On Friday, columnist David Brooks informed readers that Barack Obama’s picks "are not ideological." The incoming president’s key economic advisers "are moderate and thoughtful Democrats," while Hillary Clinton’s foreign-policy views "are hardheaded and pragmatic."

On Saturday, the New York Times front page reported that the president-elect’s choices for secretaries of State and Treasury "suggest that Mr. Obama is planning to govern from the center-right of his party, surrounding himself with pragmatists rather than ideologues."

On Monday, hours before Obama’s formal announcement of his economic team, USA Today explained that he is forming a Cabinet with "records that display more pragmatism than ideology."

The ideology of no ideology is nifty. No matter how tilted in favor of powerful interests, it can be a deft way to keep touting policy agendas as common-sense pragmatism — virtuous enough to draw opposition only from ideologues…

Read the full column.

It’s been 16 years since a Democrat moved into the White House. Now, the fog of memory and the spin of media are teaming up to explain that Barack Obama must hew to "the center" if he knows what’s good for his presidency.

"Many political observers," the San Francisco Chronicle reported days ago, say that Obama "must tack toward the political mainstream to avoid miscalculations made by President Bill Clinton, who veered left and fired up the 1994 Republican backlash." This storyline provides a kind of political morality play: The new president tried to govern from the left, and Democrats lost control of Congress just two years later.

But, if facts matter, the narrative is a real head-scratcher…

Read the full column.

Two days before he lost the election, John McCain summarized what had become the central message of his campaign: "Redistribute the wealth, spread the wealth around — we can’t do that."

Oh yes we can.

The 2008 presidential election became something of a referendum on "spreading the wealth."

"My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s gonna be good for everybody," Barack Obama said on Oct. 12, in a conversation with an Ohio resident named Joe. The candidate quickly added: "I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody."

McCain eagerly attacked the concept…

Read the full column.

It could be a start — a clear national rejection of the extreme right-wing brew that has saturated the executive branch for nearly eight years.

What’s emerging for Election Day is a common front against the dumbed-down demagoguery that’s now epitomized and led by John McCain and Sarah Palin.

A large margin of victory over the McCain-Palin ticket, repudiating what it stands for, is needed — and absolutely insufficient. It’s a start along a long uphill climb to get this country onto a course that approximates sanity.

McCain’s only real hope is to achieve the election equivalent of drawing an inside straight — capturing the electoral votes of some key swing states by slim margins. His small window of possible victory is near closing. Progressives should help to slam it shut…

Read the full column.

At this point, many journalists are speculating about the number of congressional seats that Republicans will lose on Election Day. But a boost in the size of the Democratic majority might not count for much if a blue wave simply makes it possible for conservative and centrist "blue dogs" to end up doggie-paddling into the House.

Less than two weeks before Election Day, the scent of red blood is in the water. "A big wave for Obama might be too much of a burden for Republican congressional candidates to bear," the Rothenberg Political Report says, "at a time when they are already saddled with an unpopular Republican president and an unpopular Republican brand." On Nov. 4, dozens of GOP candidates are likely to lose contests for House seats deemed "safe" just months ago.

But moving a progressive agenda on Capitol Hill will require more than defeating Republicans. It will require electing strong progressives. And the most meaningful shifts will come with genuine progressive candidates who actually take seats away from right-wing Republicans.

That’s why Bill Durston‘s campaign against a very conservative incumbent, the notably arrogant Rep. Dan Lungren, has symbolic and substantive potential for helping to change the direction of Congress.

Read the full column.

It’s mid-October, and the Wall Street bailout that was supposed to save the economy from collapse is a flop.

    Only two weeks ago, the media hype behind the $700 billion bailout was so intense that it sometimes verged on hysteria. More recent events should not be allowed to obscure the reality that the news media played a pivotal role in stampeding the country into a bailout that was unwise and unjust…

Read the full column.

Projection is a psychological hazard of politics. What’s "obvious" to some doesn’t occur to others. So, these days, it’s hardly reassuring when some progressives roll their eyes at the latest McCain-Palin maneuver and express confidence that few voters will be swayed by the latest slimy attacks on Barack Obama.

    The poll numbers so far this month, combined with ample media hype, have fostered the belief that the current economic crisis is close to dooming the McCain campaign. But any crystal ball that offers assurance of an Obama victory is a piece of junk.

    Twenty years ago, presidential nominee Michael Dukakis emerged from the Democratic National Convention with a 17-point lead in a Gallup Poll. One of the main reasons that the lead disappeared was a scurrilous TV ad, linking Governor Dukakis to…

Read the full column.