MYDD Discovers Obama's Feet of Clay

Matt Stoller discovers what some of us have known for a while, since last July - Obama has a lot to learn about politics:

[T]he Obama strategy of not challenging power structures is working to collect lots of money and push him up in the polls. But when that first negative ad hits, when he's smacked for caving to special interests or trying to have it both ways on Iraq, will he have the credibility to say that this is just the old way of doing politics? I don't know. But so far, the Democratic base is saying 'Why should I trust this guy?'. And he hasn't given us a good answer. He could. He could drop out of the Fox News CBCi debate. He could lead on Iraq. . . . There are many transformational 'bar fight' moments he could embrace. It's incumbent upon all Obama supporters to push him to do any of these things, so that he has a chance to become President and change the country. This country is crying out for change, and it's up to us to push our candidates to deliver it. We didn't do that in 2000 and 2004, and look where it got us.

Matt is right. So I have been saying since last July.

Last July I wrote:

How did FDR do it and can Democrats defend FDR liberalism today? Maybe not by calling it FDR liberalism but they surely can and do when they have the courage of their convictions. The most prominent of these instances was the fight to save Social Security Faced with Media hostility, Republican demagogy and flat out lies, Democrats rallied to the FDR liberalism banner and crushed the Republican attempts to roll back the clock. FDR would have been proud of Democrats in that fight. No triangulation. Good old fashioned political populism won the day.

And that is FDR's lesson for Obama. Politics is not a battle for the middle. It is a battle for defining the terms of the political debate. It is a battle to be able to say what is the middle.

. . . FDR governed as a liberal but politicked like a populist. . . . The lesson of Hofstadter is to embrace liberal governance and understand populist politics. It may sound cynical, but you must get through the door to govern. Lincoln knew this. FDR knew this. Hofstadter knew this. I hope Obama can learn this.

Obama has NOT learned this. It is not at all clear he is willing to learn this. As those who have followed my pieces on Obama the past year can see, there is precious little evidence of Obama getting it or of him wanting to get it. I am becoming convinced that what we have seen is what we will get from Obama.

For me, that is not good enough.

< Guantanamo Hunger Strike Returns | "Imus, My Man!" >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    It could be (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by pico on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 02:12:17 PM EST
    that he's trying not to (searching for PG expression) show his hand too early in the process, since he'd be vetted and twisted and challenged from all sides long before the first primary's even setting up the tables.  And in fairness, the early early primary season has definitely turned the early-peak into a more likely scenario than in previous years.  Problem is, he has to deal with it before people lose confidence altogether, and so far I haven't seen anything other than a slow, steady decline into irrelevance.  

    Who knows?  Maybe people will be sick of Edwards' Two Americas narrative by the time the primaries are in full swing, so maybe it's not an unwise strategy to hold out for a while.  But... there's "holding out" and there's "giant yawn", and he's way in danger of crossing that line (if he hasn't leaped over it already).  

    If his Pres campaign (5.00 / 4) (#9)
    by Ben Masel on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 02:56:16 PM EST
    is keeping him from doing his job as a Senator (which is more than showing up) he should resign.

    I'd prefer if he campaigned by LEADING in the Senate.


    HRC & BO (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by dkmich on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 02:17:33 PM EST
    HRC is DLC and that puts her out of the picture for me.  BO is all touchy feely and makes me want to smack him to see if there is something in there.  I guess by default that leaves me Edwards.  However, Edwards is growing on me.  

    I am less bothered by his style (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 02:23:22 PM EST
    than by what he is NOT saying and what he says.

    I have been cautious about Obama... (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by sphealey on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 02:20:29 PM EST
    I have been cautious about Obama up to now, but the roar-back from his supporters every time there is an attempt to discuss these potential problems is starting to convince me that he is NOT the right guy.


    You are having the same concern that I'm having... (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by cal11 voter on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 03:01:19 PM EST
    with Edwards supporters.  But I won't hold what Edwards' supporters say against Edwards.

    Heh (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 03:47:09 PM EST
    Come on, the Obama folks are off the charts.

    I'm praying for Gore BTW.


    Gore is the answer. I hope he enters the race. (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by cal11 voter on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 03:49:59 PM EST
    But I have no clue whether he will or not enter.

