home

Obama Says Hillary Thinks GOP Is Bad, He Does Not

By Big Tent Democrat

Via Chris Bowers, party building Obama style:

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Thursday he would be more willing than Hillary Rodham Clinton to work with Republicans.

"Her natural inclination is to draw a picture of Republicans as people who need to be crushed and defeated," Obama said during a telephone interview from Texas with the Cincinnati Enquirer editorial board. "It's not entirely her fault. She's been the target of some unfair attacks in the past."

"I'm not a person who believes any one party has a monopoly on wisdom," Obama said.

(Emphasis supplied.) Indeed. Who needs a Democratic Congress? Not Obama apparently.

NOTE - comments are now closed.

< Zogby Emerges From Undisclosed Location | McCain's Hagee Problem >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Well I hope he gets a Democratic Congress (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Florida Resident on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 08:46:28 AM EST
    if he is elected.  Cause if he gets a Republican Senate or House he will learn real fast how they deal with  people who need to be crushed and defeated,

    what will it take (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 08:50:31 AM EST
    to wake up the leftie brigades for Obama?
    he praises republicans he says he wont scare the homophobes for the sake of civil rights, what will it take?
    think they will get it once they are actually UNDER the bus?


    If 8 Years of Wreckage (5.00 / 2) (#106)
    by Athena on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:34:29 AM EST
    ..are not enough to make Obama shed his accommodation of the GOP - what will it take?  Doesn't this guy have any standards?

    Will Obama define what "wisdom" he locates in the GOP?  I'm waiting.

    Parent

    so much for obama mania! (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by hellothere on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:06:09 AM EST
    so much for bush mania! flowing rhetoric (written by someone else) and verbally challenged and neither has real common sense!

    Parent
    american idol redux! (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by hellothere on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:17:48 AM EST
    i try and not watch jay lino where they ask people on the street questions about geography, etc. the amount of uninformed and poorly educated people boggles the mind. not to say that uneducated make poor political choices all the time. often they rely on good common sense which many have. my neighbor is a retired attorney who has his law degree from harvard. he is voting for obama.

    i just wish folks would indulge in critical thinking.

    Parent

    OT: Captain Howdy (2.00 / 1) (#8)
    by kmblue on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 08:52:49 AM EST
    is your handle perchance an "Exorcist" reference?
    if so, how clever!  

    Parent
    "Exorcist" (none / 0) (#9)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 08:53:51 AM EST
    of course
    I am an effects guy.


    Parent
    I love it! (none / 0) (#11)
    by kmblue on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 08:55:05 AM EST
    thanks for confirmation.

    Parent
    Maybe manna from Heaven (none / 0) (#6)
    by Florida Resident on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 08:51:49 AM EST
    praises? (none / 0) (#10)
    by mindfulmission on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 08:53:57 AM EST
    Please tell me how Obama "praises" Republicans here.

    Parent
    Yep (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 08:57:01 AM EST
    Not a kind word at all for the GOP there.

    Nor a negative one for Hillary for distrusting the GOP.

    You are funny.

    Parent

    Come on. (none / 0) (#23)
    by mindfulmission on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:03:58 AM EST
    There is a difference between "praising" somebody/something and saying saying a kind word about somebody/something, and you know it.

    Parent
    Actually (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:05:20 AM EST
    no I do not see the difference.

    Tell me, can you find the argument for why voters should vote for Democrats in that statement? I sure can't.

    Parent

    There is a difference between "praising" (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:09:38 AM EST
    for me, I do not think the republican party has been the "party of ideas" for the last few decades.
    I do not think Reagan was transformational beyond transforming trees to polluters and ketchup to a food group.


    Parent
    And starting the process that (none / 0) (#45)
    by Florida Resident on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:12:13 AM EST
    has destroyed the American economy.

    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#47)
    by mindfulmission on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:12:24 AM EST
    I can't either.  But that was not related to what Obama was saying.

    I understand what you are saying, and I understand where you are coming from.

    But lets be honest - this statement was made to get Republicans to like him, and in turn vote for him even though his policies are are the "left" end of the spectrum of those in the Senate.  

    Parent

    They are? (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Florida Resident on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:15:03 AM EST
    funny but I thought both Obama and Hillary are more to the center of the political spectrum.

    Parent
    they are... (none / 0) (#62)
    by mindfulmission on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:18:27 AM EST
    ... but not among Senators and Democrats.

    I have said this numerous times.  Both Clinton and Obama are moderately progressive, and not nearly as progressive as I would like them to be.

    BUT... both are more progressive than most of their colleagues in the Senate.

    Parent

    If you understand what I am saying (none / 0) (#83)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:21:55 AM EST
    why not actually comment on what I am saying.

    Parent
    He actually praises himself.... (5.00 / 3) (#76)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:20:59 AM EST
    ...for liking Republicans and disses us for not liking them. :)

    Parent
    how Obama "praises" Republicans (2.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 08:55:27 AM EST
    how much time do you have?


    Parent
    Oh this is too funny (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by kmblue on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 08:51:15 AM EST
    high broderism at its finest.

    The closer he gets to the center (5.00 / 4) (#14)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 08:56:24 AM EST
    The fewer the differences people will find between him and McCain...

    ...

    the more RELIABLE VOTERS will say, gee, Ralph Nader is right, there are no differences between Republicans and Democrats! Why don't I vote for the one with more experience.

    And they'll pull the McCain lever.

    The Democratic Party doesn't have the monopoly on wisdom, but it SHOULD have the monopoly on Democratic votes.  These kinds of statements will ensure that it will not.

    In 2000 George Bush (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by sancho on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:12:06 AM EST
    of course ran as a uniter who promised to work with Democrats. Anybody from Texas (as I am) knew that was a joke--and look how well he has worked with Democrats since.

    This time, copying Bush's winnng campaign strategy, Obama promises to work with Republicans. This time, I fear, the promise is not a joke--except yet another one that will be perpetrated on "Democrats."

    Obama will work with Republicans. Frankly, I can see him accidentally giving Roe away just to get some Repub. street cred.

    He is a Lieberman uniter come to exalt himself at the expense of the democratic party.

    On the upside, Obama likley will not beat McCain and after '08 we can continue to pretend that the arrival of the Democratic party is nigh. We'll get'em next time--the usual refrain since '68.

    Parent

    Amen (none / 0) (#160)
    by sara seattle on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:04:15 AM EST
    Bush - the Uniter

    and now Obama has taken on the same meme

    Obama - the Uniter

    It gives me the creeps - I do not want the next President to be anything like the Bush Precidency -- but there are similarities - the adolation, the "he can do no wrong"

    I would feel better about the Obama followers - if just once in a while there would be some critical words of Obama -- but that would be so wrong - how can Obama be wrong?? yiiikkkkeeees

    Parent

    A book I read in the 60's (none / 0) (#19)
    by Florida Resident on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:01:26 AM EST
    or was it the 70's? called "Fat Cats and Democrats" had this words in it's introduction " The only difference between the Democrats and the Republicans is the Name " is Obama out to prove the author of the book right?

    Parent
    use your logic (none / 0) (#113)
    by A DC Wonk on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:37:15 AM EST
    If I say, "you know, I think the Dems are right 95% of the time, but that 5% of the time the GOP is right" -- does that mean I am calling them the same?

    Parent
    I don't think I've Obama express it that way (none / 0) (#129)
    by Florida Resident on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:46:20 AM EST
    95% 5%/  My question is based on a lot of what I've seen coming out of his campaign.  Also in his willingness to use Republican Tactics for political gain, something that is not new for him.

