home

Obama's New Politics Doesn't Encompass New Policies

The Washington Post analyzes Barack Obama's campaign from an issues standpoint and finds he breaks little new ground.

When Obama changed his mind and decided to run for president after only two years in the Senate, however, he effectively dismissed the importance of policy proposals, declaring in one speech in early 2007, "We've had plenty of plans, Democrats," and in another: "Every four years, somebody trots out a white paper, they post it on the Web." He cast his "new kind of politics" in terms of his ability to transcend divisions and his unique biography and offered few differences on issues from Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and the other Democratic presidential candidates.

His "new politics" mostly refers to tone and leadership style. I found this statement by a campaign aide quite telling:

Obama aides, however, say their approach will work because most voters are looking not for a new vision for expanding health care but rather for a reformed political system such as the one Obama calls for, one that would solve problems rather than resort to bickering.

I think a new vision for expanding health care is exactly what Democrats are looking for.

< Arrest Warrant Issued for Rezko Over Casino Gambling Debts | More On Puerto Rico >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    The more talk of Change the less things will (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by mogal on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:47:17 PM EST
    CHANGE.  

    As always (none / 0) (#143)
    by cal1942 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:17:43 PM EST
    Change can mean most anything.  Reagan talked about change as did Bush II.

    As usual no examination of the content of change and in Obama's case it's all vapor.

     

    Parent

    Oh Jeralyn... (5.00 / 7) (#2)
    by madamab on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:47:32 PM EST
    why don't you stop trashing Obama and focus on the issues!!!

    Oh wait... ;-)

    Very nicely done. Those who see no difference between Obama and Clinton on the issues should look a little deeper.

    I did exactly that (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by dotcommodity on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:06:08 PM EST
    I compared their climate policies after Obama pooh poohed Clintons healthcare policy. I got nervous after that. Indeed he does not care.

    Despite the rhetoric there is no indication that that he would be as progressive as Clinton on climate/energy policy, and might even veto Democratic policy if its not feeble enough.

    There is a pattern in his endorsers of feebleness in energy policy votes.


    Parent

    OH MY GAWD (5.00 / 10) (#3)
    by Stellaaa on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:47:56 PM EST
    Now they find out?  How long have we been talking about this?  This is so disgusting.  

    I thought so too! (5.00 / 5) (#7)
    by felizarte on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:52:59 PM EST
    Now they're "analyzing!"  Is this the segue to their going back to Maverick McCain?  seems the majority of the MSM have decided that Hillary is dead and buried and now they are proceeding to McCain v. Obama.  Apparently they never heard the story of Lazarus.

    Parent
    Thank you (5.00 / 3) (#126)
    by rnibs on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:49:43 PM EST
    I can never understand why people say their policies are practically the same.  His health care plan is anything but universal.  And he talks about retirement security, not social security, because he wants to partially privatize it.  

    I think any decent Dem should be re-educating the masses as to what social security actually is rather than trying to destroy one of the most successful social programs ever.

    Parent

    That whole (none / 0) (#149)
    by cal1942 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:22:50 PM EST
    bring the Republicans to the table schtick should have made everyone vomit from the start.

    I've always felt that candidates actually do mean what they say and in Obama's case it was clear from the start, he's no progressive.

    Fear number one is that a Democratic President would trash Social Security.  It's enough to make your skin crawl.

    Parent

    Exactly (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by rnibs on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:27:17 PM EST
    A Dem president supporting partial privatization for Soc Sec would be very bad in my opinion.  Let a Repub do that.  Then the Dem congress will fight it tooth and nail, but if Obama puts it out there, it just might happen.

    This is why people are equating HRC to FDR.  She sees that people need help and wants to give them help, not take it away.  Old people who worked hard all their lives don't need to be eating dog food during their retirement.

    Parent

    Yes (none / 0) (#205)
    by denise on Thu May 29, 2008 at 06:42:40 PM EST
    the article states that Obama has proposed a universal health care plan - a bald-faced lie.

    Parent
    You are correct....lazy journalists should be (5.00 / 7) (#13)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:56:44 PM EST
    ashamed; once great journalists like Carl Bernstein should be ashamed, the obama aides and obama's followers should be ashamed....there is nothing new about obama.  For over a year, I have been saying obama is nothing more than business as usual.  Judging by many of his followers, he better get a new mantra and quick.  If it wasn't so sad, this would be laughable.

    Parent
    They are in the tank for McCain. (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by madamab on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:00:38 PM EST
    It's all bought and paid for.

    They're only starting to criticize Obama because they think he will be the nominee.

    It's going to be a very, VERY long summer.

    Parent

    Not for Hillary supporters..hehehe (5.00 / 6) (#45)
    by FlaDemFem on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:13:42 PM EST
    We can watch Mr. "I am the nominee" get taken down by the MSM while the SDs look at Hillary for rescue from the morass that Obama will be by August. I just love it, love it, love it!! Imagine the huge debt the Dems will owe Hillary for bailing them out of the mess Obama's candidacy will be by the convention. I am grinning ear to ear just thinking about it. This is what I love about politics, it's never static, always flowing from one current to the other. I think the currents will converge for Hillary at the convention.

    Parent
    This Is SOP For The Media (5.00 / 5) (#56)
    by MO Blue on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:17:13 PM EST
    Pick one Dem candidate as the candidate of media choice.  Do negative coverage or ignore other candidates. Positive coverage of the selected candidate, ignore or underplay all negatives until selected as the nominee. After selection, start vetting Dem candidate bringing up all ignored issues and revisit previously known issues. Tell the audience that these issues are suddenly something of great concern. Republican candidate now becomes the media choice.  

    Parent
    Happens every time (5.00 / 5) (#115)
    by standingup on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:44:06 PM EST
    "Insanity is repeating the same thing and expecting different results" truly applies to half of the Democratic party this year.  How many elections will they have to lose before they figure out the press should be called on their biased reporting in every instance instead of accepting it when you are delusional enough to think it is working to your advantage.  The end results will always be the same.  

    Parent
    Seems Like The Dems Are Averse To Learning (none / 0) (#146)
    by MO Blue on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:20:31 PM EST
    from experience. The patterns and the trends are the same each election cycle yet they always believe that somehow this time it will be different. The Republicans clearly signal how they plan to go after Democratic nominees for president and the Dems (establishment and supporters) keep saying "That will never work." Except it does.

    Media bias should be challenged each and every time but it aint't gonna happen.  

    Parent

    What standingup says (none / 0) (#154)
    by cal1942 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:30:35 PM EST
    the press should be called on their biased reporting in every instance instead of accepting it when you are delusional enough to think it is working to your advantage

    is the story of what ails the Democratic party.

    Now the party is on the verge of nominating a candidate who is the very personification of that attitude. I guess that's one way I could identify Obama as a Democrat. There certainly isn't any other way.

    Parent

    There have been raging battles on th enet over (none / 0) (#32)
    by Salo on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:09:11 PM EST
    UHC.  But hey the journo's only needed to use the The Google.

    Parent
    So now we know why we don't (5.00 / 9) (#4)
    by zfran on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:49:48 PM EST
    hear about his policies. He doesn't have any. As for his "leadership" qualities, well, let's just say I haven't seen him lead, only follow!!

    a Reformed Political System (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:13:37 PM EST
    OK, so for all we do know about this man, doesn't that idea strike a bit of a chord of anxiety?

    The last time Rev Wright was allowed to speak publicly, he chanted, "a change it is a comin', a change it is a comin'"

    Parent

    Smoke And Mirrors Just Like The Last 8 Yrs. n/t (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by MO Blue on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:21:51 PM EST
    No policies, no leadership - maybe it's good! (none / 0) (#209)
    by songster on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:14:37 PM EST
    I've been trying to either convince myself that I should vote for Obama, or believe that there could be a good side if he's elected, and zfran's comment turned on a light bulb:

    This whole thing is a plot by Dean, Pelosi, and Reid to restore the constitutional balance.  Obama will be the puppet of a Democratic Congress.

    Go Obama!


    Parent

    And by the way... (5.00 / 16) (#5)
    by madamab on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:52:00 PM EST
    this type of statement is EXACTLY why I find Obama supremely unconvincing and unqualified.

    Obama aides, however, say their approach will work because most voters are looking not for a new vision for expanding health care but rather for a reformed political system such as the one Obama calls for, one that would solve problems rather than resort to bickering.

    The only, ONLY people who think that way are the Beltway media like David "Pearl Clutcher" Broder. No one who actually needs healthcare is sitting around, hacking up a lung in an emergency room, thinking, "Golly gee! I sure hope Obama can stop the partisan bickering in Washington!"

    No, that person is thinking, "Why the h**l can't I afford my doctor bills?" In other words, that person wants to EXPAND HEALTH CARE.

    Unbelievable.

    ..and as "he" raises his arms about (5.00 / 6) (#14)
    by zfran on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:57:07 PM EST
    all that follow him, you are healed!!!

    Parent
    Poor schools? HEALED ! (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by dotcommodity on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:14:01 PM EST
    "... cited education as one area in which Obama offers ideas that are not traditionally Democratic(!), arguing that the problem is not

    all about schools or funding( !!!),

    but about parents who let their children watch too much television."

    da dah!

    So it was all your fault...who knew?