    According to a DK diary, Gore is losing weight, (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by oculus on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 04:00:41 PM EST
    hence, he must being going to run [or get married!].

    Gore has run a marathon. He knows how to... (none / 0) (#46)
    by cal11 voter on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 04:10:09 PM EST
    improve his fitness.  I think he has improved his fitness since the January 2006 speech on privacy.

    Huh (none / 0) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 02:22:29 PM EST
    I am surprised. I figured my position would lead you to take the opposite view.

    btd, i'm so sorry (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by chicago dyke on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 02:41:36 PM EST
    you're not a lesbian woman (correct me if i'm wrong, because i'd date you if you were ;-)

    proudly not in the obama camp since last june.

    Heh... date him anyway, he's a good man. (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Edger on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 02:55:32 PM EST
    I'm pretty sure he likes women too, cd. ;-)

    I know, I know - I'll shut up now...

    LMAO (none / 0) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 02:44:27 PM EST
    I want to like Obama. (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by kindness on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 03:33:11 PM EST
    Why you may ask?  Because....he's a very good candidate, for many of the same reasons I won't vote for him though.

    He has the unknown factor.  Having not been on the National stage, we aren't sure what his actual positions are on various topics.  While that can be a big plus to some, to me, it also casts a shadow of doubt.  What if his positions suck?

    He's upbeat, he's positive more than he's cautionary, well except when proclaiming a position...then he's cautionary.  Looks like he learned triangulation from the Clintons.  That isn't bad by itself, but I want someone who has convictions I share, not decisions I hope I'll be able to live with.

    He's appears to be smart.  He seems to be able to handle himself well with others.  Is it a patina or the real thing?  I don't know.

    Really, I want a democrat to win in '08.  If that means voting for Hillary over Newtie, Thompson, or even that out of the race loser McCain, I'll hold my nose & do it.  If I had my druthers....Russ Feingold would be our next President.

    Me too (none / 0) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 03:33:36 PM EST
    What does it mean (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by andgarden on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 03:33:47 PM EST
    When I agree with almost everything you say, and yet still find him the most attractive of our candidates right now? I won't spend a page dissing everyone else, but there are obviously reasons.

    That our field is weak. (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 03:46:06 PM EST
    I'm also (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by andgarden on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 05:27:58 PM EST
    praying to the Gore gods.

    An issue Obama could OWN (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Ben Masel on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 04:07:50 PM EST
    where even Feingold's reluctant to tread: Rolling back the worst excesses of the DrugWar.

    before it was cool (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by Matt Stoller on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 04:40:47 PM EST
    Here's my very first post making this point, on December, 2005.

    Now please go back to your regularly scheduled 'I'm smarter than everyone' show.

    Heh (none / 0) (#50)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 04:55:10 PM EST
    But I beat you on that one too Matt. I'll find the link. Besides, that is not the same thing and you know it.

    Here's my point Matt, in case you were wondering, ACKNOWLEDGING that an idea might have been expressed by someone else is common courtesy.

    I try to be scrupulous in acknowledging that what I think has been expressed by others.

    You seem to be stubbornly entrenched in NOT giving such acknowledgments. It is not a good show. Try to do more of it. It will be appreciated.


    Actually I was later (none / 0) (#51)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 05:06:49 PM EST
    but  . . . better, still should have h/t'd you. My apologies.

    My post:

    Censure: Tone, Truth, Constitutional Moments and Barack Obama

    by Armando

    Sat Apr 01, 2006 at 12:50:44 PM PDT

    Senator Barack Obama will be the Democratic nominee for President some day. On that day, I will rejoice. It will mean so much to our Party and our country when that day comes. If he wins the Presidency, my joy will be beyond description. He is a good man and a good Democrat with the potential to be a great man and a great President.

    But he is wrong in his analysis of Senator Russ Feingold's censure resolution. Not necessarily wrong on opposing censure (though I think so). But in how he arrives at his opposition. Senator Obama sent a letter to a constituent, diaried here, on censure. Here is part of Obama's letter:

    Thank you for writing about Senator Russ Feingold's proposal to censure President Bush. I understand your strong feelings on this issue. While I share your frustration and anger, I do not think censure is justified at this time.