    Parent
    Ralph Nader is right (none / 0) (#21)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:02:52 AM EST
    you know what.
    I think Nader is going to emerge as a real threat this cycle in a way he has not been since 2000.
    particularly if it is not a Hillary/Obama Obama/Hillary ticket.
    if not there are going to be a lot of pissed off democrats looking for a place to go besides McCain.
    I am honestly starting to think it is the only way we will win in November.


    Parent
    oh, puleeze (none / 0) (#46)
    by A DC Wonk on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:12:22 AM EST
    No differences?  Between Obama and McCain?

    For starters:

    One represents getting out of Iraq, the other represents staying in for 100 years.

    One represents the same tired old economic solution for everything: "cut taxes, no matter what the problem is cutting taxes will solve it."  The other does not.

    One represents a health care plan (even if it not universal, it's 100 light years ahead of where we are now), one doesn't want government involvement at all and that the private sector should figure it out.

    I think the public will be plenty aware of differences.  

    Parent

    I laugh (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:18:57 AM EST
    at your assurance about Obama's positions, because he has a different position depending on who he's talking to.

    Realistically, nobody will get us out of Iraq, especially Obama.  Obama doesn't want to own what's going to happen when we get out.  

    If we have a Democrat-heavy Congress, then McCain won't pass his tax cuts.  Besides that, a lot of the folks who will think there are few differences between McCain and Obama, also will think tax cuts are a good thing.

    And the health care thing?  LOL!  Obama threw that one under the bus with his Harry and Louise ads.  If you don't think his own ads have prevented any form of healthcare from passing, think again.

    Parent

    Obama is not taking us out of Iraq. (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by sancho on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:25:26 AM EST
    No American president is. Obama would be better than McCain. And a democrate would be better than both of them.

    Parent
    it is very interesting (none / 0) (#54)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:15:12 AM EST
    that he is rated as the most liberal senator.
    one can only hope we are seeing a rope a dope.
    and that we are not the dope.

    Parent
    The only people who rate him (none / 0) (#61)
    by Florida Resident on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:17:00 AM EST
    liberal are the extreme right.

    Parent
    Actually... no. (none / 0) (#82)
    by mindfulmission on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:21:50 AM EST
    You can look here.

    But again... that is not "liberal" as much as "more liberal" than others.

    Parent

    not true -- the facts say otherwise (none / 0) (#120)
    by A DC Wonk on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:41:37 AM EST
    • Americans for Democratic Action gave him 100 rating
    • Children's Defense Fund, 100
    • League of Conservation Voters, 95
    • NARAL, 100

    So, it is not true that "the only people who rate him liberal are the extreme right."

    HRC, btw, got those very same scores.

    Can we please not late our hatred of candidates blind us to facts?

    (Source of the above)

    Parent

    This organiztions rate for their own reasons (none / 0) (#143)
    by Florida Resident on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:55:43 AM EST
    and also do not necessarily take No Votes as bad votes.  Sorry but when I read and talk to long time Liberals the rate them both as centrist.  These people gave Bill Nelson a rating in the of 81% and after hearing speak and watch some of legislative actions he is as liberal as Bush.  Not much there to convince me he is a Liberal.

    Parent
    Wow (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by kmblue on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 08:58:12 AM EST
    This has been another edition of
    "what Obama Really Meant"

    no, he meant what he said (none / 0) (#63)
    by A DC Wonk on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:18:28 AM EST
    Is it so hard to understand that he's saying the the GOP is not 100% stupid on every issue always?

    It is ironic to the extreme that people who criticize Obama followers for thinking he's the messiah, and now they are acting like the Democratic party is the messiah.

    Nobody's perfect.  Not Obama, not Clinton, not me, not the Dem party.  A little acknowledgment of that can go a long way.

    Last I checked, hubris often leads to a downfall.

    Parent

    It is very hard to see that (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:20:11 AM EST
    Since he did not say that.

    Parent
    English and Math? (none / 0) (#123)
    by A DC Wonk on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:43:45 AM EST
    doesn't "not have a monopoly" mean "not 100%"?

    And if one party has "not 100%", doesn't that mean the other party has "more than 0%"?

    Parent

    as he is so freakin fond (none / 0) (#126)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:45:09 AM EST
    of pointing out.
    words matter.

    Parent
    this is something (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 08:59:32 AM EST
    Morning Hoe Scarboro talks about this almost every morning.
    how republicans like Obama because he is just such a nice guy and he doesnt talk about republicans like all those other filthy democrats do.
    you know, like mentioning all the vile, underhanded, dirty crap that is the republican stock and trade.

    when are the Obama supporters going to understand? (5.00 / 4) (#18)
    by desmoinesdem on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 08:59:38 AM EST
    Their candidate is simply not making any case for Democrats or progressives--ever. Why do they think he will go to the mat for us if he is elected?

    He couldn't be telegraphing more clearly that he is going to try to play the compromiser standing above both parties.

    in a GE and work our butts off for a progressive Democratic Congress to  negotiate against Obama and the GOP.

    Parent
    First time I think I've heard that (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by andgarden on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:22:03 AM EST
    from you.

    Do you really think orangites are going to ignore their lord and savior?

    I think this is a "what you mean 'we'?" situation.

    Parent

    Of course they will not (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:29:58 AM EST
    They will ignore the Congressional races.

    Not the FP, but the diaries will.

    Parent

    Amen and May (none / 0) (#31)
    by Florida Resident on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:07:42 AM EST
    your words be prophecy.

    Parent
    Obama and the GOP? (none / 0) (#41)
    by mindfulmission on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:10:34 AM EST
    Funny.

    Once again... Obama has a long record of progressive voting and progressive policy.

    We will NOT be seeing a fight between progressive Dems and Obama.

    Parent

    Oh yes we will (5.00 / 5) (#55)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:15:46 AM EST
    Why? Because Obama has set himself up as the honest broker between Dems and the GOP. He will not be on the Dem side or the GOP side. He will be the great compromiser. The honest broker.

    Some USED to call that triangulation.

    Parent

    I'm going to stop.... (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:24:52 AM EST
    ...trying to give you a 5 for everything you say but you are really on a roll with this thread!!

    Parent
    I imagine (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Kathy on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:06:49 AM EST
    his strategy is to win the nomination by recruiting repubs into his cadre, then spend the ge trying to win dems by insisting all that other stuff he said was just politickin'.  You know, like the CTV story that still insists he did this with Canada and NAFTA.

    This dem has a long memory.

    Parent

    Thats a losing strategy (none / 0) (#220)
    by Virginian on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:38:35 AM EST
    Convince the people that don't vote in your primary to support you when it doesn't count, then flip on them and try to convince your base to vote for you when it does?

    I REALLY hope thats not his strategy...if it is, my worries about the GE just got bigger.

    Parent

    What part of ....... (5.00 / 2) (#148)
    by sara seattle on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:58:30 AM EST
    Republican co-operating with Democrats in Congress have I missed??

    On what planet will Republican roll over and play dead and play with Obama - just because he thinks that will happen

    That is it in a nutshell -- it will not happen - which is why we need more Democrats in Congress - enough to cut through any filibusters.

    Obama's happy talk is not going to get Universal Healthcare passed

    Get a grip.

    Parent

    Strawman Obama (5.00 / 5) (#33)
    by cal1942 on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:08:31 AM EST
    "Her natural inclination is to draw a picture of Republicans as people who need to be crushed and defeated," Obama said ..."

    Sounds a bit strawmanish to me.

    Big of him to say "It's not entirely her fault ..."

    Incredible that so many of his supporters miss his penchant for setting up strawman arguments and taking cheap shots.

    This guy is breaking every cardinal rule of party building by using commentary on a fellow Democrat that's worthy of a Maureen Dowd and implying that the other side is virtuous. He's forgotten his guy Ronald Reagan's eleventh commandment to never criticize a fellow party member.  

