home

Politics As Usual

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 09:01:44 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Tim Russert's passing reminds me that this Obama-McCain matchup was the election the Media dreamed of. This was the one that was going to change politics.

Well, anyone watching the first week of the campaign since the departure of Hillary Clinton must have noticed that in fact what we have gotten is more of the same. John Mercurio writes:

[L]isten closely to the debate this week over the campaign's No. 1 issue, and you'll hear how comfortably Obama and McCain conform to their parties' tried-and-true orthodoxies, the ones that repeatedly set the stage for a sharply divided -- and static -- electoral map.

As a Democrat, I am glad to see the Obama team understands that Obama can not change politics, that he must engage in it. A sharply partisan campaign is very much to Obama's favor and the first rule in politics is you win before you can transform. Others have noticed the pedestrian nature of the campaign:

David Brooks: Dear Dr. Collins, can you explain this strange feeling of ennui? Why is there no zip in my zest, no snap in my vigor? Why does my mood stretch out blue and lifeless, like a patient etherized upon a table?

Here we have two outstanding presidential candidates. The Economist magazine, which is so much cleverer than the rest of us, lauds them as the best of America. And yet somehow the campaign is not exactly Lincoln v. Douglas or Plato v. Aristotle. Every day’s issue blip is more trivial than the last. McCain used some unfortunate phrase about American troops staying in Iraq and the Obama henchmen launched a thousand conference calls twisting the phrase entirely out of context and claiming that McCain doesn’t care about the fate of the troops. James Johnson, Obama’s V.P. vetter and a highly respected political practitioner, takes an insider loan or two and the entire McCain apparatus erupts as if this transgression reflects directly on Obama’s fitness for office. . . .

(Emphasis supplied.) Actually, Lincoln/Douglas was not what the mythmakers make of it now. I suggest folks read the actual debates. Demagoguery and false outrage were the order of the day then too. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

The funny thing is unlike the Media, as a Democrat, I think this is a POSITIVE development, not a negative one. I was worried that our candidate might have believed his press clippings. I am much more at ease now that I see Obama is capable of the partisan slant, the persistent characterization of McCain as "running for Bush's third term," and a full throated politics of contrast/Fighting Dems campaign.

The Media mourns. I am pleased.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Mistrial Declared in Obscenity Case, Judge Removes Himself | Saturday Open Thread >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Politics As Usual | 223 comments (223 topical)
    Well, I've been around politics (5.00 / 6) (#1)
    by zfran on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 09:09:33 AM EST
    a long time and someone is going to have to explain to me how Obama campaigned on "new" politics, practiced "old" politics went beyond dirty politics, imo, and expects to "change" washington? McCain, I thought this week, was classic, feisty, McCain!

    easy explanation (5.00 / 3) (#93)
    by Josey on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 10:33:02 AM EST
    The Establishment propped up a newbie senator for the purpose of "changing" THEM. ;>
    There are still Obama supporters who actually believe Obama's propaganda that Hillary was the Establishment's candidate.

    [ Parent ]
    Most of them do (5.00 / 12) (#120)
    by dianem on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 11:05:25 AM EST
    I was talking to a co-worker yesterday. An intelligent, politically aware woman. She commented on what a nasty campaign Clinton had run, and how terrible it was that she has said that Obama was not a Muslim "as far as I know". I said that she never that, but she said "I've watched the clip". She watches Olbermann (loves the show), so I assumed that she had simply been spun by that, but she said she had gotten it from other sources as well.

    I couldn't understand this, so I went on-line and found a media matters column about how the media had reported that little tidbit, and, sure enough, the common method was to say that Clinton has said exactly what my friend thought she had said. Very few bothered to even point out that her initial response was "Of course not" and the questionable phrase came about 8 sentences down after the reporter had asked her the same question 3 times. Scarborough surprised me, though. He actually pointed out that it's easy to manipulate an interviewee into saying things like that. I'm wondering if there isn't more to that man than I have given him credit for.

    People never got the facts. They thought they had them, but the facts they were given were wrong, distorted to make Clinton sound like, well, a "monster". This is the Iraq War all over again, in terms of media coverage. They simply choose the story and follow it blindly, seeking outrage as opposed to clarity. Their watchers follow along like lambs to the slaughter, nodding and getting enraged and tuning in for the next segment.

    This actually scares me, since without the media presenting facts, how can we get the truth? The government can't be trusted, and the internet is mostly biased sources. I read enough different sites to be able to sort out a version of what I think is true - but garbage in/garbage out, how can I really know? And how can people make intelligent decisions in a Democracy if they don't know the truth? We're becoming one of those nasty science fiction dystopias where information is controlled by powerful figures through the media and a compliant public goes along every step of the way.

    [ Parent ]

    No she did say that. (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by Faust on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 11:51:21 AM EST
    She did say "not a muslim as far as I know."

    However, the broader context (i.e. what she said immediately following) clearly indicates that there was no nefarious intent behind the phrasing.

    It was a case of lack of decontextualization. The clip that was spread around cut off her response at the "as far as I know remark" and didn't show what she said immediately afterwards which clearly indicated that she regarded the muslim rumors as a smear.

    [ Parent ]

    err (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by Faust on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 11:52:13 AM EST
    not a lack of decontextualiztion. Deliberate decontextualization was what was happening.