    I agree with Senator Feingold that the Administration's attitude toward congressional oversight and the FISA law has been cavalier and arrogant. We are a nation of laws, and those laws should be applied to all of us, from humblest citizen to the president of the United States. No president should be allowed to knowingly and willing flout our laws, and I believe the President exceeded his authority with his domestic wiretapping program. The justifications offered - that the president possesses inherent presidential authority under Article II, or was granted that authority in the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force -- seem to contradict prior precedent and our constitutional design.

    But my and Senator Feingold's view is not unanimous. Some constitutional scholars and lower court opinions support the president's argument that he has inherent authority to go outside the bounds of the law in monitoring the activities of suspected terrorists. The question is whether the president understood the law and knowingly flaunted it, or whether he and his aides, in good faith, interpreted their authority more broadly than I and others believe the law allows. Ultimately, this debate must be resolved by the courts.

    (Emphasis supplied.) Senator Obama, there is no doubt that the President is knowingly flouting the law. That simply is not in dispute. The question is whether anyone can have a good faith view that the Constitution permits the President, acting as Commander-in-Chief, to violate the law. In this post, I argued that the Supreme Court has unambiguously stated the President can not knowingly act in violation of the law. As recently as the Hamdi decision, the  Court said:

    [The Government's position] cannot be mandated by any reasonable view of the separation of powers, as this view only serves to condense power into a single branch of government. We have long since made clear that a state of war is not a blank check for the President when it comes to the rights of the Nation's citizens. Youngstown Steel and Tube, 343 U.S. at 587. Whatever power the United States Constitution envisions for the Executive in times of conflict with other Nations or enemy organizations, it most assuredly envisions a role for all three branches when individual liberties are at stake.

    Hamdi v. Rumsfeld.

    Senator Obama, there is no good faith dispute on this issue. The position of the President is an assault on the Constitution and our system of checks and balances. There is no dodging this conclusion. Your statement is a dissservice to you, the Constitution, your constituents and the American People. Sir, you are better than this. The reality Senator, is that we face a Constitutional crisis. Indeed, it can be reasonably argued that we are in what Yale law professor Bruce Ackerman has described as a Constitutional moment:

    Ackerman observed that the constitutional system in the United States (understood as the set of fundamental institutions and value commitments that order the nation's government) has undergone a number of important transformations since 1789. . . . Ackerman's problem was to account for substantial change in the U.S. constitutional order outside the framework provided by the Constitution itself.  His solution lay in identifying a particular form of popular mobilization, which he called the constitutional moment.

    . . . Ackerman [posits] that public deliberation during constitutional moments had special characteristics, different from those of deliberation during ordinary politics, that gave constitutional innovations made during such moments normative priority over later decisions during periods of ordinary politics.  During constitutional moments, he argued, the general public was deeply engaged in deliberation about the public interest, and the people in the aggregate took a relatively impartial view about developing public policy. . . . So, Ackerman argued, decisions made during constitutional moments were better, in the relevant sense, than decisions made in the course of ordinary politics.  That explained their normative priority.

    Senator Obama, President Bush is propounding a radical change in our Constitutional system. It is not acceptable for you to say 'on the one hand, on the other hand.' It is time to say No! Or Yes!, if that is your view. But the time is now.   It need not be censure if you believe that it is not the politically prudent course. Many have argued that supporting impeachment is the proper course. I have strenuously disagreed with that argument, opposing impeachment.

    But our answer to a transformative change to our Constitutional system can not be 'people of good faith can disagree, let's just get along.' That is an abdication of our duties as citizens.

    I understand that we have a mutual hero - Abraham Lincoln. Let me remind you of Lincoln's words in his Cooper Union Address in 1860:

    Neither let us be slandered from our duty by false accusations against us, nor frightened from it by menaces of destruction to the Government nor of dungeons to ourselves. LET US HAVE FAITH THAT RIGHT MAKES MIGHT, AND IN THAT FAITH, LET US, TO THE END, DARE TO DO OUR DUTY AS WE UNDERSTAND IT.

    In his famous diary, Senator Obama wrote:

    How can we ask Republican senators to resist pressure from their right wing and vote against flawed appointees like John Bolton, if we engage in similar rhetoric against Democrats who dissent from our own party line?  How can we expect Republican moderates who are concerned about the nation's fiscal meltdown to ignore Grover Norquist's threats if we make similar threats to those who buck our party orthodoxy?