    Parent

    I Would Definitely Vote For Someone Who Would (5.00 / 13) (#19)
    by MO Blue on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:01:45 PM EST
    expand health care and not vote for someone who would stop the partisan bickering in D.C. The only way anyone is going to stop the partisan bickering is if they cave in to the Republicans without a fight. Since Obama during the primary has been more in agreement with Republican positions on SS, health care, Reagan foreign policy and Republican government regulation, abstinence only sex education, than he has my standard Democratic values on these subjects, my voting for him is currently in doubt.

    Parent
    We could stop bickering right now (5.00 / 7) (#43)
    by BarnBabe on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:13:15 PM EST
    Of course, it requires the Dems to give in once again. The only reason there is bickering is because there is opposition. There would be no bickering if the GOP would give in once in a while too, but they hold fast and the Dems get blamed.

    BTW, after 8 years of bohica, I don't want to just give in for the sake of eliminating bickering.

    Parent

    Obama has shown such skill in that area, too (5.00 / 3) (#119)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:45:13 PM EST
    He'll just go to congress, scratch his cheek, brush off his shoulders, scrape his shoes, call them racists, tip his head back so he can look down his nose at them, and tell them all he's being respectful.


    Parent
    This is the problem. Obama is on every (5.00 / 9) (#47)
    by zfran on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:14:29 PM EST
    side of every issue. Even by voting present, he's on both sides. You either stand for something, or you don't.

    Parent
    Let them eat process! (5.00 / 6) (#38)
    by davnee on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:10:26 PM EST
    That's the Obama message in a nutshell.  But no, working class people are too stupid to figure that out, so they must not be voting for him because they are racists.  Yep, that's the explanation.  /snark

    Parent
    What kind of a system does that? (5.00 / 6) (#55)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:17:11 PM EST
    The two party system, the democracy, requires negotiations and debates to make sure all people are considered. Compromise is often the solution.

    I don't want a new system that is being campaigned for by someone who refuses to tell us what that new system is.

    Parent

    Compromise is seldom (none / 0) (#159)
    by cal1942 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:39:11 PM EST
    the solution.  There is no way to compromise Social Security as an example.

    After FDR's first 100 days the gains made were the result of bloody battles.

    Erecting a center consensus around the New Deal was what moderated the Republican Party for a generation.

    Parent

    Wow... a politician says he will get things done (5.00 / 3) (#132)
    by dianem on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:03:54 PM EST
    How novel. So... why isn't Obama running on his record of getting things done? That would be logical, wouldn't it, if he actually had such a record.

    Parent
    One of the Obamaphiles (5.00 / 2) (#206)
    by denise on Thu May 29, 2008 at 06:46:59 PM EST
    told me that Obama's not going to make the changes, WE'RE going to make the changes.

    I said, so we're going to have 200 million people on a conference line writing health care law?

    He said, No, we're going to start exercising and not being obese.

    I said, No thanks, I think I'd like a REAL president, please.

    Parent

    I'm sorry but (5.00 / 11) (#6)
    by waldenpond on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:52:58 PM EST
    reformed political system such as the one Obama calls for, one that would solve problems rather than resort to bickering.

    I have always found this message to be funny.  Imagine they are all getting along because no one is working on any legislation.  Reminds me of team building exercises we were forced to have at work.  BBQ anyone?  We will send them all home with a book of affirmations and they will have to take turns reading one at all of their meetings.
    Do you think they will partner up, one will put on a blind fold, and the other has to give instructions on how to move around (with the hope of finding the bathroom)?

    Oh yeah, those days went over well....

    ever been to a corporate team building event? (5.00 / 8) (#37)
    by Robert Oak on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:10:19 PM EST
    Where one is supposed to do trust exercises and discuss their issues mandatory?

    Meanwhile the corporate hacks are busy thrashing their workforce and firing people right and left?

    That's what is reminds me of, all words and no behavior, as if that is going to change anything.

    To me all that has happened is Karl Rove was dethroned as king of the media manipulators by David Axelrod.  Yeah, rah, a new public relations media specialist takes the helm.  I'm so excited by that.

    Parent

    Obama bears a striking resemblance to (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:48:42 PM EST
    all the incompetent consultants I've ever had to endure through those events.

    They use the confrontational threat method, coupled with how he makes me feel is so much more important than how I do my job.

    Very much like Obama's change plan.


    Parent

    Brilliant, I think you've hit on something (5.00 / 2) (#207)
    by denise on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:02:05 PM EST
    Maybe the Obama-worshipers are those who, 1) haven't yet had to undergo corporate team building, or 2) still believe in corporate team building even though they've sat through the same crap 20 times and should know better by know.

    Maybe they're the people who put up those motivational posters in the workplace. "The achievement of your goal is assured the moment you commit yourself"! "Winners don't wait for chances, they take them"!

    Whenever I was working late, if no one was around I would throw one out.

    Parent

    Kinda funny (5.00 / 11) (#8)
    by Steve M on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:53:10 PM EST
    If you question the lack of substance, though, they always tell you to go look at the white papers posted on his website!

    Web site, indeed... (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by ParkSlopeVoter on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:25:40 PM EST
    I'm glad I'm not the only one to notice this.

    -MS

    Parent

    Or (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by cal1942 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:41:34 PM EST
    to read his book.

    I've had that one tossed at me.

    Parent

    Read His Books (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by MO Blue on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:21:39 PM EST
    Have to admit that one really ticked me off. We have candidates INTERVIEWING for the highest office in the land and we the EMPLOYERS should go out and buy a book to find out why we should EMPLOY a person.

    To me this whole deal about presidential candidates writing books is a scam no matter who is doing it. If candidates or their supporters convince people that they have to buy the candidate's book(s) in order to determine who to vote for it makes any candidate, even losing ones, wealthy. As far as I'm concerned, it is the candidate's responsibility to prove me, the voter, with information free of charge on why he/she deserves my vote.

    My stand on this is not candidate related and goes for any and all candidates. The only difference is that no Hillary supporter told me to read her book.

     

    Parent

    The books do reveal (none / 0) (#208)
    by denise on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:07:22 PM EST
    just how long ago he started running for president, though. To the exclusion of almost anything else.

    True, presidential candidates are all megalomaniacs, but some are worse than others - like the ones who think they don't have do actually do anything, except for allowing us to bask in their specialness.

    Parent

    I would like a new vision for health care (5.00 / 7) (#9)
    by Panhandle on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:53:40 PM EST
    Instead all we've been offered is health insurance. It's my biggest problem with all the Dems. Health INSURANCE is not Health CARE. As soon as our politicians figure that out, then maybe we can actually get to addressing the problem.

    reformed political system? (5.00 / 10) (#10)
    by ineedalife on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:55:20 PM EST
    What does this mean? I haven't heard of any proposals for "reforming" our political system from Obama. Has he proposed changing the structure of the  House or Senate? Has he proposed eliminating parts of the executive branch? Has he proposed any new government oversight mechanisms?

    Saying, 'I will charm the republicans', isn't a reform.

    McCain proposed Question Time the other day (5.00 / 5) (#51)
    by davnee on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:15:52 PM EST
    He also eschews earmarks and has promised to crack down on them as president.  Oh and he has walked the walk numerous times on bipartisan legislation, including tough stuff like electoral reform and averting the nuclear option in the Senate.

    Transparency/accountability in government.  Check.
    Reduction of pork.  Check.
    Bipartisan cooperation.  Check.

    If political reform is my most important issue why wouldn't I vote for McCain?

    Parent

    Question Time would be cool. (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by ineedalife on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:18:02 PM EST
    But only if they get to boo and hiss as well.

    Parent
    Also (5.00 / 3) (#90)
    by cmugirl on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:33:46 PM EST
    He said he'd get rid of signing statements.

    Parent
    Thanks . I missed that one. (5.00 / 3) (#102)
    by davnee on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:38:47 PM EST
    Bringing separation of powers into better balance.  Check.

    Parent
    You're welcome (none / 0) (#138)
    by cmugirl on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:09:41 PM EST
    You got me curious, so I went to John McCain's website.  I found this part of his plan that seemed interesting.  I had never heard of anything like this (which doesn't mean someone else hasn't proposed it).

    While most of his proposals are the typical conservative stuff, he does talk about a couple of interesting things like this (and a climate policy,which surprised me, coming from a Republican).

    "John McCain Will Reform The UI System So That A Portion Of Each Worker's Unemployment Insurance Tax Is Deposited Into A Lost Earnings Buffer Account (LEB).If an individual becomes unemployed, the LEB may be used to cover needed expenses, with a backstop of traditional UI if the account is exhausted before 26 weeks. Workers will have an incentive to preserve their LEB by getting back to work quickly, and may be eligible for a re-employment bonus if they get a new job quickly. The LEB will be portable, and upon retirement, the property of the worker.

    Parent

    As did (none / 0) (#163)
    by cal1942 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:49:08 PM EST
    every other Democratic candidate.

    Parent
    Heh (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:29:16 PM EST
    Saying, 'I will charm the republicans', isn't a reform.

    It is, however, the opposite of Bush, who said he had to charm the democrats.

    No wonder he is so often compared to GWB.


    Parent

    What he means... (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by kimsaw on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:05:47 PM EST
    is a convoluted message of bipartisanship, not based on policy strictly based on...? Well that is a real good question. Where does Obama compromise and where does he stand his ground?  What proof is there he is willing to stand up on abortion rights, public education, the war, nothing in his actions says this man won't waffle. NARAL's endorsement means about as much as John Kerry's or John Edwards. It lends nothing to Obama's credibility.  How many times does a man sit in a pew and vote present before the MSM actually do their job?

