Why Judd Gregg? A Wacky Idea...

As half policy wonk and half progressive strategist, I have found it absolutely fascinating to try and figure out why the hell Barack Obama does half of the stuff he does. Like a master chess player, he seems to be consistently thinking a few steps ahead of the conventional wisdom, so some of his decisions make little sense unless you try to understand his ultimate goal.

The Judd Gregg pick as the new Commerce secretary is one such head-scratching move. Of course, there is the obvious play of trying to look bipartisan. Sure, we know Obama's made a concerted effort to do that, but Gregg is far from a natural choice when reaching across the aisle. He actually has quite a partisan record and is a renowned government-shrinking budget hawk. Like his former NH-Sen colleague John Sununu, Gregg has remained a relatively reliable Republican vote while his state has lurched hard to the left since 2004. For cryin' out loud, a few years ago Gregg even voted to eliminate the very Commerce Department he is now set to lead! A much better choice for this purpose would be Olympia Snowe or former Sen. Lincoln Chafee. So that probably isn't President Obama's ultimate motive.

Another obvious option is that Democrats want to pick up that all-important 60th senate seat. New Hampshire has a (at least nominally) Democratic governor who gets to appoint Gregg's successor, so it seems like a smart move, right? Well, not so fast. As you all know by now, Gregg made clear that unless Gov. Lynch picks another Republican to replace him, he will not take the cabinet position. So the pick turns out to be placeholder moderate Republican J. Bonnie Newman, who has never held public office. So much for picking up that extra seat (although it will create an open seat in 2010 that looks good for progressive Rep. Paul Hodes). While there is some modest benefit to Obama's political fortunes here, it's not a viable explanation for adding an anti-government Republican to his cabinet.

So here's my theory, which for the record I haven't heard anywhere else. Notice that Gregg voted in 1995 to eliminate the Commerce Department. Notice that the Obama Administration recently announced that the 2010 Census, traditionally under the jurisdiction of Commerce, will instead be reporting directly to the White House. Notice that President Obama has consistently talked about streamlining government and cutting out the waste. So with all this in mind, I believe that Obama picked Judd Gregg because he would be the best guy to dismantle the Commerce Department.

I mean, what does Commerce really do that couldn't be done in any other way?

• Bureau of Industry and Security - move to Dept. of Homeland Security
• Bureau of Economic Analysis - spin off into independent agency like BLS, or incorporate into Treasury
  
• Economic Development Administration & Minority Business Development Agency - move to HUD
  
• Int'l Trade Administration - move to Dept. of State
  
• Nat'l Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration - move to Interior or a new Dept. of Science & Technology
  
• Nat'l Telecom & Information Administration - spin off into independent agency, move to Dept. of Interior or to a new Dept. of Science & Technology
  
• Patent & Trademark Office - spin off into independent agency
  
• Nat'l Institute of Standards & Technology - move into Dept. of Education or move to new Dept. of Science & Technology
  
• National Technical Information Service - spin off into independent agency or move to new Dept. of Science & Technology

Is this a feasible idea, or am I just high on cold medicine? Anyone who works in the Commerce Department, please feel free to flame away in the comments.

Where's That Forest Again? I Can't See Through All These Trees...

From today's Roll Call($):

President Barack Obama drove to Capitol Hill on Tuesday for meetings with House and Senate Republicans, but his bipartisan outreach appeared to hit a speed bump. Still, the reason may have more to do with philosophical differences than partisan politics or “the old ways of Washington.”

Well gee whillikers, perhaps philosophical differences directly cause partisan politics?! But...but...that Darrell Issa is so nice to my Roll Call reporter friends at the cocktail parties. He couldn't possibly really believe all the bat$#!+ crazy stuff he says on the House floor!

Sometimes, the purveyors of Beltway conventional wisdom drive me to wonder if they even try to make logical sense.

Optimo's Official Election Recap

There will be much time to talk about 2009 and the coming Obama presidency, but it feels right to start off with a recap of the election.

Obviously we know Obama won, and decisively so. He definitely has amassed 364 EVs and still could end up with 376 (Missouri and the single Omaha district remain too close to call). He outperformed John Kerry in just about every demographic group you can imagine. Check out the details, they're pretty striking. Obama won the 18-29 age group by an astounding 2-to-1 margin. Regionally, major gains were made in the coastal South, upper Midwest, Northeast and non-Mormon areas of the Mountain West. It's hard to see these gains fading away anytime soon if Democrats manage to deliver on at least some of their promises over the next few years.