    [ Parent ]
    not after, before (5.00 / 4) (#228)
    by DFLer on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 12:19:33 PM EST
    from Jake Tapper's site

    STEVE KROFT: You don't believe that Senator Obama's a Muslim?

    HILLARY CLINTON: Of course not. I mean that's, you know, that, there is no basis for that. You know, I take him on the basis of what he says, and, you know, there isn't any reason to doubt that.

    KROFT: You said you take Sen. Obama at his word that he's not a Muslim...

    CLINTON: Right, right..

    KROFT: ...you don't believe that he's a Muslim.

    CLINTON: No! No! Why would I? There's nothing to base that on. As far as I know.

    "As far as I know"?

    To be fair, Clinton went on to say that having "been the target of so many ridiculous rumors... I have a great deal of sympathy for anybody who gets, you know, smeared with the kind of rumors that go on all the time."



    [ Parent ]
    Well, as far as I know, Obama WAS a (4.25 / 4) (#123)
    by MarkL on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 11:08:23 AM EST
    Muslim as a child.. but I don't care in the least.
    Aren't we supposed to be a tolerant society?

    [ Parent ]
    That's not true (none / 0) (#135)
    by dianem on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 11:18:16 AM EST
    As far as anybody knows (I hope that doesn't get me into trouble), Obama was raised by parents who were secular. His father was born a Muslim, but he was not practicing by the time Obama was born. His mother seems to have been something of an agnostic, although that isn't clear. He was not raised in any particular religion.  Here is a Snopes link that explains further.

    [ Parent ]
    but then there's this (4.50 / 2) (#153)
    by Josey on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 11:28:24 AM EST
    Obama's half-brother stating Obama grew up Muslim.
    Never heard of this site, but please don't respond I should stick to "conventional media sources" that sold us Bush and Obama and spread propaganda against the Clintons.

    http://tinyurl.com/5anmyn


    [ Parent ]

    Actually (3.40 / 5) (#215)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 12:04:02 PM EST
    he and his family were practicing muslims according to his sister when they were living in Indonesia. His step father was a muslim too.

    [ Parent ]
    The Way I See It (5.00 / 2) (#141)
    by talex on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 11:21:09 AM EST
    is that Obama's primary rhetoric was an easy sell to 'bleeding heart' Liberals. He simply played to people emotions and was able to be short on substance and still barely get by.

    Now we are no longer in the primaries and things have changed, but not due to Obama's doing. I see it differently than Armando does: "I am much more at ease now that I see Obama is capable of the partisan slant".

    Well we will see just how capable he is. But this shift to the partisan slant is not Obama's doing IMO. Instead McCain is forcing it with the way he is framing the issues and Obama is responding - not vis versa. And when your opponent is framing the debate and you are just reacting and 'hitting the ball back' then you are on defense, not offense. And I don't think defense is Obama's game. He has shown he is in his element when he can frame the debate by being vague and talking in platitudes.

    But general election voters don't buy vagueness and happy talk like Dem primary voters do. So we will have to see how things unfold as the battle tested McCain keeps trying to frame the debate and keep the wet behind the ears Obama on defense reacting and having to step out of his element with having to deal with issues and not happy talk.

    [ Parent ]

    you mean he lied like a rug? (5.00 / 3) (#185)
    by Baal on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 11:41:11 AM EST
    or are you talking about some other kind of "straight talk"?

    [ Parent ]
    And, was under handed... (5.00 / 7) (#203)
    by Aqua Blue on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 11:55:02 AM EST
    What Obama did to his Democratic opponents in Illinois and to Hillary in the Primary was just downright dirty.

    Had Obama won the Primary in a fair way...had Obama acknowledged Florida and Michigan voter fully...had Obama not stolen delegates from Hillary in Michigan...had Obama stopped the hate that spewed from his supporters to Hillary supporters  (and he could have stopped it as he is doing now)...I would be thnking of him very differently...as one of the good guys.

    But based on past behavior...Obama's character is very much in question for me.

    [ Parent ]

    had the press lit a fire under the TUCC (5.00 / 5) (#210)
    by Salo on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 12:00:49 PM EST
    stuff he'd never have coem within an inch of the nomination.

    [ Parent ]
    Do you think they'll become more 'bulldogish' ... (5.00 / 1) (#227)
    by Ellie on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 12:18:10 PM EST
    ... now to honor Tim Russert? Not that he was ever far from the day's Repug talking points, but I think the media might be in more of a gotcha frame of mind after The Bulldog's hobby of bagging Dems.

    [ Parent ]
    At least the (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by mikeyleigh on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 09:10:13 AM EST
    Lincoln-Douglas debates had the candidates addressing each other instead of simply repeating talking points in response to silly questions during what are laughingly styled presidential debates today. False outrage, yes.  Demagoguery, yes.  But also a lot of information, clear positions, and intellectual give and take.  What a novel idea.

    The Town Halls (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Demi Moaned on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 09:39:58 AM EST
    That's why I thought the town hall idea was a good one. Bypass the inane media questioning. Too bad it seems to have foundered.

    [ Parent ]
    It's my belief these were quashed by (5.00 / 6) (#113)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 10:59:21 AM EST
    obama...he doesn't do well in Town Hall settings or in any situation where he has to speak off the cuff.

    [ Parent ]
    Almost certainly (5.00 / 6) (#122)
    by dianem on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 11:08:05 AM EST
    McCain loves town hall meetings. He is very good one on one, even though he isn't a good speaker in the sense that he can't give an inspirational speech the way Obama can. It was smart of Obama to not accept the town hall formate.

