I believe in a politics of contrast where we lay out an ideology and get a mandate for it, using public dissatisfaction with Bush as a way to sell them on our alternative.  Others look at Democratic gains in 2006 and expected gains this year, at polls showing people largely agree with progressive policy positions (as they have for years), and conclude that all we have to do is win an election and everything flows from there.

I remember how the Clinton Administration quickly went off the rails following the 1992 election because people didn't have a well-grounded sense of what he intended to do and how it fit into the overall narrative of his Presidency.

That's hardly a "political genius" at work.  Then there's the loss of seats in 1994, and the net loss (1992 -- 2000) for the Democrats.  

The reality is, Clinton was a marginal politician who is personally popular, but was not terribly effective politically.  

Similarities are there.  Two distinct comparisons come to mind.  First, there was a sort of naivete about Clinton, who seemed to want to try to CHANGE America and bring everyone together.  Remember this book?  Putting People First: How We Can All Change America .

Even Bill Clinton's legacy will only be clear in 10-20 years at the very least. Obama has hardly a past, a purposely misleading campaign (with a cult following) and like all of us, the future is ahead of him.

What is missing from Harold's piece? He fails to mention the role of the mainstream press--a power elite which has played a key role in recent White House elections.

I see that he's now pandering to Californians, promising to legalize pot--they're having a big controversy over that this week in L. A. Who is the "say-anything" candidate? I hope he's very vocal about that because older people will write him off immediately and he could also hurt his "independent" following.

Alien Clinton

Duck for cover America, bring out the duck tapes and prepare. An alien family called the Clintons are about to hijack America. A Clinton, called Bill did it in 1992 and held America hostage for 8 years. The other Clinton, one open minded men refer to as a squealer goes by the name, Hillary. She to kidnap America. If she succeeded, she would hold America hostage for 8 years, paving the way for another Clinton called Chelsea who would have been 35 years old in 2016 and ready to continue the evil Clinton agenda.

That would leave two Clintons in the White House with nothing to do in 2016. Republican candidate, Romney who could not imagine one Clinton unemployed living on 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue if Hillary became president could be forgiven for his thoughts on not wanting her in the White House. The conservative media led by the Fox Network could easily be forgiven for analysis or reports skewed against Clinton. They hate her or they are afraid of her? Yet, what should one conclude when analysts, pundits etc who claim neutrality or liberalism, slyly push conclusions skewed against Hillary? All that while she was being touted as the obvious choice for the Democrats.

Obama's Slipstreams

Meantime, a half white, half black man who said he had a funny name called Barack was packaging himself, enlisting an institution called Oprah in the venture. Then, he slipstreamed Hillary and won a caucus and a primary election; and now, winning over, two reputable Kennedys. Slipstreaming is a tactic used in auto racing in which the slipstreamer drives behind the leading car, taking advantage of the pull force while easing a bit on the accelerator. If done right, the driver in the following car would power up fully at the right moment and win the race or at least, over take the lead car. Political slipstreaming may not be new but Obama appeared to have pulled of the mother of all political slipstreamings.

The spotlight was on Hillary as she was being bisected and dissected left, center, right, Obama lurked in the background. Mr. Clean with little or no known weakness. Then, whoosh, there he was, " the new face of politics, a unifying force, charismatic, a phenomenal approach never before seen." A charmed media; journalists, pundits, analysts repeated the afore mentioned labels. Exactly how Obama portrayed himself and wanted to be seen, fresh new ideas a different kind of politics. The media bought it and essentially became all but Obama's official mouth. Clinton, she was ghetto stumped.            
Clinton Ghetto Stumped

The violent act of participating in a  ghetto stump is to identify with the in crowd. It is a hip thing to do, embolden oneself, feel powerful while a helpless ghetto stumped individual lay on the floor bleeding. That individual dared not fight back less he got more. Anyone who dared come to the aid of the individual got it too, sometimes more. Ghetto stumping Clinton became a fashion, the in thing to do. "She is divisive, polarizing, people are tired of her, she will energize the conservative base. Americans do not want to go through all that Clinton drama again". Those labels, analysts virtually lined up to attach to Hillary. Picture yourself in the Clinton camp. What would you do if you were running a campaign based on issues and you had a track record to back it but the media focused on your candidate's perceived  weaknesses while trumpeting the strengths of your opponent? Ask Bill Clinton what happened to him when he came to the aid of the ghetto stumped victim.