    Again the question, is he a democrat or isn't he, comes to mind. He may even want to have a independent or a republican for a VP. Talk about pandering. Agreeing to disagree is one thing, finding a compromise is admirable but selling out for political security is entirely another. 20 years in Trinity Church cements the deal. How does a man of unity sit in a divisive church for 20 years and then claim ignorance of its theology? How does that represent his ability to govern? It only signifies that Obama's political gain outweighs the need to do the right thing at any given time.  

    Does Obama believe in universal health care? He doesn't propose a system that insures all. You can join in if you want, you don't have to if you don't want to. That's a bipartisan stand that solves nothing and maintains the status quo.  His plan keeps everyone happy and the uninsured are still a burden on every other taxpayer. Does car insurance work that way? In my state I can't opt out I've got to have it. Are you happy, yet? I'm not.

    Obama's political reform and leadership is just a smoke screen. It's propaganda of the worst sort, because it offers up theatrics, not substance.

    What "change" has he brought?
     He opposed the war but what did he do to change its course while in the Senate?
     Did  he influenced his church and change the hate?
     Did he care about the Rezko slums and change the lives of its tenants?

    Obama's claims of political reform are quite like his tales of Selma and Auschwitz they don't add up.


    Parent

    Ok (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by flyerhawk on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:56:07 PM EST
    He has not dissented from party orthodoxy in the way Bill Clinton did on the way to the presidency in 1992

    So he has been pretty much a standard Democrat.  This is now a flaw?  

    Perhaps he should run to the Right ala Bill Clinton?  

    All Democrats want to change health care.  The degree change may be argue but the desire is certainly there.  

    Hillary and Obama both adhere to Democratic orthodoxy on virtually all issues.  

    Hm (5.00 / 13) (#18)
    by Steve M on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:01:17 PM EST
    Do you perceive any cognitive dissonance between what you just wrote and the "change" message?

    Parent
    No contradiction. (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by mattt on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:11:36 PM EST
    Obama has always proposed a change in political tactics, leading to more effective and progressive governance - not a radical change in the Dem platform.

    Parent
    And (5.00 / 8) (#58)
    by Steve M on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:18:06 PM EST
    how would you describe that change he proposes?

    This much I know, when he was in Ohio and Pennsylvania railing about how the Clinton Administration was the reason all those manufacturing jobs got lost, he sure didn't sound like a guy who wasn't proposing any kind of change in the Democratic platform!

    Parent

    He's like (5.00 / 4) (#100)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:37:42 PM EST
    a motivational speaker. Motivational speakers propose this stuff all the time. It's about getting others motivated but when you don't have any goals then it just becomes motivation as a goal in itself. It's like change for the sake of change and nothing else.

    Parent
    How do they do they describe that change? (5.00 / 3) (#117)
    by Robot Porter on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:44:45 PM EST
    Borrowing slightly from the catechism:

    Q. Can we understand the change Obama proposes?

    A. No, because it is a mystery.

    Q. What is a mystery?

    A. A mystery is a truth which we cannot understand.

    Parent

    For starters, (none / 0) (#131)
    by mattt on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:03:50 PM EST
    his candidacy changes the electoral map.  By putting states like CO, IA, NM into play (and I think he carries them in November) he chips away at the "Coastal liberal elite" meme that the GOP has exploited to make progressism seem like a foreign concept to much of the country.

    Parent
    Sorry, but (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by rnibs on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:38:47 PM EST
    i wouldn't count on Iowa being in his column.

    Parent
    Currently (none / 0) (#164)
    by mattt on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:55:10 PM EST
    up by 6 over McCain in RCP average; 9 in the latest from Survey USA.  Also up 6 in CO.  Closing fast in MO.

    Meanwhile in traditional battleground states, he's now leading McCain in PA and OH.

    Parent

    There you go (5.00 / 2) (#172)
    by cal1942 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:10:30 PM EST
    the glory of Colorado's 9 electoral votes in exchange for Florida's 27, Ohio's 20, Michigan's 17, Pennsylvania's 21, possibly Massachusetts' 12 and/or New Jersey's 15.

    Obama either can't win or is a risk in all of those states.

    By the way Hillary is well ahead of McCain in NM as well so how in hell does that make Obama a map changer.  Hillary can also carry W VA and possibly KY. Obama hasn't a prayer in either.

    If there's any map expander it's Hillary Clinton. Why do you think she keeps winning while the press continues to trash her?

    Face it, your candidate is a HUGE risk.  If McCain goes moderate after the GOP convention and the press and GOP unload on Obama, he's probably toast.

    Inasmuch as coastal elitism is concerned Obama is the very symbol of that elitism. Or maybe you've forgotten how he trashed working people and didn't have a clue about how to rectify the situation.  

    Parent

    Check your polls. (none / 0) (#182)
    by mattt on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:41:52 PM EST
    Obama leads McCain in PA, OH.  In Michigan he trails by the same amount as Clinton (within margin of error; I expect either would carry the state vs. McCain).  He leads McCain in NJ by double the margin that Clinton does.

    MA and NJ are not in play for McCain any more than KY and WV are for Clinton.  KY/WV voters preferred Hillary to Barack, but preferring her to McCain is a different story.

    Obama beats McCain in WI while Clinton loses.
    He leads McCain in MN by double Clinton's margin.
    He's in a virtual tie with McCain in VA where Clinton loses by 10.

    Sure, his candidacy is a risk.  Clinton's would be too.  For all the complaints about sexism and media bias vs Hillary in the primary....do you think it'd get any easier for her vs. St. John McCain?

    Parent

    Flatly not true (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by Eleanor A on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:59:45 PM EST
    Even a cursory glace at RCP.com gives up the lie.

    In Ohio, out of three polls taken in recent weeks (SUSA, Quinnipiac, Rasmussen) ONE of them has Obama in the lead (SUSA).  The other two both show McCain leading, while Hillary is up between 7 and 11 points in the same polls taken over the same periods.

    In PA, yeah, Obama's up - half as much as Clinton (again, same polls taken over same time period.  Obama up an average of 6, which sounds good, until you consider that Clinton's up 12.)

    So.  That leaves you with Iowa and Colorado.  Since CO has gone Dem once in the last 50 years (1992, not 1996), I'd say you face a steep battle.

    Also, what happened to Obama supporters championing both Georgia and Virginia?  Obama's down in both states.  In Virginia only by a couple points, but in Georgia he's down by nearly 14 points.

    There's simply no way for him to make up for the loss of Florida and Michigan without picking up Missouri, plus Colorado and a handful of others.  Try it yourself at 270towin.com.

    (Oh, and right now McCain up 3 vs. Obama in Missouri, while Clinton's up 2.  Apparently she's closed 7 points on McCain in two months, according to Rasmussen.)

    Parent

    links please (none / 0) (#186)
    by Salo on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:45:12 PM EST
    Sure (none / 0) (#190)
    by mattt on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:57:03 PM EST
    [Tried to embed link but can't get it to work....go to realclearpolitics.com, click "Polls" at the top then look to "Battleground Polls" on the left.]

    Parent
    Don't you think its rather telling (5.00 / 3) (#174)
    by tree on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:13:32 PM EST
    that when you were asked what is the change in the political process that affects how things get done in Washington that Obama will bring to the Presidency, that all you could come up with off the top of your head is that he might be able to win in IA? That's the change you are looking for? That's your reason for voting for him?

     If that's it, then why don't we just nominate McCain as a Democrat? We can then guaranty that the Democratic candidate will win in a landslide( as will the Republican nominee as well). And we can all feel good about finally winning IA. Jeesh.

    Parent

    McCain will squish that Western hope. (none / 0) (#184)
    by Salo on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:44:15 PM EST
    It's unlike any map that has ever delivere a dem Presidency.

    Parent
    And those tactics appear (none / 0) (#165)
    by cal1942 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:56:24 PM EST
    to be compromising with Republicans.  Not acceptable.

    Parent
    Nope (2.33 / 3) (#35)
    by flyerhawk on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:09:56 PM EST
    Because change is a vague term that means different things for different people.  IMO, the biggest thing that Obama is saying he is going to change is that we will no longer have one of the worst President of the past 100 years in office.

    And regardless it is nothing more than a campaign slogan.  

    It sucks for Hillary that her campaign didn't realize that the American people are ready to get rid of a wildly unpopular President who has been in office for 8 excruciating years.  But that isn't Obama's fault.


    Parent

    What? (5.00 / 14) (#52)
    by Steve M on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:16:30 PM EST
    You think Hillary didn't realize that the American people are ready to move on from Bush?  I realize you're trying to be all witty and get your digs in, but that is one of the most incoherent things I have read all day.  What are you arguing, that when Hillary repeated every 5 minutes how wonderful it will be to move on from Bush's failed policies, she was actually running for Bush's third term?

    Your frank acknowledgment that change is nothing more than a vague campaign slogan, and that Obama really offers nothing aside from standard Dem orthodoxy on a substantive level, is really quite a bit more honesty than I expected.  Tell me, if "change" doesn't refer to anything substantive in Obama's policies, what does it mean to you?  Why do you consider it so important to elect this man in preference to the alternatives, if he's just another orthodox Democrat?

    Parent

    I have been (2.33 / 3) (#66)
    by flyerhawk on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:24:55 PM EST
    very clear about my support for Obama from the get go.