    Senator, I have no such expectation. Do you?    

    [T]o the degree that we brook no dissent within the Democratic Party, and demand fealty to the one, "true" progressive vision for the country, we risk the very thoughtfulness and openness to new ideas that are required to move this country forward.  When we lash out at those who share our fundamental values because they have not met the criteria of every single item on our progressive "checklist," then we are essentially preventing them from thinking in new ways about problems.  We are tying them up in a straightjacket and forcing them into a conversation only with the converted.

    Beyond that, by applying such tests, we are hamstringing our ability to build a majority.  We won't be able to transform the country with such a polarized electorate.  Because the truth of the matter is this: Most of the issues this country faces are hard.  They require tough choices, and they require sacrifice.  The Bush Administration and the Republican Congress may have made the problems worse, but they won't go away after President Bush is gone.

    Senator, the substantive question here is not hard and it will not go away after Bush is gone. This is the Constitution we are speaking of. Sometimes the answers are clear. This is one of those times. Politics must intrude on principle, there is no doubt about that. But let's not fudge the principle and the truth in the name of tone. That is bad politics, bad policy and just plain bad.

    Your diary was written in response to reactions, mine among those, to votes in favor of John Roberts as Chief Justice. That dispute was political and substantive. But certainly there was much more gray on that issue. People of good faith could dispute the merits there. In my view, that is simply not the case here.

    While the political calculus of how to resist President Bush's evisceration of our Constitutional system is open to many reasonable conclusions and courses of action - support impeachment, support censure, support something else - it is not open to the view that the President's actions can be reasonably viewed as acceptable.

    Senator Obama argues that reasonable minds CAN disagree about President Bush's actions regarding his disregard for the law. Senator, they can not. There is no reasonable defense for President Bush's actions and arguments. It does you no credit to pretend that there is.

    gosh (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Matt Stoller on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 11:18:21 PM EST
    That's classy, still keeping your swipe about me being late to the party on the front page even though I, you know, wasn't.  

    That's it, I'm not reading you anymore.


    Huh? (none / 0) (#64)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 01:05:00 AM EST
    So you only read people who say nice things about you Matt?

    Better yet, you only link to people who say nice things about you?

    Grow up.


    Early, early, too early. (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by walt on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 06:45:48 PM EST
    I've visited some of the "candidate" websites, for most of the "potentials."  Each of them feels eerily like the inner sanctum of a cult.  It's so early in the process that the supporters seem like worshippers or believers who cannot tolerate even reasonable questions, much less put downs, slams & insults.  I'll wait, thanks.

    Besides, it doesn't matter because I'll vote for the Democrat----even if it's Lucifer in full regalia.  You think Harry was gonna' give 'em hell?  Actually, I might enjoy the unleashing of fire & brimstone on my rethuglican enemies.  If ya' can't stand the heat, get out of . . . .

    I go back and forth (4.50 / 2) (#56)
    by Alien Abductee on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 09:36:45 PM EST
    on thinking maybe he's actually got a good strategy in the ridiculous toxic media climate high-profile Dems have to operate in currently. To anyone still getting their news from Old Media (most people), he's probably looking just fine, a fresh and nonpolarizing figure who promises to fix what's wrong and inspires with his words. He's been very adept so far at ducking what mudslinging there's been from Republicans in the MSM, though we'll see when the swiftboats come out how he weathers that. I wouldn't be surprised if he does well at that too, with his quick reaction team.

    As to the substance that he isn't showing - after the utter unfairness of how Pelosi was treated for doing some perfectly unexceptionable peace-mongering, how can you even argue that ANYTHING a Dem does will be presented fairly or accurately in the MSM? There's a good argument to be made that the less you do as a Dem politician right now, the more you guard yourself by running simply on motherhood statements and a feel-good image, the better off you are. I might even argue that in fact he's setting the terms of the debate with his above-it-all refusal to duke it out and apparent pursuit of non-confrontational methods instead. He would be nothing but attacked by a hostile press if he took on some of these "bar fights." This is apparently Hillary's strategy as well - "I vill say nothink!"

    Though he's not who I'd support first, and I want him to stand up and fight, I refuse to write him off, or even dismiss what he's doing as utterly misguided. Until he absolutely proves otherwise, I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt and assuming his substance-less approach is what he thinks is his best shot for getting through the door to govern in order to promote what in what he's talked about elsewhere looks like a darn progressive agenda.

