MoveOn already shot its wad by holding an election that I did not even know about.

They made no demands of Obama and they will likely get nothing in return.

I stopped even listening to them, as they yell too loud to be effective in the long run.

It's the same reason - or part of the reason - he cannot bring himself to utter a word of praise for the Clinton years (the other part is that he thinks it hels Hillary) - he can't win those not-Democratic votes by actually being a Democrat and saying anything complimentary about a man so many people hate.

It does, frankly, annoy the cr@p out of me that he so easily dismisses the Democratic, liberal base in favor of cozying up to Republicans - who, I suspect, will desert him in droves in November if he is the nominee.

I would not suggest that anyone hold their breath waiting for Obama to take up any cause that is identified (rightly or wrongly) as liberal, progressive or leftist.

Obama's M.O. is to let his underlings do his work while he ponders, speechify's, and promises to think about stuff in the future.

In passing, what galls me about his vaunted credentials to hold office and hype inflated comparison to far greater leaders and activists like JFK, MLK, Gandhi and X -- all of whom he samples in his speeches -- is that by his (Obama's) age or well before his betters were so accomplished with, you know, ACTUAL ACCOMPLISHMENTS they rippled internationally.

Even the Obama Yes (We) Can mantra is cribbed ... from Sammy Davis Jr's autobiography. (Yes I Can! The Sammy Davis Jr. Story)

Somewhat tangential, but check out how Obama is closing his Pennsylvania campaign by running yet another ad attacking universal healthcare.

The "creative class" bloggers have plenty of outrage about MoveOn, but no outrage for Obama's attacks on universal healthcare and progressive policy.

Moreover, requiring Barack to defend MoveOn is just another example of holding him accountable for every, single one of his associations. If a reverend in Chicago says something offensive, Barack is liable for it; if Louis Farrakhan says something offensive, Barack is liable; if Ayers said something, Barack is liable. Enough with this nonsensical politics by association.

I have two questions for BTD, though.

1. When you use the term "creative class," do you use in in a pejorative sense?

2. Are you not yourself, as a blogger, definable as a member of the "creative class"?

I found the entry on Wikipedia.

Is the defenition being used there the one being used here?

On the one hand, as you always say, he's a pol first.  If he defends moveon we all know that is bad politics because the republicans have been able to define moveon as a fringe group.  

On the other, if he doesn't speak out, he doesn't pass your purity test and therefore the blogosphere is a bunch of hypocrites for continuing to support him.

However, if he wins the election by running on his cleaner break from the republicans on foreign policy than hers (and it is as much as Hillary supporters don't want to admit it), then it legitimizes the anti-war position, and in the next election the repubs have that much more trouble defining the debate on their terms.

And so the reason Hillary's statement is so bad is that she helps in marginalizing the anti-war position by ridiculing them for being... anti-war.  That's exactly what she was attacking them for in her quote.

This in a nutshell is the difference between the two campaigns.  He's had a strategic message and vision and the tactics help support it.  For Hillary, it's all tactics but no vision.