    [ Parent ]
    Not the Reason (4.28 / 7) (#177)
    by Spike on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 11:37:49 AM EST
    Obama didn't reject the town hall format. He just wants to do a lot fewer of them, in addition to more conventional debates. With McCain at a serious financial disadvantage, why would Obama agree to do a face-to-face event with McCain once a week to give him all that free media? From a strategic standpoint, why would Obama want to level the playing field by giving McCain huge amounts of free exposure that he could never afford to buy?

    [ Parent ]
    McCain camp (4.00 / 4) (#211)
    by BackFromOhio on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 12:01:05 PM EST
    put out an excellent statement yesterday on Russert's death; Obama was asked impromptu and provided a few clauses full of hyperbole; it did not sound sincere or thoughtful -- at least not to me.

    [ Parent ]
    Well, O has countered, (3.50 / 2) (#143)
    by brodie on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 11:22:23 AM EST
    somewhat smartly but not boldly, with two TH format proposals -- one on the economy, the biggest issue by far this year, and the second on Iraq/FP, the first in July the second in Aug.  

    This would be in addition to the already scheduled 3 presidential debates arranged by the (awful) pres'l debates comm'n (weirdly, not one of these 3 debates will take place west of the Mississippi, and the Veep encounter takes place virtually on the River in St Louie ...).

    I remain intrigued though by the O Team's other counter, which is to hold a series of L-D style debates instead of TH format.

    Ideally perhaps, I'd like to see 2-3 hybrid debate formats before the MCM takes over in the fall -- several two-hour debates, the first hour of each being L-D style (candidate A has a 10-minute opener, B follows with 15 min, A gets surrebuttal for 5)  on one topic area (FP or DP related), then the 2d hour given over to questions from those annoying ordinary citizens.

    Probably too much to ask in this short-attention span modern infotainment world to expect a duplication of the actual L-D format -- one hour opening remarks by A, opponent B follows for the next 90 minutes uninterrupted, A gets final word in last 30 minutes.

    I don't think these candidates are even remotely capable of speaking much beyond 30 minutes w/o notes, let alone 60 or 90 minutes.   Though I do believe O is much smarter than C-student and somewhat intellectually confused McCain.  

    [ Parent ]

    It will be interesting (5.00 / 2) (#154)
    by talex on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 11:28:28 AM EST
    to see the two of them on stage and see how America reacts to Obama's smugness in contrast to the warmth that McCain seems to be able to display at will.

    [ Parent ]
    I have thought specifcally that (5.00 / 7) (#169)
    by MarkL on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 11:33:12 AM EST
    Obama's sneering, frowning and head-shaking will be noted and disapproved when he is debating McCain, whereas it was almost completely ignored vs. Clinton. He could have Gore's problem quite easily.

    [ Parent ]
    It's more likely folks (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by brodie on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 11:40:31 AM EST
    will have the opportunity to see McCain implode once or twice as he labors to keep up with his opponent and is frustrated in having to defend  truly awful and unpopular Bush policies all while outside the hall the economy continues to slide disastrously.

    They'll also notice McCain's weak grasp of economic issues and how he struggles to accurately characterize basic Sunni-Shia differences.  Then there's the age issue as the older white-haired guy from a different long-ago era goes up against a charismatic pol in his prime.

    [ Parent ]

    Humm (5.00 / 4) (#218)
    by talex on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 12:10:59 PM EST
    it was Obama that was frustrated and laboring to keep up with his opponent in the debates with Clinton. Did you see that as Clinton being a superior debater or was it just sign of Obama being a weak debater himself?

    Myself I think it was more a shortfall of his which will carry over to any debates he as. We shall see.

    [ Parent ]

    Really? (5.00 / 1) (#186)
    by Spike on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 11:41:11 AM EST
    You mean the kind of warmth that McCain demonstated in front of his lime green backdrop? :)

    [ Parent ]
    He appears to be good in townhalls (3.50 / 4) (#190)
    by Baal on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 11:44:23 AM EST
    because he can lie at a moments notice, change his position from the speech he gave days earlier, and generally say whatever he thinks he wants his audience to hear.

    And nobody can check him on his BS in real time.

    That is the McCain modus operandi.

    [ Parent ]

    Funny (5.00 / 12) (#196)
    by davnee on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 11:49:13 AM EST
    I honestly thought you were describing Obama until I got to the end of your post.

    [ Parent ]
    Chnge we can believe in? (5.00 / 4) (#3)
    by befuddledvoter on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 09:13:08 AM EST
    Transcending party lines, race, class?? I think not. Dems. and Repubs. as usual, I agree.  I also find this comforting.  It is the battle I know and trust.  All this mantra about "change" made me nervous. Did Obama and his followers want to toss out the constitution?  Did they think they had better ideas?  I think so.

    Tossing out ... (5.00 / 10) (#10)
    by Demi Moaned on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 09:25:27 AM EST
    To listen to some of the more rabid followers it seems that the change is to come fundamentally from banishing Clinton ("and all her works, and all her allurements") from the party and secondarily from making conciliatory gestures to the wisdom and good faith of the Republicans. I never quite followed the logic of it.

    [ Parent ]
    i propose that you have failed (1.33 / 3) (#89)
    by tben on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 10:28:37 AM EST
    to follow the logic of it, because it does not even exist. The wisdom and good faith of the GOP? What election on what planet have you been watching?