    To date his campaign seems to want to confirm the George Wallace dictum that 'there's not a nickle's worth of difference ..."

    who need to be crushed and defeated (none / 0) (#43)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:11:47 AM EST
    I dont have a problem with this

    Parent
    Rank and file republicans are not evil (none / 0) (#60)
    by cannondaddy on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:16:55 AM EST
    just wrong.  You will never be able to change their minds if you refuse to even hear what they are saying.  

    (Republican party leadership is evil.)

    Parent

    You disagree with Obama (none / 0) (#64)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:18:38 AM EST
    He does not believe GOP leadership is bad. That's the point.

    Parent
    Really? (none / 0) (#162)
    by squeaky on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:05:41 AM EST
    Then why is he not running on their platform, with their positions?Oh, I get it.....he is saying that Republican Leaders are not bad just what they do is bad.  

    Parent
    He hates the Sin not the Sinners (none / 0) (#175)
    by Florida Resident on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:10:02 AM EST
    Where? (none / 0) (#184)
    by mindfulmission on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:13:17 AM EST
    Please tell me where he said this.

    Parent
    Sorry but the kind of talk I have heard (none / 0) (#79)
    by Florida Resident on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:21:31 AM EST
    from his Campaign will not necessarily help him get rank and file republicans.

    Parent
    A Tactic that seems to entice Republicans (5.00 / 3) (#57)
    by kenoshaMarge on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:16:15 AM EST
    will alienate the base. That would be us low-information, poorly educated, old, white, women, who support Hillary Clinton and do want to see the Republicans and the Democrats that have done such damage to our country crushed, defeated, and sent packing.

    We don't want to hear Reagan Praised or to condescendingly be told that,
     

    "I'm not a person who believes any one party has a monopoly on wisdom," Obama said.
    Don't remember Hillary Clinton ever saying that only Democrats have wisdom as Obama seems to be suggesting by his rhetoric.

    Show us some Republicans with integrity and concern for the people of this country and not just for their party and we'll be content to see Democrats work with them.

    only Democrats have wisdom (none / 0) (#80)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:21:33 AM EST
    yeah
    its funny
    once it was Hillary who was being criticized for working across the isle.
    oddly by most of the same people who are now wetting their pants over Obamas wonderful "outreach".

    Parent
    Hillary defends Democrat ideas and (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by MarkL on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:27:38 AM EST
    policies; Obama does not.


    Parent
    Republicans disgusted with Bush (5.00 / 3) (#71)
    by kmblue on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:19:57 AM EST
    don't need courting.
    But Democrats who doubt Obama will
    fight for them do.

    Forgot to say (none / 0) (#75)
    by kmblue on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:20:51 AM EST
    in my opinion.

    Parent
    don't need courting? (none / 0) (#102)
    by A DC Wonk on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:30:22 AM EST
    OK, perhaps they don't need courting.

    But they don't need insults, either.  To say "GOP is utterly stupid and wrong on every single thing" doesn't seem very wise.

    Parent

    You accept then that (none / 0) (#105)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:34:17 AM EST
    Obama will not be arguing that Dems are better than Republicans? Except for himself of course.

    Parent
    Please don't put words in my mouth (none / 0) (#133)
    by A DC Wonk on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:49:24 AM EST
    I never, and in no way, said that "Obama will not be arguing that Dems are better than Republicans"

    There is a difference between "usually" and "a monopoly"

    A party can be better than the other party and still not have a monopoly on wisdom.  Is that so hard to comprehend?

    Parent

    Got a quote where he says they are better? (none / 0) (#138)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:52:50 AM EST
    Indeed, do you know what issues Obama believes Republicans have been wise about?

    Parent
    Yes. (none / 0) (#182)
    by A DC Wonk on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:12:12 AM EST
    He thought Tom Coburn was right about some of the complaints about Earmarks.  He convinced Coburn that even though Obama disagreed that all earmarks were evil, that Coburn would be happy with, at the least, exposing earmarks, by requiring the Govt to create a publically web-accessible database.

    He thought Nunn-Lugar (nuclear non-prolif) was a good idea, and went to Lugar to see if they could expand the bill to cover non-nuclear weapons.  He obviously thought Lugar had wisdom on this.

    Parent

    Gosh, you're right (none / 0) (#125)
    by ChrisO on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:45:06 AM EST
    I couldn't believe it when Hillary said the "GOP is utterly stupid and wrong on every single thing." What was she thinking? I seem to have lost the link to that speech of hers. Do you think you could provide it?

    Parent
    Please don't put words in my mouth (none / 0) (#139)
    by A DC Wonk on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:53:15 AM EST
    I never said, nor intended to imply that Hillary said "GOP is utterly stupid and wrong on every single thing."

    What I am saying is this:

    Logically speaking, the negation of the sentence "no party has a monopoly on wisdom" is "one party is utterly and completely without any wisdom"

    This is just pure logic, right?

    Let me say it again.  You either believe that:

    • no party has a monopoly on wisdom; or
    • one party is utterly and completely without any wisdom

    They are complements of each other.

    So, if you reject the first, you are accepting the second.  And vice versa.

    Obama rejected the first.  Everyone here is criticizing him for it.  Those who think Obama is wrong, therefore, must believe the second statment.

    Parent

    Thankfully real life is not semantics. nt (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:56:06 AM EST
    We're talking about what Obama actually (none / 0) (#158)
    by kmblue on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:04:11 AM EST
    said.
    And is out there.

    Your and mindfulmission's frantic spinning of his words doesn't alter their meaning.

    Parent

    I'm not spinning his words. (none / 0) (#171)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:08:25 AM EST
    And I'm not being frantic. What I've actually said in this thread is that Obama is spinning Hillary's words. Because if he says that he is not a person that believes that wisdom resides in only one party, then he clearly must be saying that there are some people who do believe that...and then he went on to talk about Hillary Clinton so I guess logically I can assume he meant her...but when did she say that? You tell me?

    Parent
    so, when I explain Obama's words (none / 0) (#189)
    by A DC Wonk on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:14:51 AM EST
    I am spinning them.

    But when you explain them as a criticism of Hillary, you are not spinning them?

    You are guessing that he is talking about Hillary.

    I am guessing that he is sending a message to GOP voters.

    I am spinning and you're not?

    Perhaps we have a genuinely different point of view?

    Parent

    Sorry Maria I didn't mean you. (none / 0) (#215)
    by kmblue on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:25:07 AM EST
    unions and civil liberties organizations (5.00 / 3) (#94)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:25:52 AM EST
    are whores who want to endorse a winner.
    most of them are far more concerned about clinging to power than helping their membership.
    i.e. the Human Rights Campaign will never get another penny from me.


    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by ChrisO on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:49:37 AM EST
    I think it's silly to assume that anyone who endorsed Obama after Wisconsin (see: SEIU; John Lewis) is acting from some sort of ideological motive.

    Parent
    in the case of Lewis (none / 0) (#136)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:52:00 AM EST
    and other elected superdelegates I think it could have as much to do with possible primary challenges.


    Parent
    SEIU ... (none / 0) (#173)
    by mindfulmission on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:09:21 AM EST
    ... endorsed before Wisconsin.

    Parent
    They endorsed on Feb 14 (none / 0) (#193)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:15:11 AM EST
    hardly a statement of their convictions....more a bandwagon jumping.

    Parent
    Again... (none / 0) (#206)
    by mindfulmission on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:19:05 AM EST
    SEIU was split early between Obama and Edwards.  Once Edwards dropped out, the International was able to endorse Obama.

    There was very little consideration of endorsing Clinton.

    Parent

    AND... (none / 0) (#181)
    by mindfulmission on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:11:46 AM EST
    SEIU didn't have a hard time choosing between Obama and Clinton.

    They couldn't endorse early because the vote was split, mostly between Obama and Edwards.

