Obama the open-minded

Chicago law professor Cass Sunstein wrote a terrific article in the Chicago Sun-Times on March 16. The take-away: "niceness and ability are only part of the story. Obama has a genuinely independent mind, he's a terrific listener and he goes wherever reason takes him."

Well, its about time. Clinton's position on health care, for example, is about as likely to succeed as her 1993 effort. By contrast, "Obama's health-care plan places a premium on cutting costs and making care affordable, without requiring adults to purchase health insurance. (He would require mandatory coverage only for children.) Republican legislators are unlikely to support a mandatory approach, and his plan can be understood, in part, as a recognition of political realities." Put another way, Obama managed to tweak his plan so that it could actually pass. I mean, Clinton might as well be proposing a giant army of robotic doctors who would provide free health care -- that is as likely to become reality as a full-scale mandate plan.

In fact, even on those items where Clinton's positions are identical to Obama's, Clinton's take-no-prisoners, make no friends approach makes translation of those positions into signed legislation far more unlikely with her in the White House.

By contrast, Obama's approach is one of inclusiveness and reduction of partisanship -- possibly the only formula for obtaining real change domestically. McClatchy had an article on March 7 that emphasized the efficacy of this approach for international affairs, quoting an international law professor to make the point that he is "unburdened by rigid ideology": "It seems to me he's really receptive to good ideas no matter where they come from, including his opponent," said Michael Glennon, a professor of international law at Tufts University's Fletcher School.

Post-partisanship, anybody?