    [ Parent ]
    don't insult other commentors (5.00 / 4) (#114)
    by waldenpond on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 10:59:40 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    From Obama (5.00 / 5) (#125)
    by dianem on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 11:10:59 AM EST
    He's been saying that we need to "reach out" to Republicans. He even met with right-wing fundamentalist leaders. He has been saying since the beginning of this election that he wanted to "unify" the nation. What did you think that meant? His campaign was based on rejecting the ideas of Bill and Hillary Clinton and suggesting that he was going to be able to draw in moderate and conservative voter's.

    [ Parent ]
    what do I think it meant? (2.50 / 6) (#138)
    by tben on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 11:19:20 AM EST
    It meant that he wanted to win over people who have been voting Republican to vote Dems, by making the case to them that they should perhaps base their vote on some other criteria than they have been.

    Like, for instance, realizing that voting GOP is harming them economically, or realizing that the GOP vision of our national security is faulty.

    Yes, he wants to unify the nation around Democratic ideas and Democratic leadership. That is the exact opposite of respecting the wisdom of the GOP.

    Why does this need to be explained? His purpose was not to reject the ideas of the Clintons, he was competing with Clinton for leadership of this type of a movement. And despite your opinion, more Dems felt like he would be the more effective leader of this effort.

    [ Parent ]

    You could have fooled me (5.00 / 6) (#147)
    by dianem on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 11:24:56 AM EST
    Obama talked about the failed policies of the Clinton/Bush era. He did reject the ideas of the Clinton's. He has reached out to right-wing leaders. I don't know how much you know about the right wing, but they are values voter's and authoritarians. They are not going to simply embrace ideas that Democrats love. They expect something for their vote. What will Obama give them?

    I understand that more Dems voted for him, but I believe that they voted because they believed, as my co-worker did, that Clinton had run a dirty campaign. This idea was created by Obama's team and promoted by the media.

    [ Parent ]

    oh right (1.20 / 5) (#159)
    by tben on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 11:30:00 AM EST
    your friend, and I, and the majority of the Democratic party are just mindless pieces of putty manipulated by the big bad media. Is that what you are saying?
    That Clinton supporters alone are capable of making insightful conclusions about what is going on, but everyone else was led around by the nose?

    The Clintons have ALWAYS, back since the mid-eighties, represented the centrist element of the party - the right wing of the Democratic party. THe DLC wing, the NAFTA wing, the DOMA wing. Most people (aside from some Clinton supporters) see Obama as the more liberal of the two - the most liberal nominee we have had in a long time.

    So yeah, someone is being fooled...

    [ Parent ]

    Correction: Clinton supporters (5.00 / 9) (#216)
    by MarkL on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 12:04:23 PM EST
    were a majority of the Democratic party.
    You should pay attention to their opinions.
    WE are the base.

    [ Parent ]
    Actually, more Dems did not feel that way (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by Valhalla on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 11:34:05 AM EST
    More members of the DNC and the RBC, sure.  Although even that is debatable as really, more of them saw the money machine.

    BTD's post doesn't line up with what you are saying.  If he's to be applauded for sharly partisan politics, then that's not trying to attract Republicans.  Unless we really have fallen into Orwell's 1984 where Unity = Division.

    The reason it needs to be explained (and I'm so glad to see the all condescending tone is gone from the Obama campaign and its supporters!) is that he tried to destroy the Clintons and pedaled as fast as he could away from its ideological and practical legacy.  And because Obama has flipped the switch off on Unity and flipped it on to something else.


    [ Parent ]

    Please Forgive Me if I Lapse into... (1.00 / 4) (#222)
    by Spike on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 12:13:54 PM EST
    Condescension as I Make Two Points:

    1. Obama never tried to "destroy the Clintons." He was running against Hillary Clinton for the nomination and such a competition requires a candidate to draw contrasts. Just as Hillary Clinton did when she went on the attack after Wisconsin. Was she trying to destroy Obama or just to win the nomination?

    2. Obama hasn't "flipped the switch off on Unity." Strategically, both the Obama and McCain campaigns have to do two things: (a) solidify their party's base; and (b) secure the support of independent voters. Just one week away from Clinton's concession, Obama is currently taking a more partisan tone as he's trying to gain the support of 90% of self-identified Democrats. As Democratic self-identification grows, this becomes increasingly important because there is more base to secure. But when Obama has secured the Democratic base, he will once again trumpet Unity as he fights with McCain over independent voters. If Obama can succeed on both fronts over the next 4 1/2 months, he will enjoy a landslide victory that will provide a significant mandate for progressive change.


    [ Parent ]
    You slipped into irrelevancy (5.00 / 9) (#225)
    by MarkL on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 12:17:18 PM EST
    .. is that ok?
    Attacking the Clintons' character---both of them---was central to his campaign.
    The line "She'll say anything to win" was part of his stump speech, IIRC.
    I could go on, and on, and on, and on.. but really, what's the point?
    Hillary campaigned on experience. When she said that Obama might not be ready for the challenges of the Presidency, this was considered the worst evah!
    But it was not a character attack.