    Parent

    Hillary has (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by pavaoh on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:39:14 AM EST
    proven she can show respect to republicans and work with them where she can without giving up her core beliefs.  I remember the ninties and the things that were said on a daily basis.  She went to the Senate and dispite their treatment earned their respect.  Senator Brownback said he had to offer his apologies for things he said because she wasn't the person they made her out to be.  She has done what Obama claims only he will do.

    TPM and HuffPo (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:44:15 AM EST
    try americablog if you really want to find some koolaid drinkers

    If we're nice to them, they'll agree with us! (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by sarahfdavis on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:02:39 AM EST
    As some one who Long ago worked (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by Florida Resident on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:07:38 AM EST
    as a Republican Organizer in California,  And one who still receives the Republican Correspondence and is invited to the Rallies and Meetings.  Let me explain a little about the Republican Mantra

                  You Have to Mobilize the Base

    how can you possibly want another clinton? (1.00 / 1) (#219)
    by desoeuvrement on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:33:03 AM EST
    how does one claim progressive politics and then side with a clinton?  bill clinton's presidency was disastrous: welfare "reform" that was catastrophic, "humanitarian" wars waged to liberalize economies, damaging free trade policies, the sham agreement he tried to foist on the palestinians as a "peace" settlement, and not to mention the conservative supreme court judges he appointed.  hillary will undoubtedly repeat bill's neoliberal economic agenda, absolutely fail to push through any health care reform (she receives the second highest amount of money from pharmaceutical companies), and she appears happy to forward the same american arrogance in foreign policy that characterized the past eight years.  

    obama is not the beacon of progressivism in american politics, but there are far more indications in what he has actually done that his presidency and his cabinet will be more to the left than whatever right/centrist collection of neoliberal opportunists that hillary will assemble.  

    Obama is reaching out to Republicans; (none / 0) (#2)
    by lindalawyer on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 08:46:30 AM EST
    So dont the Dems want to win in November?
    And BTW isnt it Obama who is more open to talks with Cuba? What did Hillary say---no talks with Rogue dictators. Trying to curry favor with the fanatics in South Florida.  I think that Obama's will woo some Reublicans who are fed up with the party and policies.  Alienated Republicans probably wont vote for Hillary. She tried to go along and vote for the war against Iraq. Shame on her.

    The best way to get GOP votes (5.00 / 4) (#40)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:10:15 AM EST
    is to agree with them. Do you advocate for that?

    Remember what Harry Truman said?

    Parent

    Hillary said she wouldn't pledge that SHE (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by litigatormom on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:11:18 AM EST
    would personally meet with rogue dictators in her first year in office. She DID say that she would authorize diplomatic contacts as a precursor to direct personal talks.

    I don't think that was pandering -- I think it was what she considered a more balanced approach to what she has always said is one of Bush's major mistakes: the refusal to talk on ANY level with countries who don't agree to capitulate before we talk to them.

    Parent

    For some Dems (1.00 / 1) (#30)
    by JJE on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:06:57 AM EST
    ideological purity is more important than winning elections.

    Parent
    Pissing off core democrats (5.00 / 4) (#38)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:09:59 AM EST
    using right wing talking points is NOT going to win elections.  

    And if it does?  Guaranteed, "progressives" like KOS and are going to have buyer's remorse, just as they have with all the other blue dogs they've helped.

    Parent

    Let's Get Along (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by Athena on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:38:11 AM EST
    Oh, we're all just the same flawed human beings!  Happy, happy, clap, clap.

    Obama is already discarding ideology and policy - it's only February?

    Again, I repeat - Obama is a people-pleaser.

    Parent

    I am a partisan Democrat (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:11:30 AM EST
    This is not an ideological issue.

    It is a POLITICAL issue.

    IT is obvious that you do not understand my point at all.

    You are reduced to falsehoods to defend Obama.

    Parent

    I should have said partisan purity (none / 0) (#51)
    by JJE on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:14:08 AM EST
    But telling half the country they're stupid and evil remains a terrible election strategy.

    Parent
    Hillary is not telling half the country that... (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:20:05 AM EST
    ...they are stupid and evil. Obama is perhaps putting those words into her mouth. But please she never said it.

    Parent
    Desperately Seeking A Democrat (5.00 / 2) (#141)
    by Athena on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:55:29 AM EST
    Would the Democratic Party consider nominating a........Democrat?  

    Clinton is still available.

    Parent

    Guilty (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:22:56 AM EST
    I am a partisan purist.

    Many of my blogging colleagues USED to be.

    My message has not changed since 2003.

    Parent

    I am a partisan purist. (none / 0) (#103)
    by A DC Wonk on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:33:22 AM EST
    I mean this question seriously -- what does that mean?

    Because I'd be astounded if you believe what I think it means.

    Does it mean "my party is always right?"  You couldn't possibly mean that, could you?  The Dems have been folding under Bush pressure for a while (see: FISA, Patriot Act) . . . surely you don't think that was right, do you?

    Parent

    It means that I am sure (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:37:31 AM EST
    the country is in better hands when Democrats, NOT Republicans, are running it.

    This seems a difficult concept for you.

    Do you vote for Republicans often?

    Parent

    well, it seems we agree (none / 0) (#152)
    by A DC Wonk on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:00:46 AM EST
    I agree that "the country is in better hands when Democrats, NOT Republicans, are running it."

    But that is completely different from saying that the GOP is utterly without any wisdom.

    Again, I will point to Jeralyn's comment of today.  She seems to think the GOP has the correct view on at least one issue (hate-crimes).

    Again, I agree that "the country is in better hands when Democrats, NOT Republicans, are running it." but that doesn't mean I think they are always right.  Those are two completely different issues. When Dems start talking about criminalizing hate speech, I think they are wrong (I'm a stauch 1st Amendment guy).  When Barry Goldwater was an early supporter of gays in the military, I thought he was right.  When William F Buckley, using right wing freedom principles, argued for decriminalization of marijuana, I thought he was right.

    I completely and utterly fail to see why "Democratic purist" is in any way in conflict with admitting that every once in a while the GOP has a decent idea.

    Parent

    Dem principles are the right ones (none / 0) (#137)
    by Cream City on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:52:40 AM EST
    is what it means. But no, clearly the party is not always right -- not when it follows the lead of those who do not uphold those principles.

    Parent
    i find it very interesting that many (none / 0) (#174)
    by hellothere on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:09:32 AM EST
    obama supporters often try and change the subject rather than admit their candidate has flaws. blind support is never a good thing.

    Parent
    Blind Support? (1.00 / 1) (#209)
    by squeaky on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:20:18 AM EST
    You must be blind because there are several HRC supporters here that fit your description of blind support.

    Parent
    now that's ironic! (none / 0) (#201)
    by A DC Wonk on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:18:06 AM EST
    Let's look at your two sentences:

    i find it very interesting that many obama supporters often try and change the subject rather than admit their candidate has flaws.

    That's ironic because Obama seems to be getting criticized here for saying exactly that about the Dem party.

    blind support is never a good thing.

    Agreed!  The Dems are usually right, not always.  As in "No party has a monopoly on wisdom", eh?

    Parent

    let's talk about the dems caving into repubs. (none / 0) (#212)
    by hellothere on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:23:10 AM EST
    that is a national tragedy. they tried going along and getting along. it is very clear what the results are. so here is obama wanting more of the same? duh! it answers itself.

    Parent
    and please stop using the term (none / 0) (#218)
    by hellothere on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:26:13 AM EST
    that's idiotic. i don't use terms like that for you. it is insulting. that doesn't fly on talk left.

    Parent
    Telling the truth is bad? (none / 0) (#159)
    by Marvin42 on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:04:13 AM EST
    :)

    Parent
    Among things described as ideological purity: (5.00 / 3) (#164)
    by Ellie on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:06:44 AM EST
    The rule of law; the Constitution; other people's inalienable human rights ...

