He is dangerous to the Democratic brand.

No praise for Carter. No praise for Clinton. No praise for FDR, LBJ or JFK.

This is our moment in history, to make our positive case that we are the party of the people. Everyone hates Bush and Republicans.

America is partisan for a reason. The two parties are fundamentally different and their policies have different effects on the middle and working classes.  

Instead, Obama is blathering about how everyone hates government in general and how only he, post-partisan Magic Man, can save us from ourselves.

The headline of this teeny diary KOS felt he needed to create to present this drivel:

Clinton's license to do harm

b) he's hardly the arbiter of what a dem is.

But then these are the same people who defended Obama's SF comments as being right, which turns out to be, well, wrong:

Do small-town, working-class voters cast ballots on the basis of social issues? Yes, but less than other voters do. Among these voters, those who are anti-abortion were only 6 percentage points more likely than those who favor abortion rights to vote for President Bush in 2004. The corresponding difference for the rest of the electorate was 27 points, and for cosmopolitan voters it was a remarkable 58 points. Similarly, the votes cast by the cosmopolitan crowd in 2004 were much more likely to reflect voters' positions on gun control and gay marriage.

Small-town, working-class voters were also less likely to connect religion and politics. Support for President Bush was only 5 percentage points higher among the 39 percent of small-town voters who said they attended religious services every week or almost every week than among those who seldom or never attended religious services. The corresponding difference among cosmopolitan voters (34 percent of whom said they attended religious services regularly) was 29 percentage points.

It is true that American voters attach significantly more weight to social issues than they did 20 years ago. It is also true that church attendance has become a stronger predictor of voting behavior. But both of those changes are concentrated primarily among people who are affluent and well educated, not among the working class.

I don't know how anyone who heard Hillary's passionate declarations for the party and for party unity - regardless of who was the Democratic nominee - could believe that she is not a real Democrat.  I guess I am wavering between wondering if the Orange Crowd truly believes Obama has redefined what a Democrat is, and on that basis, Clinton does not fit the mold, or they so badly want Obama to be the nominee that it's the only way they can mentally cut Clinton out of the picture.  Either way, the news I have for Markos is that those Democrats who have been voting for Hillary know what a "real" Democrat is.

I did not hear anything from Obama last night - other than a gratutitous word or two forced from him by the moderators - that reflected his pride in being a Democrat; she had to include him in the declaration that the party would come together, because she knew he would not.  

I know the Orange Ones and the Marshall crowd were angry that their candidate was on the receiving end of unfair questions, but their lack of outrage at the unfair questioning and coverage that has been going on for months now leaves me feeling no sympathy at all.  I mean, they have been part and parcel of that, and I don't see them being capable of self-directed outrage, so now they are in a position of looking like spoiled and petulant children...I've seen that same attitude in Obama, so maybe there is an affinity there that we just don't understand.

There has never been a President in this country that was even close to being as far left as Markos and his gang.

All he is doing is destroying the Democratic party by dragging it out of the mainstream with his slash and burn tactics against all the moderate Dems.

America is a moderate country. It isn't far right and it isn't far left.

Markos