    Problem with that is (none / 0) (#60)
    by Ben Masel on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 10:33:31 PM EST
    in the meantime we're down one Senator.

    Unfortunately true (none / 0) (#63)
    by Alien Abductee on Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 12:24:17 AM EST
    Feingold anticipated it and didn't run so he could do his job without having to make those kinds of calculations. Somehow I can't see Obama ever making the same sort of choice. He's very much about protecting his "career." Let's hope he remembers the original purposes he meant to protect it for.

    Hillary? (2.00 / 1) (#33)
    by jondee on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 03:49:40 PM EST
    You're insane. The woman has been more thouroghly demonized -- particularly in the red section of the country -- than any public figure in the last twenty years.

    I figured thats what the almost daily anti-Obama posts was about. You should call yourself Big Tent Moderate Republican, as people like you might succeed in getting a Guliani or a McCain elected; if that isnt what you're trying to do already.

    I searched but (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 03:55:57 PM EST
    did not see where I wrote the word Hillary in my post.

    But (none / 0) (#62)
    by taylormattd on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 11:52:21 PM EST
    "Big Tent Moderate Republican" is a pretty damn funny username.

    Obama had 100,000 contributors. (none / 0) (#10)
    by cal11 voter on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 02:58:23 PM EST
    Seems like a pretty good start in reaching out to the base.  Twice as many as the next Dem competitor, no?  BTW who speaks for the base?

    Heard Obama refer to himself as a progressive Democrat.  I think we have a ways to go before we know the contours of this candidate Obama.

    100,000 (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by dkmich on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 05:37:01 PM EST
    Heck, that's just a couple of college dorms on MySpace. :)

    100,000? (3.00 / 2) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 03:19:53 PM EST
    I like to think the Dem base numbers in tens of millions.

    Fact is (none / 0) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 03:20:44 PM EST
    Hillary has a better connection to the base than any of them, because of Bill primarily.

    The traditional donors, perhaps. The base,... (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by cal11 voter on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 03:28:17 PM EST
    I wonder although I used to think so.

    Really? Based on what? (none / 0) (#18)
    by lilybart on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 03:23:54 PM EST
    I LOVE Clinton. I would have him pres for life or UN Sect or Sect of State. I am happy with Hillary as my senator.

    That said, I am not their base. I am looking for the best candidate and I am torn between Edwards and Obama. Like Richardson, but he would make a great Sect of State.

    So watch  your assumptions. Who is this mythical base that loves Hillary?


    Based on polling (none / 0) (#29)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 03:45:16 PM EST
    Can't stand Hillary as my senator (none / 0) (#58)
    by conchita on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 09:45:51 PM EST
    Don't trust her, haven't learned not too, and  never will.  However, I agree with you about the mythical base.  I have wondered about it from the beginning and if it was some kind of fictional media device - gave them something to say so they looked like they knew what they were talking about.  It gave me acute pleasure this Sunday to hear the weekend pundits marvel at how her nomination no longer "inevitable."

    I did say start. And what does this say about ... (none / 0) (#19)
    by cal11 voter on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 03:26:07 PM EST
    Clinton and Edwards who had much fewer contributors?  I think Obama's contributor numbers will continue on a similar growth line.  Of course, number of contributors is just one factor of base support.

    Um, he just pulled out of FOX debate. (none / 0) (#12)
    by lilybart on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 03:17:58 PM EST
    I am the Democratic base and I am very high on Obama.

    He repesents hope and change. Imagine you live in some other place in the world and you wake up to President Obama in NOV of 08. I think that we get back 80% of our respect just by electing a fresh start, and yes, a black man.

    It's early. I believe he has a core value of fairness and honesty and from that, all policies changes are possible.

    Heh (none / 0) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 03:19:13 PM EST
    I'm not the Dem base. I am one person.

    then there is no Dem base (none / 0) (#17)
    by lilybart on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 03:21:21 PM EST
    there are only individuals. You committed the sin of generalization and assumption.

    No (none / 0) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 03:34:36 PM EST
    that was you. I denied being the Dem base.

    The mistake is yours.