    Which of yours are you ante'ing up in the name of One Party "unity"?

    Which were offered up on the block lately against your will and without your prior permission?

    Personal privacy? Religious freedom? First amendment protection? The right to demand a warrant before search and seizure?

    The Dems have ante'd up many that I thought were too precious even to consider risking (up top: people's right to be represented by three equal branches of government upholding the constitution) and upon meeting resistance, have whined that people are trying to be "ideologically pure".

    That's the party faithful's pretense when people object to, eg, having their bodies be made the property of the state. Gosh, better that than let the party leadership risk looking cowardly and inept on the news, huh? [/rolling my eyes while they still belong to me.]

    Parent

    yeah right, i have a bride in florida, i'd like to (none / 0) (#157)
    by hellothere on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:04:07 AM EST
    sell. let me know!

    Parent
    As and alienated Republican I can tell (none / 0) (#4)
    by Florida Resident on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 08:51:08 AM EST
    you we will vote against McCain.  In my case I voted for Kerry in 2004 and will vote for whatever candidate runs in Democratic ballot in 2008.

    monopoly on wisdom (none / 0) (#7)
    by A DC Wonk on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 08:52:12 AM EST
    I'm not a person who believes any one party has a monopoly on wisdom

    Hello?  That's just common sense!  If anyone says the opposite they are accused (justifiably, imho) of arrogance.

    Let me give just one small example.

    Hate crimes.  Jeralyn just stated that she's against the concept of enhanced punishment of criminal behavior because of thought. (Law suits yes, criminal penalties no).

    Dems are generally in favor of such a thing (and, indeed, Obama and Clinton both are in favor).  Jeralyn and the GOP are generally against such things.

    Therefore, it seems to me, that Jeralyn agrees with the statement that the Dem party does not have a monopoly on wisdom.

    Sheesh.  Do people here really think that the Dems are right about every single thing and that the GOP is wrong about every single thing?

    actually these days they are wrong on (5.00 / 1) (#208)
    by hellothere on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:20:07 AM EST
    just about everything. i challenge you to come with a list of their "good" accomplishments. by the way i am a former republican. i am still a financial conservative.

    Parent
    You go with that (none / 0) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 08:56:06 AM EST
    Heck of an argument for Dems there.

    Parent
    ummm . . . we lost the last election, right? (none / 0) (#36)
    by A DC Wonk on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:09:13 AM EST
    We need people who voted GOP last time to vote Dem this time.  

    One way to help reduce the odds of the Dems winning is to claim that

    every single thing
    the GOP does, and
    every single idea they've ever had
    is stupid, which is, in effect, telling everyone who voted for the GOP that they are stupid.

    That's not the most brilliant general election strategy.

    So, nu?, can you answer me this?  Do you think that every single thing the Dems have done is wisdom, and every single idea the GOP has is stupid?  With no exceptions?

    "We're right about everything" doesn't play well except yo those people who are going to vote for you anyway.

    Parent

    Ummm (none / 0) (#48)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:12:28 AM EST
    NO, we WON the last election. In 2006.

    Did you sleep through it?

    Parent

    I was referring to the last presidential election (none / 0) (#53)
    by A DC Wonk on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:15:10 AM EST
    I know you were (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:21:23 AM EST
    and I corrected you that in the LAST ELECTION, where Dems ran a hard partisan campaign, we won a landslide and took back the Congress.

    My point makes mincemeat of your argument.

    Parent

    no it doesn't (none / 0) (#111)
    by A DC Wonk on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:35:48 AM EST
    You took a single sentence and criticized it.

    What about the rest of the post?

    Furthermore, just because the Dems won in 2006 doesn't mean they would have in a presidential election.  Surely you know the long history of one party making Congressional gains while the other part won the presidency.

    But fine.  Let's ignore that point.  You did not address the rest of what I wrote.

    Parent

    You slept through the 2006 election (none / 0) (#117)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:39:25 AM EST
    I see.

    Sorry if you do not like my engagement with you.

    I will cease it immediately.

    Parent

    Dale Carnegie Meets Sun Tzu (none / 0) (#131)
    by squeaky on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:48:32 AM EST
    The question Is whether or not we would have gotten an effective majority using Obama's approach?

    His approach is a gamble for sure, and will only be effective if those he is wooing also vote for Democratic representatives in Congress.  .

    I cannot imagine that he believes that he will be able to do anything without a solid Democratic majority in Congress.

    Parent

    We need Independents... (none / 0) (#85)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:22:40 AM EST
    ...who voted Republican, and that would be enough. And any Republicans who want to vote for the Dem candidate would be gravy.

    Parent
    Why do you think (none / 0) (#166)
    by Marvin42 on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:07:05 AM EST
    Anyone will just grab all "independents" like they are one single organism? How will you draw them if you don't have distinguishing characteristics and ideas?

    Parent
    My belief (none / 0) (#176)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:10:07 AM EST
    is that grabbing a few independents peels off those of us who actually FEEL THAT the DEMOCRATS probably DO have the preponderance of our philosophies about what is right, and don't want to sell out to Republicans.

    I don't knowingly vote for selling out to Republicans -- EVER.  And I know what a number of Democrats who don't, either.

    Parent

    He's been saying (none / 0) (#20)
    by cannondaddy on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:01:36 AM EST
    this since he first came in the spotlight. No red states, no blue states but a United States.  You seem to love your party more than your country.

    I know he has been saying it forever (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:03:11 AM EST
    I have been criticizing him forever.

    It is because I love my country that I believe we need Democrats, who DO have a monopoly on wisdom AT THIS TIME.

    Parent

    No. (none / 0) (#35)
    by mindfulmission on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:09:04 AM EST
    The Democrats most definitely do not have a monopoly on wisdom.

    Sorry, but that is just partisan BS that I would expect to hear from Kos.

    Lets see... if the Dems have a monopoly on wisdom, what happened/ is happening with:

    Iraq.  FISA.  The death penalty.  Gay marriage.  Patriot Act.  Military spending.  Single payer health insurance.  The drug war.

    I could go on.

    Don't get me wrong.  The Dems are FAR better than the GOP.  It is not even a question in my mind.  But the Dems are also FAR from perfect, and make a lot of decisions that do not show any wisdom at all.  

    Parent

    A monopoly on wisdom. . . (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by LarryInNYC on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:21:23 AM EST
    is not the same thing as being uniformly wise.  Neither party has a monopoly on foolishness, nor is there a successful politician anywhere who is wholly  insensitive to public opinion.

    But if there's any wisdom on any matter coming from any Republican anywhere these days I'd like to know what it is.  What little wisdom there is in politics these days does, in fact, seem to be restricted to Democrats.  And perhaps the occasional non-candidate Independent big city mayor.

    Parent

    Mayors who wisely decide not to run (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:29:09 AM EST
    for President.

    Parent
    Agreed. (none / 0) (#112)
    by LarryInNYC on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:36:50 AM EST
    And I see an endorsement of a putative Obama general election candidacy coming up, along with a likely appointment as Secretary of Energy, HHS, or Education.

    Parent
    I would not expect to hear it from Kos now (none / 0) (#50)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:13:38 AM EST
    In the past I would have.

    BTW, do you think Obama will claim superior wisdom to McCain? And if so, how is that different?

    Parent

    Perhaps (none / 0) (#58)
    by mindfulmission on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:16:30 AM EST
    But superior wisdom is different than a "monopoly on wisdom."

    Parent
    I see (none / 0) (#68)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:19:33 AM EST
    I ask again, where is the argument for Dems' superior wisdom in what Obama says? I see the argument for HIS superior wisdom, but not for Dems.

