Obama: "I am a New Democrat"

Oh really?

Obama has called himself a "New Democrat."

From Politico:

President Barack Obama firmly resists ideological labels, but at the end of a private meeting with a group of moderate Democrats Tuesday afternoon he offered a statement of solidarity.

“I am a New Democrat,” he told the New Democrat Coalition, according to two sources at the White House session.

The group is comprised of centrist Democratic members of the House, who support free trade and a muscular foreign policy but are more moderate than the conservative Blue Dog coalition.

Obama made his comment in discussing his budget priorities and broader goals, also calling himself a “pro-growth Democrat” during the course of conversation.

White House officials stressed that Obama was not making any declarations, but rather pointing out that he was in sync with many of the group's principles.

The self-descriptions are striking, though, given Obama’s usual caution in being identified with any wing of his often-fractious party. He largely avoided the Democratic Leadership Council – the centrist group that Bill Clinton once led – and, with an eye on his national political standing, has always shied away from the liberal label, too.

As recently as last week, he steadfastly refused to define his governing philosophy.

Asked in an interview with the New York Times to describe if he was a liberal, socialist or progressive, Obama demurred.

“No, I’m not going to engage in that,” he said, before calling back the reporters later in the day to question why they would even ask if he is a socialist.

...There is no New Democrat coalition in the Senate, so Obama had no previous affiliation to the group. His chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, was a member of the centrist group during his time in the House, though.

Good grief.

One day, Obama refuses to engage in defining himself. Then, he calls himself a New Democrat.

How amateur!

Read the transcript of the Obama "socialist" interview aboard Air Force One.

Excerpt

Q. The first six weeks have given people a glimpse of your spending priorities. Are you a socialist as some people have suggested?

A. You know, let’s take a look at the budget – the answer would be no.

Q. Is there anything wrong with saying yes?

A. Let’s just take a look at what we’ve done. We’ve essentially said that, number one, we’re going to reduce non-defense discretionary spending to the lowest levels in decades. So that part of the budget that doesn’t include entitlements and doesn’t include defense – that we have the most control over – we’re actually setting on a downward trajectory in terms of percentage of G.D.P. So we’re making more tough choices in terms of eliminating programs and cutting back on spending than any administration has done in a very long time. We’re making some very tough choices.

What we have done is in a couple of critical areas that we have put off action for a very long time, decided that now is the time to ask. One is on health care. As you heard in the health care summit yesterday, there is uniform belief that the status quo is broken and if we don’t do anything, we will be in a much worse place, both fiscally as well as in terms of what’s happening to families and businesses than if we did something.

The second area is on energy, which we’ve been talking about for decades. Now, in each of those cases, what we’ve said is, on our watch, we’re going to solve problems that have weakened this economy for a generation. And it’s going to be hard and it’s going to require some costs. But if you look on the revenue side what we’re proposing, what we’re looking at is essentially to go back to the tax rates that existed during the 1990s when, as I recall, rich people were doing very well. In fact everybody was doing very well. We have proposed a cap and trade system, which could create some additional costs, but the vast majority of that we want to give back in the form of tax breaks to the 95 percent of working families.

So if you look at our budget, what you have is a very disciplined, fiscally responsible budget, along with an effort to deal with some very serious problems that have been put off for a very long time. And that I think is exactly what I proposed during the campaign. We are following through on every commitment that we’ve made, and that’s what I think is ultimately going to get our economy back on track.

Q. So to people who suggested that you are more liberal than you suggested on the campaign, you say, what?

A. I think it would be hard to argue, Jeff. We have delivered on every promise that we’ve made so far. We said that we would end the war in Iraq and we’ve put forward a responsible plan.

Q. In terms of spending.

A. Oh, in terms of spending. Well, if you look at spending, what we said during the campaign was, is that we were going to raise taxes on the top five percent. That’s what our budget does. We said that we’d give a tax cut to 95 percent of working Americans. That’s exactly what we have done. That’s the right thing to do. It provides relief to families that basically saw no growth in wages and incomes over the last decade. It asks for a little bit more for people like myself who benefited greatly over the last decade and took a disproportionate share of a growing economy. I actually don’t think that anybody who examines our budget can come away with the conclusion that somehow this is a – that this is in any way different than what we proposed during the campaign.