    I believe that the "change" he will bring in will be an ability to push through Democratic legislation despite the the cries from the opposition.  I believe that he will be our Ronald Reagan.

    I'm arguing that early on Hillary didn't understand why the change slogans were getting so much traction.  

    It was one of many mistakes her campaign made.  

    Parent

    Stop that. Ronald Reagan was a fierce partisan. (5.00 / 5) (#75)
    by masslib on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:28:32 PM EST
    Of course he was (none / 0) (#86)
    by flyerhawk on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:31:25 PM EST
    but he was also able to get a Democratic controlled Congress to pass all sorts of noxious stuff.

    He used his charm and charisma to get the voters behind him.  He made some allies on the Dem side and pushed through legislation because the American people supported it.

    His policies sucked but he was extremely effective.

    Parent

    You have no idea what you (5.00 / 2) (#156)
    by masslib on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:34:33 PM EST
    are talking about.

    Parent
    Then why hasn't Obama (none / 0) (#155)
    by Evie on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:31:57 PM EST
    used his charm and charisma to get a Democratic controlled Congress to pass all sorts of good stuff?

    According to factcheck.org, as of 4/1/08, he's passed only two of his own bills into law.

    Parent

    Stop that. Ronald Reagan was a fierce partisan. (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by masslib on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:28:32 PM EST
    You (5.00 / 5) (#97)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:35:54 PM EST
    fundamentally don't understand history with your statement. Reagan ran an issues based movement not a movement about Reagan the man. Obama is quite the opposite. Besides, Obama will not have a landslide victory in the unlikely event he wins the election. If he naively thinks that the GOP is going to automatically go along with him on any issue then if he makes it into the white house, he'll be finished in six months. This is one of his most clueless ideas. He's so in love with himself that he thinks that everyone else loves him that much. It's the same bubble syndrome that killed W.

    Parent
    Yeah he ran on an issue alright (none / 0) (#147)
    by flyerhawk on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:21:32 PM EST
    He ran on the "I'm not Jimmy Carter and he created all of your problems" issue.

    Or maybe you were referring to his issues based 1984 campaign

    Reagan was the master of the political sucker punch.  

    Why is it so hard for you guys to consider the possibility that maybe, just maybe, Obama is a pretty good politician who knows how to win?

    Parent

    Nope (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:00:13 PM EST
    Reagan ran on issues like missle defense and tax cuts. He also ran against Carter. But you are mistaken that it was only running against Carter.

    Obama has never had a tough general election campaign. So far he has done very poorly against McCain. Even the GOP is laughing about how fast he caves when they punch at him.

    Parent

    LOL (none / 0) (#171)
    by flyerhawk on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:09:58 PM EST
    He has run a poor campaign against McCain?  You do realize that he is still running against Hillary, right?

    No one voted for Reagan because of missile defense.  And SDI was an idea more than an issue.

    Parent

    Feh (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:11:41 PM EST
    don't blame Hillary for his mistakes. He has gone toe to toe with McCain and lost every time so far. The "I'm so disappointed" whine really doesn't play that well with voters.

    Parent
    Whatever you say (none / 0) (#176)
    by flyerhawk on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:18:48 PM EST
    You come up with a new reason why Obama lose every day.  Clearly you don't like his chances.  

    FTR, I wasn't blaming Hillary.  I was stating a rather obvious fact.  

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:29:12 PM EST
    his chances aren't too good according to the polls. He has another pastor disaster on the horizon and I'm sure the GOP will have more and more to come. Basically, I see it as a rerun of 2004 with less EV's for Obama. Obama won't have a united Dem party behind him like Kerry did and is doing worse with independents. Add two and two together and you can see the writing on the wall.

    It's better to be a realist and face the truth than pretend things are what they are not. I did that in 2004 and the let down is way worse than facing the truth from the beginning.

    Parent

    Well we shall see (none / 0) (#187)
    by flyerhawk on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:45:49 PM EST
    I see a completely different political climate today than 2004 so to each their own.

    I assume you are talking about the white priest talking silly stuff?  That won't even be a minor story.  It has no juice in comparison to Wright and most people will simply not have the interest to follow it.

    Parent

    Oh, (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:55:16 PM EST
    I heard Wright was nothing too but it tanked his numbers. What is wrong with Obama's judgement that he makes such poor choices? The problem is that these tell us who Obama is and what his ideology is. He's defined by these things since he failed to define himself.

    Parent
    No they don't (none / 0) (#195)
    by flyerhawk on Thu May 29, 2008 at 05:20:48 PM EST
    They don't tell you any of that.  You choose to make inferences based on them.  

    Guilt by association is a tried and true smear tactic.  But it is still just a smear tactic.

    Parent

    When (5.00 / 1) (#204)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 29, 2008 at 06:33:25 PM EST
    someone goes to a racist church for 20 years by their own choice it should tell you something. It was a conscious choice made by Obama to adhere to that radical ideology. He voluntarily put those radical pastors on his campaign. Exit polls showed that lots of voters thought that he shared that ideology and why wouldn't they? After all, there's lots of other churches to choose from right?

    Parent
    No he did not (none / 0) (#211)
    by flyerhawk on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:58:12 PM EST
    put those radical pastors on his campaign.

    People that are upset about the evil horrible pastors are simply looking for a reason to not like Obama.

    Parent

    Obama (5.00 / 2) (#185)
    by cal1942 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:44:21 PM EST
    has absolutely no record of achievement anywhere except for getting some suckers to vote for him during this campaign.

    He's never done anything to warrant his election to the US Senate let alone the Presidency.

    Parent

    Heh (5.00 / 4) (#106)
    by cawaltz on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:39:38 PM EST
    He's havig a prblem getting a plurality but after elected he's going to magically get more traction?

    Parent
    Please (5.00 / 5) (#108)
    by Steve M on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:39:44 PM EST
    It was Obama that was getting traction.  "Change" is just a buzzword.  Arguing that Hillary failed to understand that "this is a change election" is just vapid.  Obama got away with arguing that Bill Clinton's policies were part of the problem just like George Bush's, and kudos to him for doing so, but don't try to tell me that it's Hillary's fault for not understanding something.

    Here is the thing.  How can you possibly see Obama as our Reagan when he can't even muster the political courage to fight for something as minor and incremental as mandates for health insurance?  A lot of progressive policies are going to sound politically unpopular unless we find the right way to sell them.  Where is the evidence of Obama ever selling the public on something politically unpopular?  Instead he goes around promising $1000 tax cuts.

    Parent

    Here is reality (none / 0) (#142)
    by flyerhawk on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:16:03 PM EST
    Hillary was supposed to win.  She was way ahead.  How did she wind up where she is now?  Steve, you seem smart enough to know that simply blaming the media is the excuse of losers and almost always wrong.  

    I find it amazing that you guys aren't even willing to criticize her campaign.  

    Perhaps Obama isn't fighting for mandates on health insurance because he doesn't believe in them?  I sure don't.  I see no reason to believe that they will meaningfully change the price of health but they will create a bunch more regulatory agencies and bureaucratic morass.  At best they will slow down health cost inflation for a few years but I don't even believe that is likely.  

    Parent

    Relevant Reality (5.00 / 2) (#161)
    by santarita on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:44:57 PM EST
    I am not a huge fan of either of the two remaining Democratic candidates but I prefer Hillary.  I've heard this criticism before about her losing a substantial lead.  I just don't see the relevance.  So Obama's advisors figured out how to game the nominating process.  And so Obama and his advisors know how to use the old politics of strong-arming superdelegates.  Why are these admirable?

    Parent
    Campaigning prowess (5.00 / 3) (#162)
    by Evie on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:47:03 PM EST
    is not the same thing as being a good President.

    So even if Obama has the bestest campaign in the whole wide world in the history of ever, that does not mean he would be the better President.

    But how good can he be when half of the Democratic party won't vote for him?

    Parent

    Uh (none / 0) (#151)
    by Steve M on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:25:08 PM EST
    Concluding that I am unable to criticize Hillary's campaign because I think it's stupid to say "Hillary didn't realize people wanted a change from Bush" is more than a bit silly.

    As for mandates, even Ezra Klein will tell you that they're necessary.  The most common refrain I hear from Obama supporters is "mandates are a political loser," which I think displays an amazing lack of political courage.  If you have a different position, that's fine, but I'd still like you to show me an example where Obama has successfully sold a previously unpopular idea to the public.

    Parent

    Missing the point entirely (none / 0) (#169)
    by flyerhawk on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:08:09 PM EST
    Of course Hillary knew that people were tired of Bush.  What she didn't realize was that the change theme would resonate BECAUSE people were tired of Bush.  Instead she tried to make her early campaign about how competent and great she was.  

    You are asking for a fairly unlikely example.  Senators don't really "sell" people on ideas, unpopular or popular.  Perhaps leaders of the Senate do to some extent.  But certainly not back bench junior Senators such as Obama or Hillary.

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by Steve M on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:27:47 PM EST
    You have a lot of faith that he will be able to do it.  Is that faith based on any evidence?

    Parent
    About the same faith (none / 0) (#183)
    by flyerhawk on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:43:00 PM EST
    that you have that Hillary will achieve what you think she will achieve.  

    Politicians and faith go hand in hand.  That is why we get so easily disillusioned by them when they fail to meet expectations.

    Parent

    Heh (none / 0) (#202)
    by Steve M on Thu May 29, 2008 at 05:58:52 PM EST
    If I was going around saying that Hillary would be our Reagan, you'd have a point, I guess.

