PM EST

is one of the most unashamedly Democratic governors we've ever had here in Illinois. On legislation such as this, there is no way Blago would have to be talked into anything. Further, having lived in Illinois for over half a century, I can tell you that Obama's name was never even reported in the press prior to his running for statewide office. He may have been a big cheese among the urban cognoscenti, but he was totally unknown by the rest of the state when he first chose to run for the Senate. Whatever he was doing in the state senate, it wasn't anything that affected the majority of Illinois residents, that I know of, or we would have seen his name in connection with broad-based legislation.

Blagojevich is a shameless panderer (none / 0) (#23)
by archpundit on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 08:02:46 PM EST

The reality is Blagojevich refused to commit to videotaped interrogation was passed and he received assurances that police groups were okay with it.

If you remember his statements about commutation it puts his supposed great Democratic credentials a bit different:

>Rod R. Blagojevich, the Democrat who succeeded Mr. >Ryan as governor on Monday, said the clemency was >"terrible" and a "gross injustice."

The Pantagraph (Bloomington, IL)

March 5, 2003, Wednesday

Death-penalty reforms win panel's support

BYLINE: Matthew Kemeny

SECTION: NEWS; Pg. A4

LENGTH: 517 words

SPRINGFIELD - Sweeping reforms aimed at fixing the state's flawed capital punishment system were given unanimous bipartisan support in a Senate committee Tuesday, but lawmakers say they still need some work.
The proposal, sponsored by state Sen. John Cullerton, D-Chicago, is virtually identical to reforms that were pushed last year by former Gov. George Ryan, who emptied Illinois' death row before he left office in January.

Among the provisions included in the measure now heading to the Senate floor are a reduction in the number of crimes eligible for the death penalty and a ban on a death sentence when a conviction is based solely on a jailhouse informant.

The legislation also would stop the death penalty from being imposed on defendants found to be mentally retarded.
"We had to do something," Cullerton told the committee. "I think we got as close as we can."

In a separate piece of legislation related to death penalty reforms, the same panel voted unanimously Tuesday in support of Senate Bill 15, which would require that police videotape interrogations and confessions in murder cases.

The proposal was amended to include audiotaping as well. Many state and local jurisdictions have already adopted the system, said state Sen. Barack Obama, D-Chicago.

But, the proposal, sponsored by Obama, may have a tough time winning final approval.

Gov. Rod Blagojevich opposes the concept, saying it would make it harder to secure convictions. A spokesman said the governor might support a measure that would mandate videotaped confessions - but not entire interrogations.

"As a former prosecutor, he knows that there are some consequences to doing that (videotaping interrogations). He also thinks that it may compromise police officers' abilities to effectively prosecute," Blagojevich spokesman Tom Shafer said.

Republican state Sens. Dan Rutherford of Chenoa and Bill Brady of Bloomington say Obama's legislation could hinder police.

And, state Rep. Dan Brady, R-Bloomington, said the legislation could hurt smaller police departments because they may not have the money and manpower to comply with the mandate.

"In Bloomington-Normal, that challenge may not be the same as it would be for the Gridley Police Department or the Heyworth Police Department, who don't have those kinds of resources, but still could have a major crime occur in their jurisdiction," Brady said.

Bill Shaven, spokesman for the Chicago Police Department, said the videotaping mandate could cost up to $3.2 million in equipment, maintenance, and personnel costs.

Bloomington Police Chief Roger Aikin said he was concerned about who was going to pay for the videotaping equipment. The department has six video cameras in the department. "I know cities don't have the money for it," Aikin said. "Is the state going to supply it?"

Hudson Police Chief Roy Garrett said the measure would "create a burden" for his department.

"Here in my area, I don't think it's necessary," he said. "But what's going to be fair to one department is going to have to apply to all of


And? (none / 0) (#24)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 08:06:52 PM EST

I guess I do not see this anecdote as particularly relevant to Washington.


: Did You See Who I responded to? (none / 0) (#26)
by archpundit on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 08:10:06 PM EST

It wasn't you and I didn't really challenge you.
I pointed out the other guy was flat wrong on the issue.
That said, dismissing the effort in Springfield as irrelevant would require more than an argument that it is different. Yes, there are always different, but why is it that Springfield and DC require such radically different skills?