In Congress, Republicans actually did a little better than expected. Although a few races in both chambers are still yet to be decided, they lost ground but managed to avoid a major landslide. As of now, the count stands at 22 seats flipping from R to D, 4 '06 D pickups flipping back to R, and eight still yet to be decided. If the eight remaining seats split 4-4, the final count will be 258-177.

The Senate saw at least six Democratic pickups in a very tough year for Republicans, while 3 races involving R incumbents remain too close to call. AK is waiting for all mail-in ballots to be counted, MN will go to a recount, and GA will go to a runoff election. If the D challenger wins in all three (which is very unlikely), then Democrats reach that supposedly magical 60 mark. Georgia would really be a shocker, and both sides will be throwing a ton of resources into the special December 2nd runoff election. My best guess for the final tally is 57-43: Franken wins in Minnesota and Lieberman bolts to the GOP. Again, both houses see non-negligible Dem majorities, but not large enough for the center-left governing coalition within the party to easily get legislation through.

The state level elections produced few surprises and was much more even. Democrats picked up the Missouri governorship which will impact policy there, but all other governor races stayed the same. Democrats picked up 5 state legislative chambers, including the NY Senate (as expected) for the first time in over a century, and Republicans surprisingly picked up both chambers in Tennessee along with 2 other bodies. New Hampshire now has the first majority-female legislative body in the country's history. Ballot initiatives were a very mixed bag. I won't bother with the details, but some nonpartisan review can be found here.

Campaigning vs. Governing

So now we have our full tickets: Obama-Biden and McCain-Palin. And they are very revealing about the nature of this election and the dynamics of the partisan landscape these days.
The most important revelation here further clarifies that Obama is running his campaign in a manner that sets him up to govern effectively, while McCain is simply running to win, governance be damned.

Okay, raise your hand if you'd heard of Sarah Palin before she became the VP nominee. Right. The buzz said Palin was a potentially smart pick because it shored up support for McCain among social conservatives and may be able to pick up some disaffected Hillary supporters because she is a woman. Which may be true. But the fact is, how the hell does she in any way pass the "commander-in-chief" test? This is the person who John McCain wants to take over the country should anything happen to him (he is a health risk after all)?! She is just over a year into her term as governor of a state with fewer people than Fort Worth, TX and a fantasyland welfare system driven by massive oil profits. In terms of governing preparedness and helpfulness to a potential McCain Administration, Sarah Palin is an absolute zero.

Whereas with Joe Biden, Obama has added perhaps the foremost foreign policy expert in Washington to his team. It would be very difficult to say this pair is not capable of handling a crisis of foreign affairs (although Rove & Co will try). Biden is also extremely well respected on Capitol Hill and will help build unlikely alliances to shepherd through his boss's agenda. In short, this is a VP selection that will help with electoral politics, but even more so with effective governance.

This episode is further evidence that Barack Obama is not just trying to get into the Oval Office, but clearly wants to be a highly capable leader once there. We have seen that in the way Obama handled the primary debates, not seeking to sow hatred against fellow Democrats at any point even while his rival chose to take a different path. We have seen that in the ways Obama has handled rolling out his policy platform, refraining from ambitious policy proposals that he does not believe he can deliver. When pressed for specifics, he has stuck to the core aspects of his agenda and refused to pander to the base just to win an election. That is not "running away from his base", it's preparing for honest governance. As for those that say he is not providing specifics, I believe they are either partisan agents aiming to deliberately misinform low-information voters, or being played by those smear merchants.

John McCain, on the other hand, seems not to care all that much about governing; he is attempting to be all things to all people. I can't think of an issue (except arguably Iraq) where he has maintained the same position he held in 2000, when he ran as an actual "maverick". Abortion, tax cuts, immigration, torture, campaign finance....the list goes on and on. Furthermore, he has betrayed over the course of the campaign a fundamental lack of understanding of the key issues facing the nation today. He gets Sunnis and Shiites confused, or confuses them on purpose to make a warmongering talking point possible. He still says "everybody knows" that tax cuts raise revenues. He calls a salary of anything under $5 million "middle class". He has consistently opposed funding health care and body armor for the troops he continues to send into harm's way, supposedly claiming it abandons principles of fiscal responsibility while billions of taxpayer dollars go "missing" in Iraq and not a peep is uttered. He calls his wife a cunt and offers her services for a strip show but thinks feminist women will support him because Barack Obama is....smug? Worst of all, while jumping aboard the mantle of reform, he continues to staff his campaign heavily with corporate lobbying interests and disciples of the vermin that populated the vaunted Bush PR machine.

