Triangulating.  It's fine by me.  I know how successful Bill Clinton was in framing issues.  I never had a problem with it at all.  

Obama takes a system he likes and then subtly modifies it to his standards. It's a beautiful thing and the very opposite of the triangulation we've seen in the past that has been so costly for the common man and so beneficial for the wealthy.

Obama's analysis is entirely correct. Free markets which includes free trade btw have been one of the major engines that have lifted man out of the dark ages. But like all things it needs to be kept under control so that it serves a majority of society not a minority.

In fact I think Obama's whole approach to this campaign needs to be posited on this approach. Life and govt are complicated. Do you want a president like Bush or McCain who are not curious and have no new ideas or do you want someone like me.  

Although we shouldn't hope for much better from Democratic candidates, who always feel the need to pray to certain things: God, soldiers, American exceptionalism, the market.

I have no doubt that this answer appeals to the MSM, and appealing to the MSM has worked well for him so far, but it's not an answer that's going to touch the heart and guts of working class voters.

And no, it's not triangulation per se, but it does perpetuate the mainstream-GOP-corporate premise that progressivism populism is bad.

Now, here's how it's done:

When we sit down for an interview, one of the first questions I ask him is whether he thinks of himself as a populist. "If I knew what that meant," he laughs, "I could answer that question." But as I start to offer a definition, he interjects: "Can I answer first, then you tell me? I don't want my answer to be influenced by the other definition. If being a populist means standing up for regular people so they don't get ... ," and here he pauses, searching for the right words, "... stomped on by powerful multinational corporations, the answer is, 'Yes.'

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?arti cleId=12479

I think this is a good idea, though it's not free markets, it's still a mixed economy with the government applying regulations to schools (in the sense that schools will be funded and monitored by gvt standards) and regulations to the Health Care industry (again by likely subsidizing the recipient), and finally by investing federal funds into science (and hoepfully that includes alternative fuel research).

So the mixed economy will essentially be the same, however, the funding and regulations will be applied differently in what appears to be a bottom up approach (education and health for those that cannot afford charter schools, private schools, and health care) as opposed to the current Top Down approach ( reduced corporate taxes, subsidies to oil companies, and federal handouts in the form of no bid contracts).

So, yeah, free markets are good for various sections of the economy but not when it comes to fundamental sources of life and productivity, i.e. education and health care

...he's gonna have the entire Center voting for him.

Damn you, Barack Obama!

This kind of talk is precisely the kind of liberal talk that just completely fails to scare the middle!  What the hell are you thinking?!?

You are "the most liberal politician in America" (Hannity/Limbaugh)!  You're supposed to tell us how we need to make Seven/Eleven the People's Milk and Bread Co-Op!!  Damn you, stay on topic!

haaaarrrgghhh...

....

whoah..!  What just happened?  I was having this crazy dream that I was Dick Cheney and the next thing I know I'm on this webpage...

this is another great example.

and thanks to Josh Orton for his insightful reading of Obama's words.

There seems to be lots of those "Unstated premises" in just about everyone of Obama's premises. Most of his "premises" are unstated, leaving his followers the option to make of his utterances, what they want. Another way I've heard it described is: An empty suit, where you can pour your dreams.

"The unstated premise is that our markets have been hijacked to distribute resources to only a very small segment of our population at the expense of everyone else. Obama's language is not as partisan or blunt as some would like (and this example is particularly subtle)"

Markets are and have always been regulated. Lately we have Wall Street demanding totally unfettered markets and no government interference while they are busy pocketing billions with reckless financial scams. Then when thier chickens come home to roost they scream for the Fed to intervene and bail them out. Creative destruction only applies to main street. It's basically socialism for the rich and capitalism for the rest of us.

Obama has the correct approach, free markets are the best mechanism to prosperity but they require the right oversight and regulation. Main street and Wall street are in the same boat and they will sink or swim together. Short sighted Club for Growth thinking that pads Wall Streets pockets at the expense of Main Street will in Obama's words "trickle up to Wall Street". Populist policies that strangle Wall Street will trickle down to Main Street. Without balance and if we are not working together in the end we all lose.

What Obama articulates is the essence of modern liberalism--capitalism made more humane and stable by government intervention.  Liberals generally believe that government should intervene to correct market failures, to mitigate human suffering, to correct the tendency towards gross inequality, and to promote the general good.  Conservatives, on the other hand promote an almost religious devotion to unregulated markets--except when free markets work to the detriment of large corporations or the wealthy.

Frankly, I think the liberal position is more consistent and realistic, since we at least acknowledge the limits of the free market and work to correct market failures.  Conservatives, on the other hand, tend to deny that market failures even occur and tend to discourage government intervention except when it promotes their political agenda or enriches their friends.

I think this, like that initiative Obama has to reach out to Evangelicals shows he is going to walk the walk he talked up in this campaign?

You can't convince these people by attacking their fundemental belief systems?

And, the purpose is not so much whole-sale conversion as it is primary dialog?

They are probably going to oppose the type of change Obama is proposing?

But, by not calling them names or insulting their core beliefs, he disarms a bit of their power, and he gets them to sit down at the table with him and discuss?

It's not like you are going to ram health care reform unilaterally down the throat of Big Pharma by throwing them in leg-irons?

He's talking about pulling the country BACK towards the left, back to the idea of Progessive Values, stopping the Reagan Pendelum like the Clintons did in their term in office, and now swinging it back.

One advantage Obama has is, he is not some dumb-ass like Bush, who would fail Econ 101 (how the HELL did that moron get an MBA anyway)at any community college in the country?