    Parent
    Then if both (none / 0) (#188)
    by cal1942 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:49:04 PM EST
    you and Obama do not believe in UHC then leave the Democratic Party.  If you were ever were a Democrat.

    Parent
    Her campaign failure (none / 0) (#210)
    by denise on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:27:15 PM EST
    was not to recognize how easily caucuses could be hijacked by armies of well-prepared young people. Period.

    I very much regret that, but don't hold it against her. If we're going to judge the candidates qualifications for office based on how effective their campaign strategies are, then GWB in 2004 should have been the most qualified person in the history of the US. He pulled off a miracle.

    We've finally, for the first time, reached the point in this country where the majority wants universal health care, and nothing is more important in my opinion. It's going to be a very hard fight and the deck is still stacked against it, but it's finally within sight. And of the three major Democratic candidates we started with, we're choosing the one who's practically announced that he's tepid about it, who proposed a plan that can't work, and who did it, unfortunately, to pander to young people. The candidate who gave us Harry & Louise Redux. He makes me sick to my stomach. I don't think the man has an ounce of political courage. He hasn't shown me anything that he really cares about.

    Parent

    Pushing Through Democratic Legislation (5.00 / 3) (#109)
    by santarita on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:39:48 PM EST
    The only chance of accomplishing this is if there is a veto-proof majority of Dems in the Senate and there is a strong majority in the House.  It will not be because he is bringing in "new politics".  If you have watched any Congressional hearings or floor debates since 2006, you would have seen how obstructionist the Republicans have been.  I don't see that mindset changing, in part because there are fundamental disagreements between Republicans and Democrats on major domestic issues.  

    Parent
    Right you are santarita (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by cal1942 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:58:01 PM EST
    but don't expect Obama supporters to understand what you're talking about.

    To Obama supporters, he'll simply change everything by some magic that is a mystery known only to Obama.

    The Obama crowd doesn't understand that there are major, fundamental differences between the two parties, especially since the Reagan years.

    So now that Democrats are in a position to gain a significant upper hand, the Obama crowd is rushing into the breach to rescue the Republican Party.

    We are living in an era of madness.

    Parent

    I once had (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by standingup on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:19:02 PM EST
    some respect for you lost it with "the biggest thing that Obama is saying he is going to change is that we will no longer have one of the worst President of the past 100 years in office."    

    Parent
    Well ok (none / 0) (#70)
    by flyerhawk on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:26:35 PM EST
    Whatever you say.  

    You can continue to think that the reason the change message is resonating is because all of his supporters are dupes.  Doesn't bother me much.

    Parent

    No (none / 0) (#193)
    by cal1942 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 05:00:32 PM EST
    the change message is ONLY resonating with his dupes.

    Parent
    The change (none / 0) (#30)
    by Panhandle on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:08:07 PM EST
    Obama and Clinton both offer change. The change would actually be getting something done. If we keep the House majority and get a good enough Senate majority, I think any Dem Pres could accomplish some good things.

    Parent
    To accomplish (5.00 / 6) (#87)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:32:00 PM EST
    something you have to have goals. Obama has no goals other than getting himself elected. He is not issue based so unless someone else is going to be running the show and he's just the front man he won't accomplish much of anything.

    Parent
    And as they say about GWB, Bush (5.00 / 6) (#98)
    by zfran on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:35:55 PM EST
    was not curious about anything. I don't see where Obama is curious as well. A couple of months back Obama commented that he was "bored" by the primary and wanted to get to the general. He doesn't stay in one position long, he makes excuses for everything he has used and misused in his life and on and on. That he has no plan(s) doesn't surprise me.

    Parent
    True. He completely unknowledgable about (5.00 / 6) (#99)
    by masslib on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:37:05 PM EST
    the issues.

    Parent
    IIRC He Also Said He Was Bored With The Senate n/t (5.00 / 2) (#180)
    by MO Blue on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:36:22 PM EST
    I used to think (5.00 / 7) (#124)
    by magisterludi on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:48:38 PM EST
    we just needed MORE dems in office. Now I think it's obvious we need BETTER dems in office.

    Way better.

    Parent

    Gee (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by cal1942 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 05:03:54 PM EST
    if it's Obama would you call trashing Social Security a good thing? Would you call missing an opportunity to catch up with the rest of the industrialized world with UHC a good thing? Would you call watering down legislation to the point of uselessness to please Republicans a good thing?

    Parent
    Can you bend any further? (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by MMW on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:02:00 PM EST
    If a cock crows three times, you're going to stay like that forever.

    Parent
    prediction (5.00 / 7) (#23)
    by Salo on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:04:17 PM EST
    in debate the Obama and mccain proposeals for healthcare will look nearly identical.

    You can bank onit.

    Parent

    Ridiculous (5.00 / 3) (#48)
    by Panhandle on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:14:44 PM EST
    Come on now. I personally hate both Obama's and Clinton's Health Insurance Plans, but either one is infinitely better than McCain.

    Until we stop conflating "insurance" with "care" we've got Health Care problems.

    Parent

    You must (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by cal1942 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 05:37:47 PM EST
    have missed Hillary's government insurance plan.  What's called the nose of the camel under the tent.  It's a path to single payer.

    Are you suggesting socialized medicine?  My preference also is for Socialized Medicine. But, realistically there is no chance for socialized medicine, at least not in the reasonably forseeable future. For now the best hope is for a path to single payer.

    There is a possiblity to get on a path to single payer and Clinton's plan opens that path. Obama's "plan" does not.  

    Parent

    It's comments like this (3.66 / 3) (#49)
    by flyerhawk on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:14:46 PM EST
    that I find absolutely baffling.  

    Do you follow politics other than Hillary?  

    Obama has a dramatically different proposal on health care than just about any Republican out there.

    Just because Obama and Hillary have similar plans does not mean McCain does as well.  So unless McCain tacks hard to the Left he is not going to have anything close to Obama's plan.

    Parent

    Obama's plan is meaningless.... (5.00 / 9) (#107)
    by p lukasiak on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:39:39 PM EST
    its something that was thrown together for him, and posted on his website--- he didn't even know what his own plan was when there was a debate about health care -- and the only reason his campaign came up with a plan was that Edwards and Clinton both had them, and both were pushing "health care" very effectively as an issue, so he had to come up with something.

    But the whole point about Obama is that he is "a candidate about nothing."  Just like Seinfeld's plot devices were simply hooks to hand the interactions of the characters on, so too are all of Obama's 'policy proposals' -- they are meaningless, just 'plot devices' that are necessary to run a "campaign about nothing."

    Parent

    Salo is no Hillary fan, FH. (none / 0) (#54)
    by MarkL on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:16:55 PM EST
    I've read his comments for years. He's cynical about Obama's plan. We'll see what happens.

    Parent
    Regardless (none / 0) (#72)
    by flyerhawk on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:27:19 PM EST
    his comment had no merit.

    Parent
    Obama has a record in this area. He (5.00 / 3) (#85)
    by MarkL on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:31:00 PM EST
    was the insurance industry's go-to guy for IL healch care legislation.

    Parent
    And it's why (none / 0) (#198)
    by cal1942 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 05:42:25 PM EST
    Obama took Dodd's place as the champion of the insurance industry in thsi campaign.

    Parent
    i've studied the issue (none / 0) (#157)
    by Salo on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:38:36 PM EST
    of delivering an NHS and UHC.  Obama is adopting the same tone and PR as McCain on the issue.

    Parent
    Democratic Orthodoxy... (5.00 / 5) (#71)
    by santarita on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:26:50 PM EST
    is more progressive than Republican Orthodoxy, granted.  But it is not especially progressive, which is why I wondered about the "progressive" community's embrace of Obama.  I see Obama as to the right of Hillary and running that way faster every day.

    Parent
    I guess (none / 0) (#79)
    by flyerhawk on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:28:52 PM EST
    If you think that Obama is to the right of Hillary in any notable way you are seeing things I sure don't see.

    Parent
    then take off your rose colored (5.00 / 3) (#118)
    by english teacher on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:44:57 PM EST
    glasses for crying out loud.  

    Parent
    Well... (none / 0) (#127)
    by santarita on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:50:02 PM EST
    I haven't seen her publicly embracing Reagan and GHWB with regard to their foreign policy.  And I am more nervous about his embrace of clean coal, nuclear power and ethanol than I am about hers.  But to a certain extent you are right because it is really hard to know what Obama will do.  His scant legislative history and his tendency to throw old friends under the bus do make me wonder what people are voting for.

    Parent
    That's what (none / 0) (#199)
    by cal1942 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 05:44:51 PM EST
    we've been trying to tell Obama people.  They seem so into empty rhetoric that getting through is like trying to get through to someone in a CULT.

    Parent
    nice try flyerhack, but that isn't the point... (4.55 / 9) (#22)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:03:33 PM EST
    obama's entire campaign is hope and change from the old way of doing business....he has not succeeded at either.  Thanks for trying your tried and true method of distraction, but that dog doesn't hunt on this site.  Really, you should get back to Dkos or HuffPo where you will find many more people of your mindset where you would be more comfortable.  

    I now have you on ignore and I hope many more on this site will do the same.  AND thanks for those "1" ratings.  I hope to have many more because then I will know I have pushed your buttons.