    How do you lead on Iraq? (none / 0) (#15)
    by lilybart on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 03:20:21 PM EST
    How can anyone do anything more right now? Bush and Cheney are going to do what they are going to do. Congress is fighting them for the first time in whole ugly war.

    And this is BUSH's war. Bush's war, not for the DEMS to take responsibitiy for. We do what we can to stop it, but really, what is it you, BTD, expect anyone to really DO??

    Support Reid/Feingold (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 03:34:06 PM EST
    Has Pelosi made any comment (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Edger on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 03:46:20 PM EST
    about Feingold's bill that you know of? I've been unable to find anything... unless I've missed something she said.

    Zip (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 03:55:04 PM EST
    I keep getting visitors to my site (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Edger on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 04:03:45 PM EST
    from the House, searching on post I've written slamming her. Interesting. Fingers in the wind?

    That's an obscuring comment. How do you (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by oculus on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 04:07:41 PM EST
    know who the visitors are?

    I don't. (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Edger on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 04:35:08 PM EST
    And I don't know whose fingers either.

    Not obscuring intentionally.

    They come from (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Edger on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 04:52:21 PM EST
    house dot gov searching on "pelosi'

    What are the GOP candidates postitions? (none / 0) (#26)
    by lilybart on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 03:36:42 PM EST
    Do we know what Giuliani, Romney or McCain stand for? All we know is McCain is all war all the time.

    I am not saying its ok for Obama not to be out there with fully formed policy statements, but no one is really. Edwards has been planning this for years and he wants to stake out the very progressive policy position as his identity. I am not sure anyone else considering running at this point has all his/her policy agenda spelled out, in pen not pencil.

    I am not for a policy of attacking NO Dems on principal, but the GOP is very successful at not taking down their own. You seem to be making a career out of tearing down our own people, who are light years ahead of the GOP in terms of policies for real peopel, not the just the rich businessman they all worship.

    Ron Paul: out now. (none / 0) (#42)
    by Ben Masel on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 04:05:04 PM EST
    Tommy: 3 autonomous regions. Iraqi referendun on US troops.

    Obama dropped out of the FOX debate. Say it again. (none / 0) (#27)
    by lilybart on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 03:39:58 PM EST
    'Why should I trust this guy?'. And he hasn't given us a good answer. He could. He could drop out of the Fox News CBCi debate.

    So, no comment on this from BTD?

    Obama has done what you ask. Is this a transformational moment?

    I never criticized anyone on the Fox Debate (none / 0) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 03:45:10 PM EST
    I do not share that obsession with Matt and them.

    Go ahead and check and see how many times I posted on that. Zero is the answer.


    You did comment that you had (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by lilybart on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 03:55:27 PM EST
    been saying the same things as Matt, and he is right. And just above was the comment about the FOX debate.

    Since you didn't parse his post, I thought you agreed with what he said. Since you said you did. :)


    Good point (none / 0) (#38)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 03:56:22 PM EST
    Thanks for allowing me to clarify.

    To be clear (none / 0) (#39)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 04:00:33 PM EST
    Obama had not announced his candidacy nor had Fox announced its debate last July.

    Obama campaign (none / 0) (#43)
    by naschkatze on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 04:06:36 PM EST
    I am still open about supporting several of the candidates, but I think Edwards is running the smartest campaign right now even though he is a "David" up against the two "Goliaths" Mrs. Clinton and Obama.  He reminds me of our governor in Oregon, Kulongowski, who was really lacking in money compared to the Republican candidate but who knew how to husband his resources well.  Edwards is doing that and making key moves that are brilliant.

    I've been holding this back (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by andgarden on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 05:36:07 PM EST
    but my feeling is that Edwards is running from his Senate record. I'll vote for him if I need to, but of all our announced candidates, he's the most conservative.

    He says all the right things except on Iran (none / 0) (#59)
    by conchita on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 09:51:00 PM EST
    He bowed down to AIPAC with the rest of them and for that I can't go there.  My fervent hope is that Gore is being strategic and holding off rather than get lost in all of the financing bs the media has subjected us to over the last few weeks.

    I think Obama is listening to different views. (none / 0) (#57)
    by cal11 voter on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 09:43:52 PM EST
    He has plenty of time to put forth substantive positions for his primary run.  The Iraq War is another issue.  Now is the time to step up.