But more to the point, it is what’s needed in order to put this economy on a more stable footing. One of the problems that we’ve had is that we have put off big problems again and again and again and again. And as I’ve said in my speech to the joint session of Congress, at some point there is a day of reckoning. Well, that day of reckoning has come.

What I’m refusing to do and what I’ve instructed my staff that we will not do is to try to kick the can down the road, to try to paper over problems, try to use gimmicks on budgets, try to pretend that health care is not an issue, to continue with a situation where we are exporting – importing – more and more oil from the middle east, continuing with a situation in which average working families are seeing their wages flat line. At some point, we’ve got to take on these problems.

Q. Is there one word name for your philosophy? If you’re not a socialist, are you a liberal? Are you progressive? One word?

A. No, I’m not going to engage in that.

When he's trying to woo Dems or woo anyone, chameleon Obama is more than willing "to engage in that."

He can really be long-winded, especially when he's trying to evade the socialist issue.

I think Obama knows exactly who he is and that's the problem. He knows that he'd lose the support of many Americans if he owns up to the truth.

That's what drove Hillary Clinton nuts during the primaries. Obama didn't have to reveal much. The media didn't ask. They gave Obama a pass. Simply put, Obama was inadequately vetted.

Obama is definitely uncomfortable with the socialist label. I don't know why. Why not embrace it and be proud? Be honest.

Here's an eye-opener:

President Obama was so concerned that he had appeared to dismiss a question from New York Times reporters about whether he was a socialist that he called the newspaper from the Oval Office to clarify his policies.

Audio:



Wow.

Transcript

BARACK OBAMA: See, uhhh, I -- I -- eh -- Just one thing that, uhh, I was thinking about as I was, uhh, -- as I was -- getting off the, uhhh, copter 'cause, I -- uhhh -- you know, it was hard for me to believe you were entirely serious about that socialist question.

JEFF ZELENY: Mmm-hmm!

OBAMA: Uhhhh, I -- I -- I did think it might be useful to point out that, uh, it wasn't under me that we started, uh, buying a whole bunch of (pause) shares of banks. Wasn't on my watch. And it wasn't on my watch that we passed, uhhh, a massive new entitlement, uhh, the prescription drug plan without a source of funding. Uh, and so I think that, uh, it's important just to note, uhh, when you start, uhh, hearing folks, uhh, throw these words around, thaaat (pause) .. Um, uh, we've actually been operating, uh, in a way that, uh, is entirely consistent with free market principles, uh, and that, uhhh, uh, some of the same folks who are throwing, uh, the word "socialist" around can't say the same.

ZELENY: Right. So whose watch are we talking about here, sir?

OBAMA: Well... Uh, heh, heh, heh. I -- I -- I -- I just think it's c-clear that by the time we had, uhhhhh. By the time we, eh, uh, got here, uhhh, ummm, there already had been, uh, an enormous infusion of taxpayer money into the financial system, aaand, eh, eh, eh, y-y-yuh-y-y-yuh.... The thing I constantly try to emphasize to people is that, if coming in the market was doing fine, nobody would be happier than me, uh, to stay out of it.

ZELENY: Right.

OBAMA: Uh, you know, I -- I -- I have more than enough to do, uh, without having to worry about the financial system. Uh, and the fact that, uh, we've had to take these extraordinary measures, uh, and intervene, uh, is, uhh, not an indication of my ideological preferences --

ZELENY: Mmm-hmm!

OBAMA: -- but an indication of the degree to which, uhhh (pause) lax regulation, uh, and extravagant risk taking, uh, has precipitated a crisis.

A socialist by any other name is still Obama.

New Democrat.

Yeah, right. Unless of course New Democrats are radical socialists. If that's the case, Obama is a very New Democrat.