He gets the arguments both pro and con, and he can go toe to toe with the WSJ, the AEI, bring em on.....

You know. One of the most insideous by products of the Media's obsession with analyzing everything to death and assuming particularly Democratic politicians always engaged  some form of deceptive spin. This leaves the idea in low information voter's minds that Dems don't mean what they say and  shouldn't be trusted. If we listen to what obama says and take him at his word I think we would all be better served. I listened and what he said sounds pretty clear to me and I take him at his word. What I don't want to do is perpetuate the wingnut meme that Obama is not a man to be trusted.

........ then the translation would be she is just pandering to the voters. Nothing genuine and such.

Seriously, when are we going to force Obama to take actual positions? First you want to regulate the market, next you want free trade? First you say no to gays, then yes when it's appropriate? Just like i would have voted for the war if i'm in the Senate, or I would have voted for John Roberts if someone didn't stop me from doing so.

I think the greatest contribution this blog can do is to come out with convincing reasons why Obama is the best choice we have by one way or another asking Obama to state his positions rather than having different positions on the same issue at different times. If you think i'm joking, you come out with something Obama said and i'm sure one of us Hillary people can come out with another that Obama said to a different group.

I hope you know that many of us are with a candidate on issues, and thus telling us just to be a loyal party servant, or with threat doesn't work. Call this a training before you go canvassing or phonebanking.

P.S. Do you know that the 2005 Cheney energy bill that Obama voted on actually cause real harm to Oregon? Yet the people voted overwhelmingly for Obama.

assessment of what has and is happening and will continue to happen under McSame if we let him win. McCain must be stopped at all costs.

Obama doesn't use rhetorical sledgehammers often, so the key is reading the layers of what he's saying (especially considering the specific outlet). Obama first sets down a premise that, in theory, markets are the best system to produce and distribute prosperity. But then nearly everything he says after that points to work that must be done to fix failures and make the economy work for people again.

The unstated premise is that our markets have been hijacked to distribute resources to only a very small segment of our population at the expense of everyone else. Obama's language is not as partisan or blunt as some would like (and this example is particularly subtle), but there's no mistaking his meaning.

He needs to make unstated premises stated.  It's called a "warrant" in informal logic, and it's one of the most powerful rhetorical and emotional tools.  Because that's how you construct the framework by which people interpret your statements.  Methinks he could use some more rhetorical hammers, sledge or otherwise, so that now that the great unwashed masses of the electorate are paying attention, lots of people will hear what he is saying - as well as the subtext to it.

Our ideas are better than theirs - let's make sure people understand what the ideas are in the first place.

Markets are good, but they sometimes fail - like they have recently - so need to fix them where they're broken and prevent them from breaking in the future.  That's what sensible regulation and taxation does - we get an even playing field in our economy that is fair to everyone.

Well, you can take the man out of The University of Chicago but you can't take The University of Chicago out of the man.

In education and background, Obama's own personal experience of economics and business is limited.  Therefore, he is probably more influenced by advisers, the key one of whom is Austan Goolsbee (admittedly there are others), currently a professor at the U of C Graduate School of Business.  Goolsbee has been with Obama since at least 2004.

Goolsbee is only 38 years old and came out of Yale (where he was a star intercollegiate debater).  Goolsbee is a liberal by University of Chicago standards but overall would be  considered a centrist.

Obama's "I love free markets" is pretty glib and he should say that "he believes in free markets" as a general rule.   Of course, the devil is in defining what "free" means.  But the basic philosophy is that the presumption is with the market which can be tweaked, regulated and taxed to some extent to eliminate excesses and deficiencies.  I would say that Obama is a pragmatic political progressive but not a pure economic progressive.  Everyone should get used to that or they are going to be disappointed.

It's an honest commentary on a complex subject.

The most amazing thing is that the MSM seem to be willing to listen to Obama when he responds to complex problems with language that's not black and white. This IS a complex problem, and there's not a "you're with us or your against us" answer. It's not insane free market vs. communism.

It's a beautiful combination. The media are willing to listen, and Obama does an amazing job of explaining complex problems in an accessible way. He doesn't assume his audience are simpletons (a la GWB.) I first saw this when I watched his race speech and I've been noticing it ever since.

It's good because it sets the premise.

"Markets are Generally Good things but we need to keep them in line sometimes."

With that mindset you can get a lot more progressive policies done because people accept it as just a necessary corrective. It's the difference between throwing a ball into the wind or with it: you put the same power behind the throw but the ball goes significantly farther.

Ben decided to link you:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0 608/Remainders_Race_for_the_residency.ht ml

And I'd call it faux-triangulation. He looks like he's going farther to the right, then reveals it to be much farther left than the initial impression.

My family doctor did the same thing with the lollipop before the shot.

I'm not much of a populist, myself, by nature.  But I do believe we are at a point in time where the populists are all correct and offer the correct solutions.

So yea, Obama speaks well for my point of view.

Obama makes comments which are truly non-progressive and libertarian, and Orton jumps through rhetorical hoops to somehow, some way, re-jigger them so it looks like Obama is (still) progressive. Read again what Obama said, absorb it, then go read Krugman's Conscience of a Liberal and read the refutation of  Obama's argument--the argument which says that technology, infrastructure, and better education are the problems and fixing them is the solution.  

Obama is telling you in no uncertain terms he will not fight for liberalism, for progressivism, for regulation (see his anodyne housing crisis "solutions").  Every one of his economic policies involves accommodation to the status quo, not confrontation.  

Have you thought of a career as a contortionist?  

 it's not free markets, it's still a mixed economy with the government applying regulations to schools and regulations to the Health Care industry ,