    Parent

    Same goes for you Spin Doctor... (none / 0) (#196)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 05:34:14 PM EST
    Yes, the reformed politics of the (5.00 / 9) (#12)
    by masslib on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:56:33 PM EST
    Chicago machine.  Man, the Democrats have really stepped in it.

    That's W's message. (5.00 / 4) (#15)
    by MarkL on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:57:09 PM EST


    My thought exactly (none / 0) (#150)
    by BGP on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:23:26 PM EST
    hasn't W already transformed government? And it hasn't been too pretty.

    Don't think I want my government transformed.

    Parent

    Obama's (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by mattt on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:02:01 PM EST
    health care plan is a huge leap forward from the status quo, or from McCain's proposal.  Maybe not as good as Hillary's, but saying Obama 'says the same things as McCain' on healthcare, as BTD said earlier and Jeralyn echoes here, is like saying 'Hillary's a neocon' because she's slightly to the right of BO on some foreign policy issues.

    I predict they will (5.00 / 7) (#27)
    by Salo on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:06:29 PM EST
    actually sound and look very similar in debate. obama is using the buzzwords:

    Access and Affordability.

    So is McCain.

    I highly doubt we'll see an expansion of care. Daschle and Kerry made that very clear a month ago.

    Parent

    That, and every other policy that comes up in (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:33:27 PM EST
    debate.

    It worked for him when he just "I agree with everything Hillary just said" rather than have a plan of his own.

    You can bet he'll do the same with McCain.

    What Obama cannot do is think on his feet when he's so far out of his knowledge zone, which he is in national politics.

    Parent

    His plan (5.00 / 7) (#74)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:28:10 PM EST
    is a joke. Sorry but true. It is designed to fail and make sure we NEVER have UHC in this country. Frankly, if healthcare is your issue, you would probably be just as well off voting for McCain as Obama. Obama caves too much. Already the GOP is laughing at how he's caving to McCain on Iran. He'd cave to them constantly as President. Maybe the Dems would actually stop caving against McCain. We can always hope I guess.

    Parent
    The point you and so many others are missing (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by Anne on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:14:19 PM EST
    is not related to the details of the plans - although those are certainly important - it is about the effort and energy and focus that will be brought to those plans.

    Anyone can have a plan - shoot, I can come up with a plan - but just having a plan accomplishes about as much as saying you want to be the next American Idol, or play professional football or win an Oscar, and expecting it to just happen, or expecting others to make it happen for you.  

    Obama's too much about message and words and not enough about actual work - his history - even the one he embellishes and composites - tells us that.

    So, pardon me if I don't get too excited about any Obama "words," and choose instead to put my confidence and trust in Hillary's "work."


    Parent

    1.0 rated? (none / 0) (#29)
    by mattt on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:07:39 PM EST
    I didn't say 'Hillary's a neocon,' my point is that misrepresentation is just as unfair as shoehorning BO and JMcC into the same box on healthcare.

    Parent
    you'll see how Obama sells his policy (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Salo on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:10:39 PM EST
    Access and Affordability.

    It's identical to McCain in more ways than one.

    Parent

    Well of course their plans are similar. (5.00 / 3) (#63)
    by magisterludi on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:21:46 PM EST
    McCain and Obama have a lot of affection for the Chicago School of Law and Economics- Milton Friedman's haunt.

    Parent
    Sounds like (none / 0) (#53)
    by mattt on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:16:35 PM EST
    a good pitch.  Tougher for McCain to come after him on "socialized medicine" if the proposals sound similar.  But underneath the slogans, the proposals are dramatically different.

    I Obama is able to slip a dose of needed medicine past the lips of the "free market" tax nihilists by claiming it's really candy, I'm all for it.

    Parent

    It won't (none / 0) (#84)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:30:16 PM EST
    work for the free market people. They already think he's a tool of the far left despite the buzzwords.

    Parent
    They think McCain is as well (none / 0) (#89)
    by flyerhawk on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:33:33 PM EST
    Who cares about those people?

    Parent
    Apparently (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:42:22 PM EST
    the poster did.

    Parent
    Don't worry. Ratings are not a big deal (none / 0) (#33)
    by MarkL on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:09:47 PM EST
    here. Only people who start 1-rating everything get disciplined, but comments don't get hidden for ratings.

    Parent
    ok, i'll buy into that whole concept: (5.00 / 9) (#24)
    by cpinva on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:04:54 PM EST
    ......a reformed political system such as the one Obama calls for, one that would solve problems rather than resort to bickering.

    i think the logic behind this goes something like this: if we can reform the political system, so everyone is playing nice and being rational, then the problems we face, such as expanding health care to cover the entire population, will be more amicably and quickly resolved.

    that's my guess, anyway. this premise rests on a couple of questionable assumptions:

    1. the person in question (sen. obama) can, by shear force of his dynamic personality, bring everyone involved together in one, big, happy lovefest.

    2. everyone in congress really, really, really wants to play nice, and is just sitting there, waiting for that dynamic personality to come along and get the process started.

    i've yet to see any real evidence of the dynamic personality in question, but that could just be me.

    as for 2, i think this is, at best, wishful thinking, at worst delusional.

    however, this does explain, in a nutshell, his inability to clearly articulate what, aside from his wonderfulness, he thinks is important to the american people, and how he intends to accomplish it.

    i'll take boring, wonky candidate for $200 alex.

    Great Comment (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by Paladin on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:37:55 PM EST
    This pretty much sums up the issues I have with his candidacy.  Like you, I have yet to hear in practical terms, how he intends to accomplish this change. Through history, every candidate makes the same claim. Give us details please.  Guess, what - there aren't any!

    Parent
    For details see McCain. (5.00 / 3) (#116)
    by davnee on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:44:29 PM EST
    Like I said above, the candidate with concrete proposals for political reform, not to mention an actual track record of same, is the one running with the R after his name.  

    I'll take the experienced progressive wonk who wants to pass progressive policies thanks.  If I wanted unity ponies and a new Washington, I'd vote McCain.  He can't provide it either, but he'd get us a heck of a lot closer than the guy in the short pants.

    Parent

    delusional sums it up (5.00 / 5) (#110)
    by english teacher on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:41:41 PM EST
    the idea that the republican party has just been waiting for obama to come along so they can agree with and support sane policies that are good for america is delusional.  ergo, so is obama and anyone who supports him for this reason.

    Parent
    And (none / 0) (#201)
    by cal1942 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 05:50:33 PM EST
    3. That every member of Congress represents the exact same economic condition.

    Ah, that one gets 'em every time.

    There are various economic forces and big money is at stake.

    Parent

    beyond stupid (5.00 / 7) (#25)
    by Robert Oak on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:05:35 PM EST
    It's fairly clear to me as Clinton morphed into a concrete Populist and came out with stronger policy changes, she started winning again.  

    It's the policy, that's what people will vote for.  When there is little difference between candidates, and frankly that was the case on trade, jobs in '04, and it's looking fairly similar now, then it turns into that 50-50 national split because there is no real choice.

    I really think they need to put Clinton on the top of the ticket.  Not only to win, but for the good of the country.  If they do not dramatically change policy and start revamping trade, health care, a host of economic issues and fast, this nation, well it's on the brink.

    Oddly, (5.00 / 10) (#26)
    by frankly0 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:05:39 PM EST
    I do sort of agree with a fundamental premise of what Obama seems to be claiming: that the most crucial thing that a President must do is to have the clout and efficacy to be able to bring Democratic policies to fruition. While I think that on health care policy in particular Obama's proposal is far less satisfactory than Hillary's, I think that on policies he is close enough to Democratic boilerplate (a good thing, by my reckoning) that his policies themselves are otherwise generally quite adequate.

    But the irony is that it is precisely on the issue of his potential clout and efficacy that he is almost certain to fail. His "new politics" is by now a transparent joke. His "unity" is a chimera, given that he and his campaign have engendered such deep division and resentment even within the Democratic Party. And he is now clearly perceived as far out-of-touch by vast segments of the voting public. I simply don't see how he recovers from those defects, because they go the very core of who he is as a person and a politician.

    Obama is not a politician who will ever be able to develop clout and real political clout over the long run. If he were to become President, his fate seems quite certain: he will ride a good Democratic brand and a honeymoon period into some decent popularity ratings for a time, and then he will return to his natural, and quite low, level, where his current strong constituencies remain loyal to him, and all others turn against him.

    By far the best reason to prefer Hillary is that she is far more likely to build and maintain real clout. She reaches the voters in the center in a way that makes that possible, and she does so without sacrificing any progressive ideals (ironically it's Obama who's less progressive in this respect).

    Great comment. (5.00 / 2) (#112)
    by lilburro on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:42:35 PM EST
    And the only two tones I've seen from Obama so far are lofty and passive-aggressive.  Ironically, we have so many changes we need to make (esp. regarding climate control and fuel efficiency) but Obama's type of change has almost nothing to do with that.  His change isn't preparing us for change at all; it's just promising a better vibe on C-SPAN.  Let's see if we can do what we need to do to improve our environmental standards through friendly bipartisanship.

    Parent
    Come on let Obama be Obama .... (none / 0) (#135)
    by mogal on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:05:53 PM EST
    it worked once... wait twice.

    Parent
    is Obama saying this? (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by Josey on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:48:18 PM EST
    >>>I do sort of agree with a fundamental premise of what Obama seems to be claiming: that the most crucial thing that a President must do is to have the clout and efficacy to be able to bring Democratic policies to fruition

    That's not what I'm hearing.
    Obama has intentionally ignored policies and solutions and focused on process including race-baiting and demonizing the Clintons.
    He's a con and a bamboozler and when he talks people hear what they want to hear.
    Obama is so much like Bush in 2000.
    Scary!