    [ Parent ]
    Has Obama been distorting the truth about (5.00 / 7) (#166)
    by MO Blue on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 11:32:22 AM EST
    Republicans throughout the primary season when he says that we should not ignore the wisdom and good ideas of Republicans? Evidently he thinks that Republicans are good at foreign policy because he is considering Republicans for two key positions in his administration. According to Obama, he is considering Hagel for Sec. of State and Lugar for Sec. of Defense. Hagel, a Republican, is also on Obama's short list for VP according to news sources.

    If Republicans are lacking in wisdom and are not acting in good faith, why has Obama said they do have wisdom and why is he considering Republicans for key positions? Why should anyone vote for Obama if he is not following the logic of it, because it does not even exist? He has said on numerous occasions that it does exist.

    [ Parent ]

    No the question is (5.00 / 5) (#167)
    by talex on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 11:32:24 AM EST
    What election on what planet have you been watching?

    Apparently you conveniently mentally blocked out Obama's Fox News Sunday appearance and his concession speeches in some of the primaries where he praised Republican ideas.

    Oh and I guess you missed his fondness for Reagan too. I could go on, but what for?

    [ Parent ]

    dont start with that Reagan bs again (1.33 / 3) (#183)
    by tben on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 11:40:47 AM EST
    Its really embarrassing to see people trying to still sell that line.

    Obama said, perfectly correctly, that Reagan was a transformative president. He reset the political and policy landscape of this country.

    Obama aspires to have a equally profound effect - resetting the landscape to the same extent, in our direction.

    The Clinton supporters (and campaign even!) attempt to spin that as Obama speaking favorably of Reagan's ideas, was one of the key incidents that turned so many people bitterly agaisnt Clinton. It was so dishonest - and ended up being an attack on the very notion of fundamentally reordering our politics.

    If you dont reset the landscape, then you continue to play on the landscape defined by the GOP. For the gain of a few talking points, the Clinton people were willing to trash the notion of fundamental change.

    [ Parent ]

    What Democrat would talk like this: (5.00 / 15) (#206)
    by MarkL on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 11:56:13 AM EST

    "I don't want to present myself as some sort of singular figure. I think part of what is different is the times. I do think that, for example, the 1980 election was different. I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. They felt like with all the excesses of the 60s and the 70s and government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think he tapped into what people were already feeling. Which is we want clarity, we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing."

    He is touting what Republicans consider virtues, while criticizing big government and the "excesses " of the 60's and 70's.
    I think it was in a different interview, but he has also said some very unfortunate (and incorrect) things about war protesters as well.
    The man says he wants a foreign policy in Reagan's mold. Can we expect him to invade a Caribbean country and re-start Star Wars?

    Thanks, I'll take the Clinton years any day.

    Here's a question for you. What GOOD things does Obama have to say about Bill Clinton's Presidency?
    That's not easy to answer, is it? It's much easier to find his praise of Reagan and Bush Sr.
    The main criticism he seems to have of those two Presidents is that the latter was part of the "Bush-Clinton" years.
    Hmmm.

    [ Parent ]

    Excesses of the '60s & '70s (5.00 / 10) (#234)
    by BackFromOhio on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 12:42:33 PM EST
    Seems to me to be a Republican talking point.  If by excesses, Obama is referring to Martin Luther King-led civil rights movement, the anti-war movement and the women's movement, I embrace these things whole-heartedly, along with the women's movement. I expect today's college students might not know the significant role these movements played in making the progress we have on civil rights and women's rights, but I would have thought that at age 46, Obama would know these things and embrace the resulting accomplishments. As a friend of Bill Ayers, how can Obama make a blanket claim to reject these "excesses"? I think Obama used these lines for political advantage during the primaries -- to identify the Clintons with excesses & stake out "superior" ground.
    I don't have a problem with Obama's reaching out to independent voters, but denigrating the legacy of movements and Presidents that also represented major "transformative" changes for the nation is either scary thinking or politically expedient.
    It also seems laudable to reject the divisiveness of the 1990s, but let's not forget the role of the Republicans led by Gingrich in provoking and sustaining the divisiveness, not to mention the divisiveness of the Republican Congressional majorities prior to 2006. Perhaps Obama's emphasis on bi-partisanship will succeed, if he is elected, in shaming the Republicans into reaching across the aisle, but to assume this will happen, or to conduct ourselves as though the Republicans have suddenly become immune from partisanship seems dangerously naive to me. It still takes two to tango. In addition, I think there are still issues as to which Democrats and Republicans have fundamental disagreements and which are still worth fighting for, such as no more torture, anti-voter suppression, universal healthcare, etc., and to think these can all be solved by running away from a fight is to abandon why many of us, as Democrats and democrats, get ourselves to the polls.

    [ Parent ]
    The Constitution's (5.00 / 4) (#103)
    by Claw on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 10:42:05 AM EST
    Already been tossed out.  I'm with BTD in being happy Obama's willing to play hardball when he needs to.  If we get a dem elected maybe we can go get the constitution out of the trash-bin.  I kind of miss it.

    [ Parent ]
    Amen! (none / 0) (#192)
    by Baal on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 11:46:28 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    you got a good name (1.00 / 2) (#90)
    by tben on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 10:29:28 AM EST
    Toss out the constitution? Really?

    [ Parent ]
    don't insult other posters (5.00 / 5) (#117)
    by waldenpond on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 11:00:02 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I think the evidence is (5.00 / 4) (#4)
    by andgarden on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 09:13:25 AM EST
    that he and his handlers have always understood how the political map breaks down. People who supported Clinton have recognized that, but people who supported Obama did tend to believe the post-partisan press.

