« The law and economics of surfing | Main | Markets in everything, Japan edition (again) »
Is there anything new to say about Barack Obama?
I, for one, have nothing new to say about Barack Obama, even though I am exposed to more news about him than any other single person. I wish I did, but I don't.
Do you? Does anyone? Comments are open, the stipulation is that you must believe what you write about him genuinely represents new insight; it's OK if it's already appeared on your blog, provided it is not a major one, or you can link to the thoughts of others. Please respect our usual standards of politeness.
Will anyone have anything to say? Should I hope you do or don't have anything new to say about him?
Posted by Tyler Cowen on June 24, 2008 at 04:12 PM in Political Science | Permalink
Comments
Not surprising that you don't really have much left to say. Obama is typical Democratic candidate for president, something we see every four years. The only novelty is his race, and that has already been noted.
Posted by: Yancey Ward at Jun 24, 2008 4:24:13 PM
Then University of Chicago professor (now 10th Circuit judge) Michael McConnell recommended that the University of Chicago Law School hire a law student who had edited one of McConnell's articles. The editor was Barack Obama.
This was news to me when I read it.
Posted by: Michael F. Martin at Jun 24, 2008 4:30:17 PM
the fact that you can call race a novelty and live in the U.S. is astounding
Posted by: at Jun 24, 2008 4:32:40 PM
He's not a Muslim. He is an agnostic.
Posted by: TGGP at Jun 24, 2008 4:34:00 PM
Barack Obama is a PATRIOTIC AMERICAN. He has one HAND over his HEART at all times. He occasionally switches when one arm gets tired, which is almost never because he is STRONG.
http://www.slate.com/id/2193798/
Posted by: Nathan at Jun 24, 2008 4:36:17 PM
Up until yesterday I didn't know he was left-handed. Being a lefty myself, this information disappoints me. Also knowing McCain is left-handed is no comfort either.
Posted by: Lefty at Jun 24, 2008 4:37:28 PM
In 2000 he lost the Democratic Primary for a U.S. House seat to sitting congressman and former Black Panther Bobby Rush.
Posted by: VC at Jun 24, 2008 4:39:05 PM
Is there anything new to say about John McCain?
Posted by: Wash at Jun 24, 2008 4:40:21 PM
The thing I'm most curious about is whether he has truly as self-sufficient as he claims. Many politicians like to claim that they paid their own way through college and got to where they are on merit alone. But me, being such a cynic, doubts that most people in the upper echelons of government really have managed to get there on merit alone. Indeed, when you look beneath the surface, most such politicians had a large inheritance, rich uncle, rich marriage, or other source of capital that helped cover their costs as they built their political career- Just look at McCain, Kerry, etc for classic examples.
A brief look online seems to show no major signs that Barack had such a source of capital. True, there are some parts to his history to indicate some hidden source of wealth/power in his family. For one, his father was a government official in Kenya, though the nature of his powers there are not easy to determine. Also, his father's ability to leave Africa might indicate some source of family wealth back in Kenya.
However, it does appear, based on the very limited record that we have on these questions, that Barack may indeed have attained his achievements on merit alone and does not have such a source of wealth. This would be very unusual and quite extrordinary for a politician at his level.
...is it wrong, though, that I still harbor some doubts about this? Anyone else have an opinion on this?
Posted by: Conrad Barskii at Jun 24, 2008 4:41:41 PM
No, there is nothing.
However, nothing doesn't sell.
Posted by: Nick M. at Jun 24, 2008 4:51:59 PM
His brother in law is the coach of the Oregon State Men's basketball team. Also, he went to high school at the most prestigious private school in Hawaii so that suggests he was not strapped for cash in his youth.
Posted by: Mike at Jun 24, 2008 4:53:47 PM
What do you mean by new? We learned last week that he thinks he's probably going to win anyways, and that he is going to drop the whole hope/change/newkindofwashington stuff in favor of the more tradational (and highly effective) Bush 51/49 strategy. I say this because he vetoed the idea of town halls and federal financing of the general.
Posted by: Nick S at Jun 24, 2008 4:59:35 PM
Right- I find it hard to reconcile attending that private school in Hawaii and his mom being on welfare, as we've heard repeated frequently.
Not that they couldn't be reconciled- These may have been in different periods in his mother's life with a perfectly reasonable explanation. I would just like to hear that explanation (sadly, we may get a warped reconciliation of these facts from a right-wing 527 instead of getting one from a more objective person first)
Posted by: Conrad Barskii at Jun 24, 2008 5:01:10 PM
We know that he agrees with McCain and Bill O'Reilly that oil speculators are the major reason that gas is so expensive (I don't think I've seen a mention about the currency effect during this entire election)
Posted by: Jeff Akston at Jun 24, 2008 5:08:49 PM
Two (healthy) trends in the US related to POTUS:
1) to have served as a state governor
2) to NOT be trained as an attorney
It shocks me that B.H.O. might be elected to the highest and most powerful EXECUTIVE office on the planet, given his experience, training, and worldview.