Talking points aside, it seems McCain really is running to continue the legacy of George W. Bush and the legacy of fundamentalist Republicanism, much to America's detriment. More politics over policy. That, above all, is why we cannot allow him the opportunity to pretend to govern.

Follow-up: stepping off the ledge

I'm still a little frustrated with the Obama campaign's current "path of least resistance" strategy, as Chris Colaninno mentions in the comments of the previous post. But the past couple days have given me some cause for optimism (hopefully I can earn my pseudonym at least a little!).

First, in a press conference in Ohio on Tuesday, Barack backtracked significantly from his initial rejection of Clark's statements.

“I guess my question is why, given all the vast numbers of things that we’ve got to work on, that that would be a top priority of mine?” Obama said, responding to a reporter who asked the candidate why he hadn’t called on Wesley Clark to apologize for his remarks yesterday. “I’m happy to have all sorts of conversations about how we deal with Iraq and what happens with Iran, but the fact that somebody on a cable show or on a news show like Gen. Clark said something that was inartful about Sen. McCain I don’t think is probably the thing that is keeping Ohioans up at night."

While I would prefer to see Obama take charge of the issue head-on and confront the matter of McCain's military experience as automatic presidential qualification directly, this bob-and-weave strategy has been working for him and will continue to be effective. It actually mirrors his strategy on the Jeremiah Wright situation pretty closely, and I think he handled that about the best he could have given the fine line he had to walk. Also note that it took him a couple days to find a clear voice in the wake of the Wright "scandal", but thereafter he successfully redirected the conversation by straightforwardly and vocally refusing to acknowledge these petty attacks as a serious campaign issue.

As a corollary, I am becoming more and more convinced that General Clark would be the best choice for Obama as a running mate. This episode is solid evidence that the two can effectively play off each other going after McCain's record in a good cop-bad cop sort of manner. I still think Edwards would also be a great pick, of course for different reasons. However, Clark is probably the safer choice at this point, balances some of Obama's negative attributes (inexperience) and would allow Obama to focus almost entirely on offense. With the good General, the chances of a landslide would be pretty significant as McCain's true nature is gradually exposed.

Texas!

As many of you know I believe Texas to be an important dark horse state in this election. It isn't among the best bets to flip among traditional red states.....those honors go to Virginia, North Carolina, Indiana, the upper Prarie states and Alaska (I consider Colorado to be traditionally purple). But Texas' sheer size and importance as the crown jewel of the Republican electoral portfolio means it is a very worthwhile target. Plus it can be competitive under the right circumstances, which I outline below. When we talk about "expanding the playing field", I believe actively competing in Texas is a key component of such a strategy.

That's why I'm very excited by this new Politico article that discusses Obama's robust 50-state strategy and the plan to fully attack some GOP bastions like Georgia and Montana as well as all of the states mentioned above. But the article also contains a passage about Texas:

Obama’s campaign will also devote some resources to states it’s unlikely to win, with the goal of influencing specific local contests in places such as Texas and Wyoming.

“Texas is a great example where we might not be able to win the state, but we want to pay a lot of attention to it,” Hildebrand said. “It’s one of the most important redistricting opportunities in the country.”

Texas Democrats are five seats away in each chamber from control of the state Legislature, which will redraw congressional districts after the 2010 census.

...

Hildebrand’s plans underscore the unusual scope and ambition of Obama’s campaign, which can relatively cheaply extend its massive volunteer and technological resources into states which won’t necessarily produce electoral votes.

In Texas, for instance, Obama’s three dozen offices were overrun with volunteers during the primary; the campaign’s challenge is, in part, to find something useful to do with all that free labor. But, while Hildebrand said Obama is unlikely to pay for television advertising outside a core of about 15 states the candidate thinks he can win, he will spend some money on staff. Obama’s chief strategist, David Axelrod, reportedly told donors in Houston that he would send 15 staffers to Texas, and the campaign has committed to having some staff on the ground in all 50 states.

A promising start to a groundbreaking campaign. This, in a nutshell, is the difference between the factions of the Democratic Party personified by Clinton (either one) and Obama. The former has an all-consuming goal of getting elected, and lacks an overarching vision or agenda beyond obtaining and keeping power. The latter still works hard to win their own election, but also expends considerable resources growing the progressive movement and building a lasting mandate for a focused agenda. Obama's campaign style demonstrates that he wants not only to win the presidency, but to accomplish great things once he is there. Having expanded Congressional majorities in both chambers will be a major boon to his chances of enacting sweeping systemic changes.