    David Brooks is in the curious position of questioning a media narrative that he himself helped invent. He seems prepared, as he should be, for Obama to dash his dreams over the course of a real campaign.  

    I will say this: if North Carolina and Virginia stay as close as they appear to be now, McCain will lose by being heavily outspent. That is especially true if Obama can get the DNC's finances in order.

    Y'all praised the "change" meme (5.00 / 5) (#5)
    by zfran on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 09:16:08 AM EST
    and now you praise the same ol' stuff meme. What a fickle and disingenuous electorate!

    [ Parent ]
    Who did? Certainly not me! (5.00 / 4) (#9)
    by andgarden on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 09:24:43 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Reading your posts of late, (2.75 / 4) (#11)
    by zfran on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 09:26:37 AM EST
    I think you did. It was always whatever "he" said and wanted is what you said and wanted. We do need change in washington!

    [ Parent ]
    My original response has been deleted (5.00 / 4) (#128)
    by andgarden on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 11:11:35 AM EST
    but let's leave it at this, anyone who thinks that what zfran says here has any relationship to my opinion about Obama doesn't know anything about me.

    [ Parent ]
    Bigger doesn't make you better, it (5.00 / 2) (#229)
    by zfran on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 12:19:49 PM EST
    only makes you bigger, being the loudest doesn't make anyone hear you any more succinctly...having an "opinion" doesn't make you right (or me)it is only what it is. All I've asked is that you respect my opinion, whether you agree with it or not as I have respected yours. If you must have the last word, have it. I will no longer respond to you....I know that will make you most respectfully happy!

    [ Parent ]
    My comment saying you're one of the best (3.66 / 3) (#148)
    by rilkefan on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 11:25:13 AM EST
    commenters here got deleted as well, so I'm posting it again, even if it is OT.

    [ Parent ]
    Fickle Electorate (5.00 / 0) (#12)
    by indy in sc on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 09:26:44 AM EST
    I know that's not news to you. :)

    [ Parent ]
    I abhored the "change" mantra (5.00 / 6) (#27)
    by befuddledvoter on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 09:41:19 AM EST
    always.  It was a slap at the Clintons solely.

    [ Parent ]
    So many Obama supporters (5.00 / 8) (#55)
    by alsace on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 10:01:29 AM EST
    were pre-pubescent (some were barely sentient) during the nineties, but that didn't stop them from following the campaign's cue to bash the leader of the only successful Democratic administration in decades.  They succeeded - for me, at least - in making the primary a referendum on the Bill Clinton years, and so I voted for Hillary.  I will probably reinforce that vote in the general, notwithstanding their new attempt to make it a referendum on Bush.

    [ Parent ]
    Obama's "new politics" was new to me (5.00 / 6) (#102)
    by Josey on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 10:41:43 AM EST
    considering I wasn't aware of former Dem candidates distributing memos on how to race-bait opponents.
    And this Dem family will not condone race-baiting and divisiveness by voting for Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    that is absurd (2.20 / 5) (#99)
    by tben on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 10:39:21 AM EST
    As became obvious, the American people are desparate for "change" after these past 7 years. Obama understood how people felt this at a gut level, bottom line level.

    Hillary thought that the bottom line of what people wanted was someone with lots of WH experience (a slap at Obama you might say, but that too would be silly).

    Thats what it came down to in the early part of the campaign. Two hypotheses as to where the head of the American people, esp. the Dems, was. Do they want change, or experience.

    Obama was right, Hillary wrong. Thats why she lost Iowa. Lost the air of inevitability. And why she then need to fight on past Super Tuesday where she had no plan or organization to fight with.

    To say that the "change" message was soley a slap at her is to understand nothing about what just happened.

    [ Parent ]

    Empty change (5.00 / 10) (#126)
    by waldenpond on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 11:11:16 AM EST
    Change has been used to death as a campaign chant for many elections.  It meant nothing then, it means nothing now.  It simply an empty tactic to frame an opponent and brings nothing to governing.  

    This year began as a rejection of a govt that does not represent the issues of the people.  The people wanted 'change' in legislation.  I don't know anyone who thought the change was going to be 'everyone will get along up on the hill.'  I was looking for legislation, my family and friends were looking for legislation.  

    Saying change for the sake of change without knowing what it is, is non-productive.... which is exactly what I expect an Obama administration will be.

    [ Parent ]

    stop insulting other posters (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by waldenpond on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 11:12:42 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I hope this dressing down works on voters (5.00 / 12) (#73)
    by Ellie on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 10:09:38 AM EST
    Lawd knows I couldn't get enough of it from the pester squadrons during the primaries.

    One element of change: Never before have I considered throwing a campaign a few bucks if they'd STFU and/or leave me the eff'alone about the 101 things that are wrong with me and that tasty vote and support that belongs to them (but I clutch in my bitter withered racist b!tchy talons.)

    [ Parent ]

    Dash Brooks' Dreams? (5.00 / 3) (#176)
    by talex on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 11:37:46 AM EST
    You didn't really believe all the happy talk about Obama from Brooks did you? You do realize that he was pumping up Obama as were many conservatives because that is who they wanted to run against instead of Clinton.