    Parent

    Voters don't want health care access. Huh? (5.00 / 8) (#28)
    by ChuckieTomato on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:06:40 PM EST
    I'd say that's the single most important issue in this election. Even McCain rolled out a recycled GOP health care tax credit plan.

    Hoodwinked and Bamboozled (5.00 / 11) (#31)
    by Stellaaa on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:08:58 PM EST
    come to mind.  "Don't worry let me fix it" sounds like, movie aside cause my machine wants some of the rewards of governing America, why should the Texans just get it?  

    Yes, with his vast public policy experience, he will manage the government machine and improve it.  No direction, just improvement in how it is managed.  Of course all the academics who will run the administration have great theories.  

    Why just today I read that the Constitutional lawyer is starting to talk about looking into the legality of the Bush , what are those things that when he signs he says he will not abide by this part of the bill, well, Hillary said numerous time, in debates, and in speeches the first thing she would do is strike all that stuff out.  Meanwhile our MSM was having a boy crush and our Creative Class was getting inspired.  Right.  

    How does one justify changing (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by zfran on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:18:57 PM EST
    positions in one day. Morning: Iran is not a threat. Afternoon: Iran is a threat!@!This sounds like a man who cannot make choices and we're being asked to wait until he "fixes everything" by what, a thought process. HOW would he fix things!!!

    Parent
    Obama's (5.00 / 6) (#67)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:25:11 PM EST
    theory is to sprinkle fairy dust and ride unity ponies to entrance the GOP into doing what he wants them to do.

    Should you laugh or cry? I can't decide. We are so screwed even in the unlikely event he beats McCain.

    Parent

    I think it's been pretty clear (5.00 / 6) (#34)
    by magisterludi on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:09:55 PM EST
    all along that Obama would punt on healthcare and domestic policy. Obama, Goolsbee and Cutler will purposefully kick those cans to the next dem president, if there is a next time.

    UHC -experience needed (5.00 / 3) (#94)
    by ChuckieTomato on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:35:33 PM EST
    not big ideas.

    1993-94 both houses of Congress and the President failed to pass UHC. Voted out and now it's been almost 2 decades. If it fails this time how much longer will it be? Another 20 years?

    Parent

    Obama said it best (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by ibextati on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:10:04 PM EST
    Obama has even admitted that Washington is not short of new ideas but the presence of old politics have made it difficult for new ideas to be realized.

    what BS... (5.00 / 6) (#61)
    by p lukasiak on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:20:58 PM EST
    the problem isn't "old politics", the problem was that we had GOP control of at least one house of congress since 1994.

    I mean, you really have to be a complete idiot to blame "old politics" for horrors of the Bush administration -- the Democrats didn't play "old politics", they completely rolled over for Bush.  

    Parent

    the reason things that help people (5.00 / 6) (#91)
    by english teacher on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:33:48 PM EST
    don't get done in washington is because of republicans.  obama seems to want to say that the problems just have to do with "washington".  not only is he wrong, he is setting himself up for a woefully ineffective presidency, should he be elected.  the problem is not "washington".  it is the republican party.  the fact that he does not frame it this way is one reason i do not and never will trust him.  

    Parent
    Where does he get these aides?? (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by lilburro on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:10:40 PM EST
    I expect to see this "a new vision for expanding health care" in the GE.

    That's why Hillary did so well in PA, WVA and KY (5.00 / 8) (#46)
    by ChuckieTomato on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:14:01 PM EST
    she HAD a plan. It wasn't Appalachian racism

    Parent
    Ugh (5.00 / 8) (#42)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:12:32 PM EST
    Double ugh. A candidate who stands for nothing. Already the GOP is defining him in a negative way. He's helping them out. Of course, once the primary is officially over I probably won't have a dog in this fight. Seems like it could be a very liberating thing.

    Concerted effort (5.00 / 6) (#77)
    by ineedalife on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:28:44 PM EST
    Karl Rove had a WSJ editorial that spelled out Obama as a typical condescending liberal Democrat that is particularly good at parsing, evading, and dissembling. He applied the labels with extra-strong crazy glue. The adhesive was a special distillate of Rev. Wright, flag pins, and foreign policy appeasement, with just a sprinkle of Auschwitz-gate. If Obama can't define himself, the Republicans will be happy to do that for him.

    Parent
    he really is the Democratic version of Bush.... (5.00 / 12) (#50)
    by p lukasiak on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:15:15 PM EST
    As with Bush (and 'compassionate conservatism') an inexperienced non-entity was simply an empty vessel that would "run against Washington" with a focus-grouped message.

    The two key differences was that Bush was the choice of the party establishment before the primaries began, and there was at least some "meaning" to the message -- "change the process" is about as completely meaningless as you can get.

    Barack Obama is the political equivalent of "Seinfeld"-- "a candidate about nothing"

     

    This is what I can't comprehend. (5.00 / 8) (#83)
    by davnee on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:29:55 PM EST
    Obama is Bush 2.0 in so many ways it is downright spooky.  The campaign themes.  The lightweight resume (though Bush might even chuckle at Obama's cv).  The arrogance and evasion of press scrutiny.  The gaffes and frequent indications of general ignorance and/or lazy preparation.  The Reagan worship.  Punting to advisors and webpages for details and you know the nuts and bolts of actually doing anything.  The cult of personality, the you know but he's nice and I'd like to drink a beer, scratch-that, wine with him phenomenon.  I could go on.

    Why are lefties falling hook, line and sinker for this GWB wannabe when they currently think GWB is the anti-christ?  It does not compute.

    Parent

    Quid Pro Quo (5.00 / 5) (#62)
    by Petey on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:21:10 PM EST
    "I think a new vision for expanding health care is exactly what Democrats are looking for."

    But if Obama had embraced universal healthcare, General Electric wouldn't have embraced him.

    Protecting profits at GE Healthcare was the price Obama paid for GE's support.  Obama was willing to sell out Democrats on healthcare to get better press coverage.

    Why do you think GE puts so much more time, money, and effort into covering politics than the other media companies?  GE Healthcare's profits depend on preventing universal healthcare.  GE Money's profits depend on weakening Social Security.

    Of course not. (5.00 / 6) (#73)
    by masslib on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:27:20 PM EST
    Hillary supporters don't do messianic.  We like our pols human.  Here's one, she had a lousy caucus strategy.  Two, she believed Penn that she had to run further to the so-called middle than anyone in their right mind would have believed she is.  Three, until recently she was too gaurded.  I could go on.  Perfect, hell no.  Best candidate in this race, oh yeah.

    Respect (none / 0) (#78)
    by realitybites on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:28:46 PM EST
    Thank you for your honesty.

    Parent
    Talking to my family (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by coolit on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:34:25 PM EST
    and friends, basically all of whom are Obama supporters, I pretty much hear.

    "But he is so inspirational.  He is like JFK, FDR, MLK all in one.  He is beautiful.  He is perfect.  He's like the beatles.  He is OBAMA.  Please, if you don't have anything nice to say about him, don't say anything at all.  Please, just stop talking.  I can't take anyone saying anything bad about OBAMA"

    Actually when I meet Democratic (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by MarkL on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:43:38 PM EST
    friends, I warn them that talking about candidate preferences might not be a good idea. Of course they don't listen, so they express their undying affection for Obama. After I explain why I am so strongly opposed to him, they tend to shut up, or mildly agree.


    Parent
    I had one friend who is contemplating the kool-aid (none / 0) (#130)
    by davnee on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:59:19 PM EST
    because she believes HRC is now toast tell me that she has to have faith that Obama is great because she has to believe that all her smart friends currently in his cult can't possibly be as stupid as they appear to us Hillary supporters.  She got into a rather desperate argument with me about it.  "I know I don't get why he's great," she said.  "But these people have PhD's and I respect their scholarship," she told me.  "They are too smart not to be seeing something real," she assured me.  I felt really bad for her.  She's in a lot of pain as she attempts to psyche herself up to vote Obama in the fall.  I just shrugged my shoulders about it.  A PhD doesn't make you wise.  I know.  I have one.

    Parent
    Yeah, I really don't get the Ph.D love (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by MarkL on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:05:04 PM EST
    for Obama.
    He is the antithesis of an intellectual.

    Parent
    you know, I think a lot his supporters (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by kempis on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:28:01 PM EST
    ...don't really follow him closely. They've seen the "Yes, we can" video and that's about it. They're like my sister-in-law; they aren't political junkies. They hear that he's inspirational and an amazing orator, and they've seen an inspiring example, so that's that.

    Or it is until the general election begins. When the general election begins and he's under more scrutiny, they're going to see what I began to see the more I looked at him: an inexperienced, easily befuddled, not always terribly articulate, sometimes petulant and childishly full-of-himself man who is in no way ready to be president.

    I really feel like I'm in a bind. I don't want a Republican to be president again because I think there needs to be a house-cleaning in the executive branch. But I have serious doubts about Obama's readiness. If he's not better prepared than George W. Bush was--and remember, Bush at least had some executive experience and an experienced (if insane) cabinet, then "inspiration" is going to become a dirty word in this country.


    Parent

    Talking to my family (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by coolit on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:34:38 PM EST
    and friends, basically all of whom are Obama supporters, I pretty much hear.