I can open my "Rolodex" and list the names of 100+ colleagues with better management training and experience [character and "fitness for office" too, but that is another debate...]
I know this blog is read by legion, who -- deep inside -- feel the same way.
All of us -- in school, in business, or in the world of not-for-profit -- have encountered those who are good talkers, good at showing up at meetings, but who have few TRUE personal accomplishments or contributions to show for it.
Posted by: managment student at Jun 24, 2008 5:11:13 PM
Right- I find it hard to reconcile attending that private school in Hawaii and his mom being on welfare, as we've heard repeated frequently.Not that they couldn't be reconciled- These may have been in different periods in his mother's life with a perfectly reasonable explanation. I would just like to hear that explanation (sadly, we may get a warped reconciliation of these facts from a right-wing 527 instead of getting one from a more objective person first)
He has written two autobiographies and, while I haven't read them, they probably could answer some of your questions.
Posted by: Bob Montgomery at Jun 24, 2008 5:11:59 PM
Not new anymore, but at least different: Christopher Hitchens' vituperative attack in Slate, March 23
Posted by: at Jun 24, 2008 5:18:21 PM
Maybe this line of questioning has been answered, but I'm wondering: Is there a benefit to selecting a candidate that is objectively more popular abroad? Would a popular American president having an easier time promoting US interests? Does the popularity of the American administration notably impact foreign preferences for US goods and services? If any of these are real benefits, are they large enough that a rational American voter should consider them?
Posted by: Tim K at Jun 24, 2008 5:21:25 PM
It's not new, but there was a nice piece yesterday in the NYT documenting Obama's very close ties to big agriculture. Despite his talk of "Change", he's still in favor of passing out corporate welfare in order to get votes.
Posted by: Some Random Economist at Jun 24, 2008 5:26:04 PM
He has decent hops.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:BarackObama-Basketball.JPEG
Posted by: Andrew at Jun 24, 2008 5:28:09 PM
@management_student
Bush having an MBA did not make him a better president. On the contrary I think it hurt him more than it helped. Say what you want about Obama's policies but he ran a campaign that was focused on the long term goal (winning the primary), had low turnover, short on leaks, and effective. If you judge a president by his ability to manage - Obama wins hands down here. But when someone becomes president - you hire people to manage and I think management capability is less important.
Posted by: tim at Jun 24, 2008 5:29:27 PM
I met Obama at a Chicago event in 2004, when he was still a State Senator. I told him I was a physicist, and he seemed genuinely interested. But his eyes really lit up when I mentioned I had a blog. He was tremendously interested in the medium, and curious about the directions in which it might be evolving. (Not that I was able to share much insight.)
In fairness, I understand that John McCain is aware of the internet.
Posted by: Sean Carroll at Jun 24, 2008 5:34:07 PM
I think the new insight into Barack Obama is that he is precisely what Democrats accused Reagan and George HW Bush of being: a puppet, rather than his own man. Look at his political choices over the years, especially his votes in the Illinois Legislature. Look at his major supporters and ask-- who would somebody like Soros pick? Take Obama at his word about how vehemently he disagrees with Jeremiah Wright and ask what kind of coward could never get up and leave a church like that?
There is no leadership in this man. None.
Posted by: A Berman at Jun 24, 2008 5:40:07 PM
@Tim
The trends I cited apply to mayors too -- a great example is the highly effective Michael Bloomberg of NYC (HBS'66). Being mayor of big city or governor of a state is like an executive training program for the job of top executive. They deal with payrolls, policing, unions, legislators, natural disasters...and on...and on.
I challenge your assertion that Obama has managed his campaign well; there is a long list of staffers that made ugly gaffes and then were quickly "thrown under the bus." [And of course, we won't discuss here the personal advisors...Wright, Pfleger, etc.]
Vitriol (against Bush) fuels the popularity and appeal of B.H.O., methinks.
Posted by: managment student at Jun 24, 2008 5:41:37 PM
Obama is too intelligent and well educated to have any fixed principles. He has fixed inclinations and preferences, nut not principles.
Therefor it doesn't matter all that much what he is for, issue or promise-wise. The democratic party congressional leaders who do have fixed principles are the ones who get their way, so what they want is what matters.
Posted by: TylerB at Jun 24, 2008 5:50:27 PM