In terms of building that movement infrastructure, enthusiasm is truly paramount. Given the natural challenges to moving a progressive agenda through Congress, the progressive grassroots and donor base will need to be much more fired up than their conservative counterparts and keep constant pressure on their elected officials. While a decade-plus of failed conservative governance has assured the left of staying excited for the near future, conservatives still control a large swath of the country. I believe the Republican coalition needs to fully unravel for lasting political change to occur in America, and this is where Texas comes in. The symbolic importance of George Bush's home state to conservative identity should not be underestimated. If Democrats can seriously compete there or even turn it blue, that might be the straw that irrevocably breaks the elephant's back and leads the rats to desert that sinking ship.

Texans traditionally love to seize opportunities without hesitation. Isn't it worth an investment of $25 million, around 3-5% of Obama's expected campaign stash, to give the Lone Star State a chance to finalize this nation's utter rejection of modern conservatism?

Here's why I think Texas is in play:

1) The state's demographics are changing. Of course many older Texans will never vote for a progressive minority Democrat, but they are a shrinking segment of the population. Younger urban voters are growing in number and the ideological divide by age might be as stark in that region as anywhere else in the country. The 18-35 crowd there is as proudly liberal as most of the other places in America, with classic Texas swagger to boot. Plus, the Hispanic population is exploding and carries increasing weight in the voting population. They have traditionally been a swing segment of the electorate, but...

2) Texas Hispanics will be voting overwhelmingly D this year. I'm talking 80/20. First, you better believe they noticed the nativist bigotry flying around the GOP recently over immigration, and that probably alienated a good chunk of those voters for life. Also, the Democratic Senate nominee is a fellow named Rick Noriega, a State Rep and Iraq War vet who reminds me quite a bit of Jim Webb in political style. He is running a tough and coordinated grassroots campaign, is a proud Hispanic with appeal to white moderates in West and South Texas and presents a dramatic contrast to Chief Chickenhawk Jon Cornyn on just about every issue. Cornyn's approval is hanging around something putrid like 40-48 and Noriega isn't taking any of his swiftboating garbage. I think Noriega and Obama will both benefit from each other's demographic coattails and a revived grassroots Democratic base.

3) Along these lines, two polls came out within the past couple months that had both Cornyn-Noriega and Obama-McCain only down by single digits. Statistically competitive, before the general election campaigns heat up and the spotlight is shone on these two deeply flawed Republicans. From what I gather, non-firebreating Texans are really embarrassed of W (approval rating about 37%) and he has the same negative effect on his congressional enablers among independents as just about everywhere else in the country. So I don't think there's as huge a hurdle to overcome as would be expected for Texas.

4) The state GOP machine is corrupt, bloated and lazy. Obama is already sending 15 organizers into the state and may follow with further investment later on if things look close come September. Between that and the partisan energy gap I have a feeling the Republicans aren't prepared to fight a close battle based on retail politics, and will be caught off guard.

Response to a conservative friend

I got this message on my Facebook wall today from a friend:

didnt realize youre an obama guy. doesnt the fact that he hates america bother you? he wont wear an american flag pin on his lapel, wont put his hand on his heart to sing the national anthem, and his wife isnt proud of her country, they go to a church where a leftwing demagogic nutjob says traitorous, antiamerican, and highly unpatriotic statements, spreading lies and distortions about his country and Israel. All of that is ok with you? Or perhaps you dislike America too?

Here is my response:

Wow, that came from nowhere. Mine was a civil gesture towards playful political banter, and I get a frothing-at-the-mouth response! Now, I’m gonna give you the benefit of the doubt and assume your tirade was indeed a playful taunt. I think you’re smarter than to actually believe much of what you said. But the suggestion that I “dislike America too” struck a nerve, so please bear with me as I respond with a raw reaction.

I actually appreciate your giving me this opportunity to practice exposing your talking points as the worthless piles of horse manure that they are. It actually amuses me that your heroes are so devoid of policy ideas that you have nothing to campaign on except to reflexively fall back on your tired old smears. That aside, you’ve got some fucking nerve questioning my patriotism. I’m sorry to inform you, but the right wing and the American Empire faction in particular DO NOT OWN PATRIOTISM. I certainly love this country, as do many of my fellow progressives. The Constitution after over two centuries remains unparalleled among governing documents in protecting fundamental liberty. The American people have an independent spirit and a moral resilience that is truly extraordinary. As a nation, we have demonstrated a remarkable and persistent ability to recognize our past sins and take painful steps to right those wrongs. But right now I feel that we are lacking in this introspective ability. Right now, I’m pretty damned ashamed of the American government. I worry that a dominant faction of the American political community, ironically those that claim be the true patriots, are unwittingly destroying the very fabric of what we know as America.