    "But he is so inspirational.  He is like JFK, FDR, MLK all in one.  He is beautiful.  He is perfect.  He's like the beatles.  He is OBAMA.  Please, if you don't have anything nice to say about him, don't say anything at all.  Please, just stop talking.  I can't take anyone saying anything bad about OBAMA"

    How do you not just throw up a little (5.00 / 3) (#113)
    by Anne on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:42:41 PM EST
    in your mouth when you hear that?  Have you managed to control the eye-roll, the urge to make faces?

    'Cause that's kind of what I did when I read what your family and friends are saying.

    I feel your pain.

    Parent

    i'm not good at it. (none / 0) (#168)
    by coolit on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:06:25 PM EST
    haha.

    i used to argue with them about each candidate's pros and cons.  They just get mad and want me to love Obama too.

    Now.  I just shrug and say, "eh. I'm not voting for him"

    They get just as mad, but I don't get all worked up about it anymore.  I think it's healthier.

    : )

    Parent

    "That's nice, dear." (none / 0) (#123)
    by Fabian on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:48:34 PM EST
    "Whatever you say, honey."  "He'll still respect you in the morning."

    Too bad I'm so bad at lying.  I'd probably leave at a smirk, a snigger and of course, "Heh.".

    Parent

    "Bless your heart" (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by cmugirl on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:52:06 PM EST
    n/t

    Parent
    From the WaPo article cited above (5.00 / 3) (#96)
    by karen for Clinton on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:35:37 PM EST
    This sums up his entire support base so well:

    "His message of uniting people and trying to do something new was apparent from the beginning, and so he sort of had me at hello," said University of Chicago professor Austan Goolsbee, Obama's top economic adviser.

    Well, it takes more than HELLO to unite ME!

    and we all know how Goolsbee did with his mission to our neighbors to the north.

    I am so not going to vote for this $#@@$@(^^%.

    the unspoken message.... (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by p lukasiak on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:58:22 PM EST
    from Goolsbee is that here was a candidate who was clueless about economic policy, and could be easily influenced.

    Parent
    The dirty little secret .... (none / 0) (#175)
    by RonK Seattle on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:17:06 PM EST
    ... behind Obama's roster of DC endorsers.

    Everybody in town already knows where they stand with Hillary, and they don't all stand on the sunny side of the street.

    Obama is the new scratch ticket game in town.

    Parent

    Obama has said that had he actually (5.00 / 3) (#103)
    by zfran on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:38:48 PM EST
    been in the Senate to take the war vote, he doesn't know who he'd voted. Next, he and Hillary have voted exactly the same on the war since he has been in the senate. He has done nothing to try and end the war. Who needs to be forgiven!!

    I'm not looking for someone (5.00 / 7) (#104)
    by Anne on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:39:13 PM EST
     to put the cranky legislators in time-out until they can all make nice - not looking for one side to cut the last piece of cake and for the other to get first pick.  Not looking for someone to referee whose turn it is to sit in the front seat.  

    I want someone who knows what is right and who will fight for it as long and as hard and as smart as necessary to accomplish the most good - and I do not want that person to start from a position of compromise.  Nor do I want someone who believes that softening up the opposition requires bad-mouthing one's allies.  I don't want someone to talk down to me in an effort to help me understand the finer points of the opposition.  

    There are millions of us who feel this way, who know without a doubt that Obama is not what we need now - maybe ever.  And if we get him - by some fluke - Jimmy Carter will lose his place as the most ineffective president in modern times, and the revolution that will run through Congress in 2010 will make the 1994 debacle pale in comparison.

    Obama is a disaster just waiting to happen, and why more people do not see that is just one more thing that I don't understand.


    Fighting Old Battles (5.00 / 3) (#121)
    by formerhoosier on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:46:15 PM EST
    How can the DNC and Obama campaign be so clueless.

    Paraphrasing the Obama campaign;

    'We do not want to fight the old battles and want bipartisanship'

    Actually they are the ones stuck in the 90's reference, not the electorate.  Speaking for myself, I am looking for someone who can fix:

    Judicial appointees (and legislation) that are anti-consumer and pro business
    Health Care cost fiasco
    Business and media consolidation
    Meltdown in financial markets
    Neglect of infrastructure to build more prisons
    Selling of the commons to the highest bidder
    Employing mercenaries beyond the law in war zones
    ETC.

    Who cares about the 'tone' of the politicians except they all seem to be tone deaf when it comes to the average citizen

    Who here thinks (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by Robert Oak on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:06:53 PM EST
    These informal meetings of experts were in fact corporate lobbyists pushing their quite fictitious studies to conclude the policy they are demanding?  

    I can tell you on H-1B, in spite of dozens and dozens of credible studies, including the GAO itself, I have seen Obama literally cite corporate lobbyist propaganda on it.  Now that's unreal because his own colleague, Dick Durbin, introduced a bill, S.1035 to reform this program and guess who refuses to co-sponsor it?  Ya got it, Obama!

    (Hillary has not either which also says something about the power of corporate lobbyists, NASSCOM).  

    I've never heard anything from anywhere in that Obama paid attention to true economic reforms and their proposals, as in invited them to present their data/analysis.  Goolsbee is a U.of Chicago
    economist who has written how bad trade deals just don't affect that many people and aren't a real problem.  Not exactly a powerhouse of innovation there frankly.

    Heh (5.00 / 2) (#141)
    by Steve M on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:15:06 PM EST
    This from the article made me wince:

    Heather Higginbottom, who runs Obama's policy office at the campaign's Chicago headquarters, cited education as one area in which Obama offers ideas that are not traditionally Democratic, arguing that the problem is not all about schools or funding, but about parents who let their children watch too much television.

    Telling parents to turn off the TV is one of those standard-issue comments from politicians that I don't really care much about.  But when the head of Obama's policy office cites that as one of the top examples of somewhere that Obama deviates from the orthodoxy, I want to cry.  If you have to resort to that kind of vapid statement to argue that you're bringing new ideas to the table, maybe you should just give up on the new ideas thing.

    But (none / 0) (#145)
    by cmugirl on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:18:32 PM EST
    She's got a fun name to say.

    Parent
    Stop bullying me (none / 0) (#80)
    by realitybites on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:29:10 PM EST
    :)

    Reality Bites is Supsended (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by Jeralyn on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:45:35 PM EST
    for hijacking the thread to an unrelated topic.

    Parent
    Obama Co-Opted Hillary's Issues (none / 0) (#166)
    by OxyCon on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:57:10 PM EST
    He cynically co-opted Hillary's issues in order to take away her advantage. They were never his issues, until he decided to run for President. He never gave them the time of day. I seriously do not think Obama gives a damn about anything Hillary stands for. Everything he does is calculated with the goal of him receiving the prize he thinks he's destined for.

    Obama has a policy-rich website (none / 0) (#170)
    by RonK Seattle on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:08:24 PM EST
    ... but it's the kind of policy portfolio the staff would cobble together if they had a big endorsement questionnaire overdue and the boss was unavoidably detained.

    Obamanism is a movement without a destination.

    I think you are wrong ... (none / 0) (#181)
    by DavMD on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:41:23 PM EST
    , with all due respect.

    "I think a new vision for expanding health care is exactly what Democrats are looking for."

    This is not in defence of Obama or against HRC.  Changing healthcare funding in the US will not solve the crisis.  It will dig a deeper whole that will draw a huge perrcentage of taxpayer money, and ultimately (not too far down the road) go broke and then they will say, "See, told you 'socialist' healthcare doesn't work here!".  Back to the past.

    The US is the only country in the industrial world where healthcare and health insurances are a lucrative for-profit business.  Most hospitals and clinics have shareholders and financial boards, like GM and GE.  And most physicians are practicing for the standard of living that comes with the job, not the service.  Then there is the huge multi-billion malpractice insurance industry.  And 80+% of healthcare dollars spent in the last 6 months of life "'cause we really love grandma."  While actual outcome measures for major diseases are among the worst among non-third world nations. I can go on and on; if you need to be suicidally depressed any further, just page trough the last few issues of the journal Health Affairs.  

    You cannot just fix the payor mix and pretend its over.  Many, many issues have to be resolved before the funding issue will actually work.  It is like trying to help your alcoholic IV-drug user homeless cousin, and just giving him lots of pocket money and a nice apartment.  He will flush the cash down the loo in a few days.

    The approach to problems has to be fundamentally changed.  The US among the top 28 industrial countries has the lowest sense of social sacrifice (i.e. "How much will I be willing to give up for the society to live with a brighter future?"); remember the Pew study that shows a large majority still express anger when asked if they are willing to change their lifestyle and give up comforts to stop global warming.  Sound-bite politics to get votes from uneducated hicks [yes I am an elitist too] is taking this country to the third world before it can say ouch.  I have no idea whether Obama necessarily will (or can) change all (or any) of this.  But it seems obvious to me that the other two aren't even on the right page (or chapter).

    So people are just noticing this? n/t (none / 0) (#200)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu May 29, 2008 at 05:45:18 PM EST


    Obama Policies (none / 0) (#203)
    by rick on Thu May 29, 2008 at 06:06:22 PM EST
    Hi to all,

    No, the change man does not want to detail his policies at all.

    Coal is Obama's idea of alternative energy.  There is nothing green about him.

    His economic advisers want to privatize social security.

    Good governance for him is the Chicago way of corruption.

    May God save us all.

    Rick