    [ Parent ]
    Right. (none / 0) (#88)
    by lilburro on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 10:28:34 AM EST
    The weird stuff that Pennsylvania would shape up like South Carolina, and Obama would win, wasn't coming from his campaign (that was Booman I believe).  Right now his campaign would do better than he did in Pennsylvania, I think.  We'll see if the primary negligence of Appalachia, which did come from his campaign as well as bloggers, hurts his efforts in PA and OH and on the map in general.

    [ Parent ]
    Who cares about the troops? (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Demi Moaned on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 09:17:40 AM EST
    Me too. Things like Obama's going on Fox News and mentioning Republicans for Cabinet slots had me worried.

    But I think Brooks' examples are weak relative to his point. I don't think McCain does care about the troops in any important sense-- i.e., as individuals whose lives are adversely affected. The same goes for most of the Republican power structure, especially those holding office in the current Administration.

    As for the Johnson thing, I suppose it was bad. But it seems to me the issue is a bit ironic coming from the Lobbyist Express that McCain is running.

    What is wrong with filling your (1.00 / 2) (#7)
    by zfran on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 09:19:37 AM EST
    cabinet posts w/some repubs? Don't you want to fill the posts with the most qualified people?

    [ Parent ]
    It depends which posts (5.00 / 4) (#21)
    by Demi Moaned on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 09:36:50 AM EST
    The whole 'most qualified people' argument is a false frame. There are no independently verifiable criteria as to what makes a good Cabinet officer (or any executive). And the fact of the matter is that people with seemingly impeccable credentials often perform disappointingly.

    As I said yesterday over at the GOS I have no objection to a worthy Republican in a secondary position, but as regards the Big Five (VP, State, Defense, Justice and Treasury) the question is:

    ... aren't there any Democrats that are fit for these positions? If, after eight years out of power, the new Democratic President appoints a Republican, it promotes the Republican talking point that Democrats are not:

       1. Strong on Defense

       2. Fiscally Responsible

       3. Tough on Crime

       4. Experienced in Foreign Policy

    Clinton's appointment of William Cohen to be Secretary of Defense was a gesture of weakness and it will be the same for Obama if he appoints a Republican to one of these top posts. This is our chance to prove our collective competence as a Party.




    [ Parent ]
    You have this down to the gnats science (5.00 / 3) (#162)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 11:30:44 AM EST
    Not as many out front loud Democrats in the military but they are there and they have just as strong defense credentials as Repubs do.  In a Democratic administration, from here on out I'm expecting to see these left leaners in the places they've earned and deserve!  I have no desire to reach out to Republicans until they can rebuild a sane party and show some leadership I can respect as a fellow human being.

    [ Parent ]
    qualifications (5.00 / 5) (#25)
    by Carolyn in Baltimore on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 09:38:57 AM EST
    I think for me all the republicans are tainted after buying into administration demands. The dems have been out of power for a long time but there is a large pool of talent and experience out there. Why should we pick people who don't share goals and whose loyalty to both party and the people can be questioned?
    Personally I would pick feisty partisan democrats who will advance a democratic and progressive agenda and push back against the damage done to our country and constitution.
    And I would sure put a lot of women out there in the public eye so there is a large pool for future high office.

    [ Parent ]
    So why hasn't Nancy Pelosi (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by zfran on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 09:42:37 AM EST
    pushed, really pushed to get us out of Iraq. Why hasn't Reid done the same, as an example. I think they all need to go and we need to start fresh. Of course that's not possible, but both parties are guilty. The repubs. right now look weaker because they have been in power longer. When the dems were in power, there were just as many problems getting things done.

    [ Parent ]
    agree on our party leaders (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Carolyn in Baltimore on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 09:47:34 AM EST
    That is not who I meant by feisty talented progressives. Yes pour party has sucked in pushing back.
    So new talent - maybe out of non-profits rather than corporations and wall st.

    [ Parent ]
    Better Democrats (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by Demi Moaned on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 10:01:10 AM EST
    You're getting a little wild in your arguments there. As far as Reid and Pelosi go (especially Pelosi), I'm no great fan. But they are elected officials and we're talking about appointed officials.

    Reid and Pelosi are two examples of why we need better Democrats, but if you're suggesting that we can recruit them from the ranks of current Republicans, then I don't buy it.

    [ Parent ]

    Why haven't they pushed? (5.00 / 5) (#70)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 10:09:04 AM EST
    Because frankly, the war is a good wedge issue for them.  We can't vote for the Republicans because they'll keep us in Iraq (just like the Democrats did).

    [ Parent ]
    As long as they appear unable to (5.00 / 2) (#170)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 11:33:57 AM EST
    do anything to remove us from Iraq, America is going to vote more Dems in in an effort to get something done about getting us out of Iraq.  Sadly, Obama's latest statements about his Iraq strategy don't sound very decisive on getting us out of Iraq either.  He isn't saying anything about a 100 years but he's saying plenty about however long it takes and no set withdrawal date now.

    [ Parent ]
    We need people who will (5.00 / 5) (#82)
    by joanneleon on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 10:18:31 AM EST
    not be afraid to stand up for what's true and what's right, even if it's unpopular.  We need people who are willing to resign and burn bridges while defending the people and the Constitution.  We need that now more than ever.  There's a real risk of dems who will be drunk with power and holding the (newly turbo) unitary executive keys if we win the presidency in 2008.  They won't want to risk getting on the wrong side of those in power and getting thrown under the bus during a time of unprecedented power and influence, and while dealing with a "movement" that is ruthless.