Many in the conservative movement and the Republican Party it has co-opted have lost touch with what has made America great. Their reflexive contempt for public sector activity and worship (note: word chosen very deliberately) of the free market is highly ignorant of the economic booms fostered primarily by direct government intervention in the economic realm. I know you’re rolling your eyes, but keep in mind that the greatest periods of economic success in the past century – the Roaring Twenties, the Postwar Boom and the Dot-Com Era – all were preceded by Teddy Roosevelt’s Progressive Reforms, the New Deal safety net and the massive military investment in communications infrastructure, respectively. On the other hand, the greatest economic scares – the 1929 stock market crash and bank run, the S&L crisis of the mid-late 1980s and the recent/current housing market woes - have followed periods of aggressive de-regulation by hyper-capitalist ideologue Republicans.

But it goes beyond economic policy. Conservative leaders seem to have decided that America can be a bully to the world and countries we occupy should throw rose petals at our feet. Conservative public appointees testify before Congress that they “swore an oath to the President”, not the Constitution. They treat the Earth as a garbage can and think it can go on this way forever. And worst of all, their political operatives have decided that it is an eminently preferred tactic to divide, distract and slander their way into power. They have become scarily efficient at demonizing certain segments of the population for political gain. That is a textbook characteristic of fascism.With that in mind, let us address the particular slanders of Barack Obama that you choose to highlight in your note.

Obama hates America? Show me the proof. Since when has the President of the Harvard Law Review chosen not to make a pile of money and instead serve his country in public life and, before that, as an educator? To me, that demonstrates patriotism. For that matter, since when does blue-blooded Harvard Law choose anyone but a man of impeccable moral credentials to lead its most prestigious journal? Are you saying they hate America too, or they’re just too stupid to see a Manchurian Candidate when they see one?

Obama doesn’t wear a flag lapel pin? I direct your attention to super-patriot John McCain.











But…w-wait, there’s something missing. Is it possible that McCain HIMSELF isn’t wearing a flag lapel pin? Why does John McCain hate America? You can see how silly that one is.

He won’t put his hand on his heart for the national anthem? That reminds me of a similar line, that he doesn’t know the Pledge of Allegiance. Funny, he sure seemed to know the Pledge and put his hand on his heart when he led the U.S. Senate in both Pledge and Anthem numerous times.

Michelle Obama isn’t proud of her country? Yes, I can buy that. Based on one cherry-picked statement out of everything she has said over the course of two years. Her comment, discovered by a campaign intern given the specific task of searching for attack material, separated from all contextual meaning and trumped up into a blanket statement completely removed from reason, clearly is quite telling despite the lack of any further evidence in Ms. Obama’s words or actions. Ah, the classic anatomy of a smear.

That brings us to Reverend Wright. Needless to say, this instance also follows the classic smear etymology quite nicely. But I actually don’t see what’s that different about the Reverend from other prominent pastors. Demagogic? Nutjob? Okay, and that’s different from evangelical preachers - John Hagee, for example….how? Hagee is the guy who called the Catholic Church “The Great Whore”. Left-wing? Seems like a compliment to me! And please don’t try to tell me you’ve agreed with everything your EVER said. But you probably never left your over such disagreements. (note: specifics of religion generalized to protect identity of friend).

So why is Wright different? Could it be because he fits the stereotype of the Angry Black Man?!?! Do you really want to go down that road? Oh, right…. subtle racial identity politics is a proven winning political strategy for conservatives. But hell, you guys have demographics on your side; why would you bother with the wimpy pussyfooting? I say come out fully in support of White Power, that uppity Negro Obama needs to be stopped! McCain will win in a landslide!

Whatever. Regardless, Obama has made clear since before it was politically convenient that his draw to the Trinity United Church of Christ was based on its incredible ability to foster community and bring people of different backgrounds together in harmony. Yup, that church must have been led by a divisive, radical bigot in Rev. Wright. It’s amazing how successful slander seems to have this dramatic effect of utterly obliterating reason in the minds of its believers.

To be honest, I’m just happy you didn’t call him a Muslim. That would’ve really got me going.

Finally, although I didn’t feel like getting into exactly why I am an “Obama guy” here, definitely feel free to ask me why if you legitimately care.