    Parent
    Exactly! (none / 0) (#74)
    by A DC Wonk on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:20:49 AM EST
    And that is the whole point.  Superior wisdom is different than a "monopoly on wisdom."

    Are people deliberately missing that?

    Parent

    Monopoly On Wisdom (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by squeaky on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:56:57 AM EST
    I know he has been saying it forever (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:03:11 AM EST
    I have been criticizing him forever.
    It is because I love my country that I believe we need Democrats, who DO have a monopoly on wisdom AT THIS TIME.

    I second that.

    Parent

    and who might that be? (none / 0) (#165)
    by A DC Wonk on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:07:01 AM EST
    Who is that person who has all the wisdom, and is always right?

    Last debate, both candidates admitted mistakes in the past.  Were they lying?  Rhetoric?  Or, just human?

    Nobody, no person, no organization, no religion, no movement, no country, has a monopoly on wisdom.  To say otherwise smacks of arrogance and hubris.

    Parent

    rather (none / 0) (#128)
    by A DC Wonk on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:45:25 AM EST
    I think he is giving safe harbor to the GOP voters who are sick of their own party, and looking for somewhere else.

    Reagan did a nice job of that in reverse . . . (and all he got was a landslide).

    Parent

    to the GOP voters (none / 0) (#132)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:48:49 AM EST
    when the GOP is done with him we will see just how many of them still want that harbor.
    as Michael Kingsley said recently:

    I guess I share the conventional wisdom on both of these points. McCain has always been a media darling. At a magazine editors convention a few years ago, he started a speech by saying he was happy to be there addressing "my base." He gets and deserves points for jokes like that.

    And the SNL take on Obama is also correct. He is a media darling now. Hillary is rightly bitter. . . .That said, I am not the best person to explain the media Obama swoon, since I have been a swooner myself.

    No doubt we'll all turn on him at some point, faithless bastards that we are.

    Parent

    Err, why do they need safe harbor? (none / 0) (#180)
    by Marvin42 on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:11:37 AM EST
    They can just switch parties or become independents. Is he going to protect them from Republican Party Goons who will knock on their door if they leave the party?

    What you say makes no sense.

    Parent

    he certainly claims (none / 0) (#59)
    by Kathy on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:16:34 AM EST
    superior wisdom to Clinton.

    Parent
    LOL (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:08:15 AM EST
    Lieberman would probably make the same comment as you do.

    Parent
    He did (none / 0) (#109)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:35:31 AM EST
    but, but (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:10:09 AM EST
    I think it's a fair question to ask what he means when he talks so much about liking republicans and working with republicans - where will the line in the sand be?

    ~ will he work with republicans who want to keep brain-dead vegetables (shiavo) alive?

    ~ will he work with republicans who want to nominate more conservatives to the bench?

    I'm not trying to be cynical about him, honestly, maybe he is just trying to be more positive than most, but it does start to cause some fear. And I guess we are then reduced to taking it on faith that he will act like a democrat, no?

    Parent

    honestly (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:13:32 AM EST
    the most revealing quote so far was in the post letter to GLBT leaders.

    "I will never compromise on my commitment to equal rights for all LGBT Americans. But neither will I close my ears to the voices of those who still need to be convinced. That is the work we must do to move forward together."

    there you have it folks.
    its gonna be a long 4 years.


    Parent

    "still need to be convinced" (none / 0) (#70)
    by mindfulmission on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:19:56 AM EST
    I am not sure why people are missing this statement.

    He is pretty clear in saying that these people still need to be convinced about what is right.  

    Parent

    yeah (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:24:22 AM EST
    I have a dream,
    but people still need to be convinced.

    Parent
    HRC doesn't close her ears either!! (none / 0) (#97)
    by A DC Wonk on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:27:09 AM EST
    In case you haven't noticed, HRC listens to so-called "pro-lifers", too!

    See here where the words a pro-life Catholic Christian is on HRC's own election website.

    Why?  Because HRC can "hear" the other, even while disagreeing.

    So, if HRC does it with abortion, it's OK but if Obama says it about gay rights, it's not OK?

    Let's get some perspective here.  "Listening" does not mean "compromising".  They are two different concepts.

    Parent

    Dr Molly (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by Kathy on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:16:10 AM EST
    take it a step farther: does he want to bring in the Nation of Islam to the dem party?  Does he want the dem party to give up its pro-choice stance?

    I mean, come on--there is a reason there are different parties.  Dems have core values built around social issues.  I don't want republicans coming into my party and changing it into a second repub party.  Why, when the nation pretty much agrees that repubs screwed up America, is Obama saying that he embraces repubs?  He should be pointing out the differences and giving us pride in our party.

    Talk about screwing up down-ticket elections.  I don't want to be in the Obama party.  I want to be in the democratic party.

    Parent

    Nation of Islam? (none / 0) (#67)
    by mindfulmission on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:19:27 AM EST
    Seriously?  Nation of Islam?  I expect better from people around here.

    And pro-choice?  There is zero evidence to lead you to believe that Obama will want the Dem party to give up its pro-choice stance, and you know it.

    Parent

    Check his votes in Illinois (none / 0) (#153)
    by Cream City on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:01:21 AM EST
    all the votes on issues of reproductive rights.

    Parent
    So... (5.00 / 2) (#188)
    by AmyinSC on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:14:43 AM EST
    When Obama was slamming Clinton for questioning his unqualified praise for Reagan, and his comments about the Republican Party was the party of ideas for 15 years, only to condescendingly say to her, "I didn't say they were the party of good ideas," he is now saying he WAS???

    OK - now Kerry, who didn't impress me much, was mislabeled a flipflopper - what the heck is THIS??  This guy will say ANYTHING to ANYBODY depending on ANY situation!!

    I migt add, since someone brought up the GLBT situation - Obama is NOT our friend - his willingness to allow a flaming (!) homophobe to be on his campaign and to SPEAK for him says it all.  If CLINTON did that?!?!!?  Oh, the hew and cry!!!  Sheesh!

    Parent

    Your choice of questions is funny (none / 0) (#69)
    by MarkL on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:19:38 AM EST
    Didn't he do exactly those two things already??

    Parent
    Yes, he did do those two things already (none / 0) (#179)
    by Kathy on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:11:32 AM EST
    mindful just chose to spin the evidence otherwise.

    Parent
    What? (none / 0) (#194)
    by mindfulmission on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:15:54 AM EST
    What evidence did I spin about those two issues that MarkL is referring to?  I didn't even mention them.

    Please don't make baseless assertions about me.

    Parent

    read your own comments (none / 0) (#205)
    by Kathy on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:18:55 AM EST
    if you don't see it, then you never will.

    Parent
    No. (none / 0) (#210)
    by mindfulmission on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:20:47 AM EST
    I never spun anything about what MarkL was referring to.

    So unless you can show me what you are referring to, please stop making baseless attacks against me.

    Parent

    I only think my Party is right (none / 0) (#26)
    by Florida Resident on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:06:10 AM EST
    when I think they are doing the right thing for America.  That is why even though I am a Republican I have voted for the Democratic Candite in 2004 and will vote for the Democratic candidate in 2008.

    Parent
    Yes, the Dem party is right (none / 0) (#88)
    by A DC Wonk on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:23:29 AM EST
    Yes, the Dem party is right (I'd prefer "correct" to "right" <g>)

    But the Dem party is not correct all the time.

    As someone else pointed out above -- FISA?  Patriot Act?  Kowtowing to Bush's threats time and time again?

    The Dem party is usually on the correct side of an issue, I'd even say almost always -- but not always always.

    Parent

    The Dem party is generally wrong... (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:26:32 AM EST
    ...when they go against their convictions. Which they have been doing a lot lately.