The poster reasoned that the predominantly young male netroots was supporting Obama because they saw themselves in him, or saw what they thought they were.  In other words, they identified with Obama in ways they could not with Clinton, so they were practicing a type of identity politics.  Part of the argument was that this explained why his policies didn't seem to matter to his supporters.

Granted, any Prez will be beholden to issues and support groups, but has Wolfe ever referred to Dubyah as being a front for Papa Bush?

Or put the other candidates' spouses under suspicion for their influence? Or to congresswomen and other women who hold office for actually being controlled by their spouses?

Presumably, the men are A-OKAY cause the wives are baking cookies (like they did in the prehistoric creative design world where man and Blitzerops roamed the earth simultaneously.)

During the two years that they overlapped in the Senate, they voted differently just 40 times - out of 645 votes. That works out to 93.8 percent agreement.

Now his Illinois record. He voted "present" but only because Illinois legislature is different. But his version of "Change" in Illinois was to go with the "status quo" of how thing were done.

Furthermore, per

shown himself more able than any American in a very long time to help us transcend some of our most crippling differences

The record above doe not support the "UNITY". When difficult DIVISIVE issues occur like in 2006 the Immigration issue...

Democrats like Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) say immigration reform is a divisive issue but contend that lawmakers should work collectively to assist immigrants living in the U.S.

This was his response...

"But I believe we can work together to pass immigration reform in a way that unites the people in this country," he said, "not in a way that divides us by playing on our worst instincts and fears."

Wonderful ... but it didn't transcend the crippling differences.  

mr. myerson is of the pundit class that sees no need to inject facts (his mind is blissfully uncluttered by them) into his columns, we're expected to accept as a given anything he tosses out.

that mr. clinton only briefly had a democratic congress didn't help; after 1994, he was dealing with a decidedly hostile republican congress. that almost immediately following the 1992 election, he and sen. clinton were accused, quite publicly and quite wrongly, by the nyt's of involvement in the arkansas real estate deal known as whitewater (read: fools for scandal, gene lyons), and a host of other accusations of wrongdoing didn't help his presidency either.

travel gate, vince foster's unfortunate suicide, etc., etc., all pushed by foes in and out of congress, diverted resources that should have been used for actual work, to defending against all the made up allegations. that he got as much done as he did is nearly a minor miracle.

So can Obama's magic move Butte? Before the morning was over, I was able to ask the question to a group of local activists. The Montana Human Rights Network was holding its annual Progressive Leadership Institute in the Finlen over the weekend, and two dozen local organisers gathered around to hear the speech in between workshops on running effective campaigns and running for local office.

"It's not that he would change anything in Butte," said Alan Peura, a city commissioner in Helena. "But he's building momentum that we can use to make that change ourselves."

Although John Edwards was by my survey probably the group's favourite candidate, Obama roused them, not by his policy promises, but by the opening he presents for their work.

"At the very least, we'll have four years of movement-building from the presidential bully pulpit, which is the polar opposite from what we've had," chimed in Jason Wiener, a Missoula city councilman...

"I don't trust all this talk about bi-partisanship," said retired Montana congressman Pat Williams, one of the longest-serving progressives ever to sit in the House of Representatives. "Compromise can be just another word for collusion." On the other hand, even Williams sees movement potential at the party level if Obama were to be the candidate. Williams served in Congress under Bill Clinton in the early 1990s. He saw how the Clinton magic worked - for Clinton only. "We lost the governors, the House, the Senate."

Ken Toole, one of the founders of the Network and a student of the conservative movement remembers how the right came to power. Gaining the White House wasn't the last but rather the first stage of that process. "The best thing Obama could be is our Reagan," said Toole. "Reagan didn't deliver a whole lot in terms of policies, but he shifted the country's direction."

Even from Butte, it's clear to organisers: Obama's not the saviour: we are. He opens a door. We push.