Why I'm not worried about Obama (part 2)

From the now-famous "A More Perfect Union" speech delivered last Tuesday:

We have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism. We can tackle race only as spectacle - as we did in the OJ trial - or in the wake of tragedy, as we did in the aftermath of Katrina - or as fodder for the nightly news. We can play Reverend Wright's sermons on every channel, every day and talk about them from now until the election, and make the only question in this campaign whether or not the American people think that I somehow believe or sympathize with his most offensive words. We can pounce on some gaffe by a Hillary supporter as evidence that she's playing the race card, or we can speculate on whether white men will all flock to John McCain in the general election regardless of his policies.

We can do that.

But if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we'll be talking about some other distraction. And then another one. And then another one. And nothing will change. That is one option. Or, at this moment, in this election, we can come together and say, "Not this time." This time we want to talk about the crumbling schools that are stealing the future of black children and white children and Asian children and Hispanic children and Native American children. This time we want to reject the cynicism that tells us that these kids can't learn; that those kids who don't look like us are somebody else's problem. The children of America are not those kids, they are our kids, and we will not let them fall behind in a 21st century economy. Not this time.

This time we want to talk about how the lines in the Emergency Room are filled with whites and blacks and Hispanics who do not have health care; who don't have the power on their own to overcome the special interests in Washington, but who can take them on if we do it together.

This time we want to talk about the shuttered mills that once provided a decent life for men and women of every race, and the homes for sale that once belonged to Americans from every religion, every region, every walk of life. This time we want to talk about the fact that the real problem is not that someone who doesn't look like you might take your job; it's that the corporation you work for will ship it overseas for nothing more than a profit.

This time we want to talk about the men and women of every color and creed who serve together, and fight together, and bleed together under the same proud flag. We want to talk about how to bring them home from a war that never should've been authorized and never should've been waged, and we want to talk about how we'll show our patriotism by caring for them, and their families, and giving them the benefits they have earned.

This passage is nothing short of kryptonite for conservatives. There's a reason I turned to my co-worker right after watching Obama's post-Iowa speech and said, "this man is our next president." The rhetorical tactics he uses are utterly brilliant, in polar opposition to the bland old talking points of other Democratic leaders. He manages to speak controversial truths while maintaining his low-key, folksy tone, and this enables him to subtly pull down the curtain of the conservative worldview, exposing the inherent inconsistencies of the Reagan/Bush coalition.

Here are a few of the main points that do so:

1) You can be patriotic and still wish to improve upon the status quo.

This is a crucial frame to advance in legitimizing progressive ideology to the country as a whole. It is the initial step in obliterating the "liberals hate America" smear, and makes people look past knee-jerk partisan identification to evaluate proposals. As many of my readers will agree, progressives have better proposals on most issues.

2) Regulating large corporations in the public interest is necessary to make capitalism function smoothly.

This is an extremely tough argument to make in today's political climate, and I'm not sure Obama is fully prepared to make it a central campaign issue. However, he is heading in the right direction by placing the blame for many of America's problems where it belongs: the overreach of unchecked corporate greed. In enumerating the things he believes we should focus on "this time", he is implying that his administration will not value the "profits over all" mentality over the public interest. Hence the heartfelt anger emanating from the Limbaugh faction following the speech.

3) Hate is not an acceptable campaign tactic.

By appealing directly to the more benign aspects of human nature, Obama is regaining the upper hand in the national debate. He knows that the ugly smears will come, even nastier than we have already seen. By preemptively defining all such attacks (especially coded racism) as dirty politics compensating for a lack of effective policy ideas, he will be then able to deflect them with a simple "here we go again." Not this time. Almost effortlessly, he jumps back in control of the conversation.

4) Faith does not belong exclusively to the merchants of hate.

While not directly mentioned in the above passage, Obama addresses the issue of faith in this speech with a sophistication unique to modern American politicians. In discussing his connection to Rev. Wright, he implies, "Sure my pastor said some things I disagree with, but hasn't yours?". First, kiss goodbye to the Muslim smear. Second, and more subtly, he is driving a neat wedge into the Christian community, isolating the fundies from the more moderate churchgoers that represent a vast majority of the Christian faith. If Obama and his ideological allies can neutralize the party identification gap among non-extremist churchgoers, the GOP is dead meat for a generation.

Update (sunday evening): Sure enough, the Yahoo front page features this headline: Religious vote fragmenting in U.S. presidential election. The fourth point that I mentioned may already be proving important to the dynamics of this election season.