    Parent
    well then I guess (none / 0) (#169)
    by A DC Wonk on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:07:49 AM EST
    ... the Dem party doesn't have a monopoly on wisdom now, does it.

    Thanks for proving my point.

    Parent

    uh (none / 0) (#192)
    by Nasarius on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:15:02 AM EST
    What are you talking about?

    Look, if you really want to parse this, "monopoly on wisdom" simply means that Democrats have some unspecified quantity of wisdom, and Republicans have none. It says absolutely nothing about Democrats always being right.

    Parent

    You seem to love your party (none / 0) (#27)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:06:47 AM EST
    I have no love for a party.
    I do have great love of the principles the democratic party stands for and great loathing for what the republican party stands for.
    its not some kind of irrational prejudice and it is not rocket science.


    Parent
    From Bowers, my favorite statement: (none / 0) (#29)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:06:55 AM EST
    Obama reinforce conservative talking points, falsehoods and stereotypes in one ear, and that Obama is a progressive savior in the other ear.

    Far as I'm concerned, this attitude PISSES OFF both sides, except for the true believers.

    It's almost a Christ Matthewsian construct, and I think it goes to his electability (or lack of).

    A very good post from Chris (none / 0) (#34)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:08:37 AM EST
    I strongly applaud him for it.

    Parent
    I agree with it too, (none / 0) (#104)
    by dk on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:33:55 AM EST
    BUT, doesn't Chris have a big hand in pushing many progressives (at least those that read blogs) into the false believe that Obama is one of them?

    True, Chris' post is evidence that the buyer's remorse might be finally settling in, but sadly it might be too late.  We're in for a rough 4 years, I'm afraid, even if Obama wins.

    Parent

    Certainly he has had a hand in it (none / 0) (#108)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:34:59 AM EST
    There are many chefs in that stew.

    Parent
    I agree. (none / 0) (#110)
    by dk on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:35:42 AM EST
    the GOP is in disarray (none / 0) (#65)
    by bkdem on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:18:44 AM EST
    and has lost any moral standing that many Americans used to believe they had.  There are, and will continue to be, a lot of rank and file Republicans who are looking to jump ship, and I think Obama is just looking to give them a place to land.

    I believe that he is speaking about left leaning republicans in the electorate, not elected GOP politicians.

    Under Obama's wrong philosophies (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:21:39 AM EST
    The Democrats are also in disarray....in fact the Democrats under Obama don't even exist anymore.

    Parent
    In spite of your posts (none / 0) (#87)
    by Baal on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:23:23 AM EST
    I am convinced that Obama is the more progressive of the two candidates, if only by a hair.  The fact is, endorsements of a host of unions and civil liberties  organizations indicate I am not alone.

    He's getting the union leaders (none / 0) (#90)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:24:32 AM EST
    but not the predominance of the rank and file union voters...(blue collar workers, etc.)

    Parent
    Not true (none / 0) (#107)
    by mindfulmission on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:34:53 AM EST
    I am not so sure that you are right about the rank and file.  Curious where you are getting your this idea that the rank and file are not supporting Obama.

    Most union people wanted Edwards, then Obama, then Clinton, from my experiences and understandings.  And I don't just mean union leadership.  

    Parent

    Exit polls (none / 0) (#156)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:04:03 AM EST
    and polls in general tell a different story.

    Parent
    Exit polls... (none / 0) (#172)
    by mindfulmission on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:08:46 AM EST
    ... have Obama beating Clinton, at least in most states, among union members and union households, I believe.

    Parent
    Blue collar workers (none / 0) (#183)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:12:23 AM EST
    the base of the union vote, go to Hillary.

    We can go back and forth all day.  Instead of making "I believe" statements, look it up.

    Parent

    first... (none / 0) (#187)
    by mindfulmission on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:14:38 AM EST
    ... blue collar workers are different than union workers.

    Second... don't tell me to "look it up" when you have not posted one fact.

    I will try to look it up... I don't think i have time to read through every exit poll right now.

    Parent

    Miss the point (none / 0) (#99)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:27:58 AM EST
    Whether you are right or not on who is more progressive is irrelevant to my post.

    Obama himself admits Hillary is more partisan. That does not matter to you I know. It does to me.

    Parent

    Have you bothered (none / 0) (#191)
    by Marvin42 on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:14:56 AM EST
    To check the various ratings by voting record for Sen Obama and Clinton. Most I have seen rate Sen Clinton MORE progressive than Sen Obama based on VOTING not WORDS.

    Its another great myth the Obama campaign has successfully made "fact."

    Parent

    And based on actually voting (5.00 / 2) (#211)
    by Cream City on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:22:36 AM EST
    and not missing votes. It's hard to tell exactly where he stands on a lot of issues when he missed almost 40% of the votes in the Senate (yes, the U.S. Senate) in a single year alone for a "very poor" rating . . . a year when her record of attendance was rated above average. The "progressive-o-meters" don't always look at that; they cherry-pick bills to compare when they can, when both Obama and Clinton voted. But one I saw that looks at their complete records put her far ahead as a progressive, based on their full records.

    Parent
    Links? (none / 0) (#197)
    by mindfulmission on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:16:54 AM EST
    Got any support?

    We have already posted links that show otherwise.

    Parent

    Here is one (none / 0) (#216)
    by Marvin42 on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:25:20 AM EST
    Obama Will Hate Republicans ... (none / 0) (#92)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:25:22 AM EST
    by the end of this election.  This is certain.  

    Win, lose or draw, he'll become a born again partisan.

    I think (none / 0) (#96)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:26:37 AM EST
    you may be right.


    Parent
    Simple good GE politics. (none / 0) (#119)
    by LarryInNYC on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:41:23 AM EST
    Any politician hoping to appeal broadly in a general election is going to work to make the voters from the opposing party feel comfortable either voting for him or at least in staying home on election day ("I'm a Republican, but Obama doesn't seem any worse to me that McCain. . .")

    It isn't really related to what they stand for or how they'll govern.  George W. Bush promised a bipartisan approach like the one he (supposedly) used in Texas -- does anyone imagine it was ever in his mind to demur to Democrats?  

    Clinton may be less outspoken on this issue but her history in Congress clearly demonstrates an interest in working across the aisle.

    The only problem I have with Obama's statement is its false portrayal of Clinton as some kind of partisan bomb-thrower.

    Obama Sells Out Clinton for GOP (5.00 / 2) (#135)
    by Athena on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:51:17 AM EST
    But that's standard Obama tactics - throw Clinton under the bus is his zeal to be liked by the GOP.

    Parent
    as you well know.

    The most successful political organization of the last 30 years is named the Republican Party.

    They disagreed with you too.

    Parent

    that is a good point but... (none / 0) (#140)
    by bkdem on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:53:25 AM EST
    in order to grab power on a presidential level, it took a candidate who won a broad swath of the electorate. (reagan)

    Whatever you think about Reagan -- believe me, I'm no fan -- I don't think anyone can argue that some blocs of voters that traditionally leaned Dem began the shift to the GOP in 1980.

    Parent

    meant to say (none / 0) (#142)
    by bkdem on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:55:32 AM EST
    "I think one can argue"

    Parent
    And how did Reagan do that? (none / 0) (#149)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:58:48 AM EST
    I wrote a post about just that very thing.

    It is called "Senator Obama, You Are No Ronald Reagan."

    The pity is he COULD BE our Ronald Reagan.

    Parent

    Reagan didn't win in a landslide... (none / 0) (#151)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:59:44 AM EST
    ...the first time around. It was actually a close election and a lot of people were voting for him as the "not Carter." He was perceived as a scary right winger even by some people who voted for him. The Reagan love affair didn't begin until well into his first term. It was really the vilification of Carter and dirty tricks re the Iran hostage situation that won that first election for Reagan.