AP March 28, 2003 (none / 0) (#25)
by archpundit on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 08:07:50 PM EST

Leading the civil rights agenda is a measure to protect gays from discrimination in hiring, housing and other areas. It would add "sexual orientation" to the law that already prohibits discrimination based on, for example, race and religion.
The idea has been approved by the House in past years but went nowhere in the Republican-controlled Senate.
Lawmakers also have introduced legislation to require that women get equal pay for doing the same work as men, to let women sue when they are the victims of gender-based violence and to give the Legislature's approval to the federal Equal Rights Amendment.
Other bills would tackle racial profiling by requiring police to record the race of people they pull over, protect people's right to speak foreign languages in the workplace and bar housing discrimination against people who get their rent money from the government.
Sen. Barack Obama, D-Chicago, said the common theme is trying to fulfill America's "promise of inclusion" to everyone.
He and other supporters also say they have to draft the legislation carefully to have a real shot at passing such bills. Obama said he is working closely with police on his racial profiling bill and finding common ground despite police officials' initial concerns.
"Creating a piece of legislation that actually works in the real world requires that you talk to the people who are operating in the real world," he said.

He was a chief sponsor of SB 101 and had worked on the bill for years.


BTW (none / 0) (#27)
by archpundit on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 08:12:11 PM EST

Lexis Academic has over 200 stories before March of 2003 discussing his efforts on legislation. He was a high profile legislator from the start, but especially after his challenge to Bobby Rush.


It is true (none / 0) (#12)
by chemoelectric on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 05:34:29 PM EST

I think you are right, that Obama does believe he can do this in Washington.

He would do better to take a Franklin Roosevelt-like stance, by which I mean he should help people not to be afraid, and in particular not to be afraid of the Party of Reagan, and not let themselves be paralyzed with 'Republican'-induced terror. Unafraid people would reach out to each other naturally, while appropriately suppressing those who continued to induce fear and mayhem (particularly by not voting for them).

(Unfortunately there is only so much that could be done about fearmongering 'Republicans' with sinecures in the judicial branch.)

Shorter BTD: Police unions are cupcakes! (none / 0) (#14)
by joejoejoe on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 06:24:57 PM EST

Obama helped win over the various police factions who ultimately supported the bill, therefore there was no reason for law-and-order pols to oppose it.

Governor Blagojevich, a former prosecutor, said his concerns about ''hampering the law enforcement community'' by requiring the police to tape interrogations had been overridden by the notion that tapes will provide ''clearer, more reliable'' evidence for the state's justice system.
Even law enforcement officials, some of whom objected strenuously as recently as three years ago to the idea that interviews be recorded, have grown more muted as the politics have shifted here.
''We're not in favor of the mandatory provision,'' Mark Donahue, who leads the Fraternal Order of Police in Chicago, said of the recording bill this afternoon. ''We would prefer that it be voluntary. But we're realists about all of this as well.''

Obama helped win over those who oppose the death penalty absolutely and believed this bill would grease the "machinery of death", not stop it.

Many death penalty opponents, however, have expressed the legitimate concern that Illinois may enact piecemeal reforms that address some of the inequities in the system, but keep the execution machine grinding. The Christian Science Monitor quotes David Lane, a Denver defense attorney with two clients currently facing the death penalty. "What I'm afraid of," he said, "is Illinois will lead the country in a `new and improved' death penalty."

Most politicians are concerned primarily with self-preservation. When the constituents that get them elected drop objections they stop worrying about their own careers, see calm seas, and they vote with the wind.

Shorter Joe (none / 0) (#15)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 06:29:19 PM EST

Springfield is just like DC.


I'm filing this cloture motion....with my feet! (none / 0) (#16)
by joejoejoe on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 06:56:37 PM EST

I guess the 232 members of the US House that are former state legislators and the 39 US Senators who are former state legislators all start legislating in a completely different manner when they get to DC.


Wait up (5.00 / 1) (#18)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 07:31:08 PM EST

Are you actually arguing that Obama is just like the rest of them?


: ZING (none / 0) (#30)
by andgarden on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 09:18:40 PM EST