    Parent
    It was an Electoral College Landslide (none / 0) (#204)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:18:46 AM EST
    Reagan won 44 states in 1980.  And the popular vote was 50% to 41%.

    It was a significant victory.

    Parent

    The Republican Party is in tatters. . . (none / 0) (#144)
    by LarryInNYC on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:55:47 AM EST
    and their successful Presidential candidates, for the most part, all either used a bipartisan approach to get into office or else fought against a marginal, imaginary subset of the opposition party -- "the Liberals" or "the Gays", or whatever.

    It's simply a no-brainer to understand that a politician who can lead people to believe that he's (at least) not hostile to them will do better than someone who works to alienate large swathes of the electorate.

    I do believe that hate is a powerful motivating force in politics (and is the fundamental tool in the Republicans' arsenal) but I think to target it against such a broad group as Republicans is self-defeating.  Daily we see the left trying to invent a group to hate (throwing up concepts like "corporatists") but we still haven't coalesced on any single notion.  My personal choice would be to target "neo-cons" since 1) they suck, 2) the term is fairly amorphous and can be redefined as necessary and 3) having "con" in the name is so evocative.  It's not perfect but I think it's probably the best that we have.

    Parent

    It is in tatters because (none / 0) (#147)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:57:37 AM EST
    their policies FAILED. Their politics did not.

    Parent
    OT but important (none / 0) (#161)
    by TomLincoln on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:04:47 AM EST
    to those using a feed reader. Since TL did some changes yesterda (added server?) I am unable to get tems through TL's feed. There seems to be a problem. Are you aware of this? Have tried to unsuscribe and subscribe again, to no avail. None of my other feeds gives me problems, so it has something to =do with the TL feed.

    Parent
    Could you e-mail (none / 0) (#170)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:08:25 AM EST
    Jeralyn about that?

    Parent
    I did write, but got no response (none / 0) (#186)
    by TomLincoln on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:14:13 AM EST
    I emailed earlier to talkleftataoldotcom and talkleftatgmaildotcom, and this is what I wrote

    There appears to be a problem with your feed when trying to download using FeedDemon.

    This is the feed I'm trying to use: http://www.talkleft.com/index.xml

    Perhaps other readers have mentioned this to you.

    Tom Lincoln


    Parent

    Amazing (none / 0) (#130)
    by sara seattle on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:48:17 AM EST
    It continues to amaze me how the Obama side is so open and welcoming to Republican supporters -

    Hillary supporters - not so much - actually downright hostile.  Of course if we look at what the Republicans have "given" us these last years then that must be just fine with Obama then.  Because as Obama says - you cannot pick and choose!!

    So you really think that it is smarter for you to reach out to Republican supporters?? You think that in the end would be smarter??

    Good luck winning in November then - we better all hope that Hillary is the nominee.

    Parent

    It's not clear to me. . . (none / 0) (#150)
    by LarryInNYC on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:59:39 AM EST
    which side you believe me to be on.  If I have nothing else in common with BTD, I have this -- my analysis of politics is not driven by my preference of candidate.

    Of course it is smarter to reach out for any voters you can get, including from the opposition Party.  The only issue would be if it alienates more than a tiny fraction of your base -- and given the response to Obama, I really don't think there's much worry about that.  The man could probably re-register as an actual Republican and his supporters would still love him.

    Parent

    Um (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:07:29 AM EST
    I think it is clear that absent Hillary as his running mate, Obama has serious worries in his base.

    Parent
    strategically, though, (none / 0) (#200)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:17:57 AM EST
    this may backfire on Obama. I can see how portraying himself as open to working with Republicans will get him farther in the general election, but he probably should have saved those arguments for that time. As it is now, he used too early (in the primary), and has now alienated much of the base as a result.

    The details in the Pew research pool bear this out - his electability against McCain has gone down recently. Why? Because, although he gains some from crossover Republican voters, this is nullified by defection from Democratic base voters who are currently saying they won't vote for him. (I stress currently.)

    Anyway, seems like a mistaken strategy in timing.

    Parent

    And on my side of the fence (none / 0) (#196)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:16:48 AM EST
    I'm a <whateverIam> but McCain doesn't seem any worse to me than Obama.

    If you don't show that you're different than the other side, why would people vote for either over the other.

    Parent

    Differences (5.00 / 1) (#207)
    by mindfulmission on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:19:24 AM EST
    If you don't see the differences between Obama and McCain, you are not paying attention.

    Parent
    Obama has many sides (none / 0) (#214)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:24:51 AM EST
    some Republican, some semi-Democratic.  This changes depending on who he's pandering to

    The fact is, I have no idea what he's going to do if he's elected.

    He has made stands that are completely against things I really want (like Healthcare).  He's essentially thrown healthcare under the bus with ads that WILL be used against HIM.

    He's a risk not worth taking.  I'll work toward increasing the Democratic majority in Congress.

    At least with McCain, you know what he'll do.

    Obama will do only what's right -- for him.

    Parent

    I can see (none / 0) (#177)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:10:57 AM EST
    where the partisans get upset about this sort of rhetoric.  But it shouldn't be surprising in any way.

    Barack Obama will never be a pitchfork wielding firebrand. That isn't his style.  He has a tendency to be diplomatic and deferential to his opponents while at the same time criticizing their views.

    You see this in the debates with Hillary.  Virtually every response begins with "I believe that Senator Clinton has a fine solution to this problem.  However..."

    That's the way he is.

    yes (none / 0) (#185)
    by Kathy on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:14:05 AM EST
    Obama has a long history of taking credit for other peoples' ideas.

    Finally, something we can agree on.

    Parent

    While he kicks her shins under the table (none / 0) (#195)
    by sarahfdavis on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:16:16 AM EST
    What a crock is unity campaign is.

    Parent
    He lets his surrogates (none / 0) (#198)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:17:47 AM EST
    wield the pitchforks....Harry and Louise, a case in point.

    Parent
    Comments are now closed (none / 0) (#213)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:24:21 AM EST


    Monopoly on Wisdom (none / 0) (#217)
    by Joike on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:25:28 AM EST
    You can read this thread and easily come to the conclusion that Democrats do not have a monopoly on wisdom.

    After 8 years of "I can't think of a single mistake I've made" and the politics of secrecy and fear, people might respond well to a candidate who recognizes that he and his party and his philosophy might not always have the right answer.

    Frankly, what he said is true.  No political or ideological framework is going to work or be right all the time.  

    Obama made the cardinal sin of saying something that is both true and slightly embarrassing to the party.  You can read this thread and see the pummelling he's taking for it.

    Happens to politicians of all stripes.  This kind of reaction helps explain why politicians are so careful and controlled in what they say.  They know they'll get this kind of treatment if they go off-line even for a moment.

    Sen. Clinton has gotten this treatment the whole time.  She can't laugh, get emotional or wear a blouse without idiots trying to read some agenda into it.

    As a whole, Americans say we admire leaders who show independence and speak their minds, but only as long as that independence conforms to our preset beliefs.

    What Obama said (none / 0) (#221)
    by CST on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 12:56:43 PM EST
    Look, Obama has also said, many times in the debates with Hillary that they have way more in common with each other than with the republicans.  Here he is just saying that not EVERYTHING they do is bad.  I don't see what the big deal is.  If he relly loved republicans that much, he would be one.  Also, I think this type of thing is exactly what endears him to so many young people.  I am a democrat, but some of my friends aren't and I don't hate them.  I am reminded of a Chris Rock line, where he says no one should describe themselves as a "liberal" or a "conservative", we should judge each issue individually and not be brainwashed by labels.

    P.S. I am and have always voted democrat, and I do pay attention to the issues, I have never been to a rally, I don't faint at the idea of Obama and I don't hate Hillary.  I genuinely think he will make a better president, partly for the reasons stated above.