    If you can find me some Republicans who have demonstrated this type of courage and integrity, I'd be willing to consider them.

    But I haven't seen that during the Bush/Cheney administration.  I haven't seen it in years.

    [ Parent ]

    Nothing at all, if you pick carefully (none / 0) (#195)
    by Baal on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 11:49:08 AM EST
    William Cohen, R, Clinton's Sec Defence

    [ Parent ]
    withdrawing troops (none / 0) (#61)
    by lucy on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 10:04:54 AM EST
    I have a son in the Army who has spent 15 months in Iraq and will go back in Jan. 2009, a nephew in the Army who will deploy sometime this year, and a volunteer with an organization that serves millitary personnel giving me the opportunity to interact with lots of soldiers, marines, sailors, and airmen.

    I am aware that my small sample does not speak for soldiers overall, but in my experience most of these people are OK with deploying.  After all, they did enlist knowing they would deploy.  My son says that he joined the Army to be a soldier.  He is a warrior at heart and he joins with full knowledge of what that would mean in his life.

    Again, in my experience, it is not deployment by itself that soldiers don't like, it is repeated deployments without enough time to rest and recover between them, lack of equipment, poor training, poorly planned missions, and lack of services when they return.

    I'm not defending McCain, but speaking for soldiers only, I think many of them are OK with deploying.  They are soldiers, and fighting in wars is what they do.

    [ Parent ]

    My husband's (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by indy in sc on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 10:30:44 AM EST
    family is very heavily in the military and I understand what you are saying. His brother is air force (just retired last year) and he was itching to be sent to Afghanistan (medical issues kept the AF from sending him). He wanted so badly to be out there with his "brothers and sisters" for the cause. His enthusiasm for Iraq was far less (though he would have liked to go there also). I think that while people in the miltary are not opposed to deployments, I think their morale is lower when they disagree with the war (in addition to the other things you mention like lack of equipment, etc). Disagreement with the war is something they are not really allowed to express and I think that adds to it as well.

    [ Parent ]
    The younger soldiers seem to be more okay (5.00 / 3) (#213)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 12:03:01 PM EST
    with a deployment to Iraq.  Many of them now signed up knowing Iraq was on the menu.  I do know older soldiers though who told their command that if they got another Iraq deployment they'd rather go to jail.  To avoid creating a "scene" those soldiers are sidelined some place right now because we are too short handed to do anything else about it.  I also know a lot of soldiers like my husband who go because if they don't do their duty it'll just get handed to someone else and that doesn't sit well with their conscience.  The younger soldiers though don't seem to mind an Iraq deployment until they get past two and then I have a hard time finding anyone wanting to go back again from there.

    [ Parent ]
    I never fell for Obama's rhetoric . (5.00 / 6) (#8)
    by Saul on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 09:22:09 AM EST
    I knew that behind the Obama facade of I am different and I will change the politics of Washington there was a regular run of the mil politician.  However, he did manage to fool plenty of voters on who he really is.

    Is there any more hackneyed promise than this ... (5.00 / 6) (#51)
    by Ellie on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 09:59:56 AM EST
    change the politics of Washington when declared from the stump?

    It would be great to see after the fact that someone really did change things but ahead of time it's like giving oneself a kewl nickname and nagging acquaintances to use it.  

    [ Parent ]

    Yep, it was just a gimmick to get votes thats all. (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by Saul on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 10:03:53 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    It worked largely with (5.00 / 3) (#71)
    by Valhalla on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 10:09:08 AM EST
    those who haven't been around long enough to realize how hackneyed it is.

    [ Parent ]
    Short Term Memories (4.42 / 7) (#87)
    by mmc9431 on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 10:26:33 AM EST
    Obama's campaign of change, God and Unity are a carbon copy of Bush in 1999. After the disasters that Bush has created, I would think everyone would run and hide from anyone who tried to ride that pony again. Just goes to show you can full most of the people most of the time.

    [ Parent ]
    It's (5.00 / 2) (#175)
    by Claw on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 11:36:43 AM EST
    Actually more like Bill's 1992 campaign.  Bush's campaign was based on the stunningly ridiculous idea that he was just a reglar joe and Gore was a intellecul feller who you couldn't sit down and have a beer with.  Two of the three people we're talking about can put together a sentence.  One of the three actually stole an election.  I'm not too worried about Obama becoming Bush.  

    [ Parent ]
    Especially for someone who doesn't know (5.00 / 2) (#174)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 11:36:36 AM EST
    enough about how it works. Does he find it too confusing in his newbie state?

    Actually, I saw the opening dialog McCain gave to a townhall late this week. McCain says he has never added an earmark to a bill. I'm trusting that to be true because it can be checked too easily.

    Obama has earmarks on his record, and some to people he's wishing we didn't know he knew.

    [ Parent ]

    Those Pesky Little Details... (5.00 / 4) (#13)
    by Silhouette on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 09:26:47 AM EST
    Weird too, where ALL THAT MONEY is coming from for Obama...you know..with the majority of his supporters being under 30 and struggling, ostensibly..  Strangely, look for the money to drop off shortly just after he is officially nominated in August.

    "..the first rule in politics is you win before you can transform..."~Big Tent Democrat

    Yes.  You do have to make it past the armed guards before you can redecorate the Oval Office.  Look for a radical change in how the media handles him (like they did Hillary) just after he is officially our nominee.

    Obama cannot win IMO (and the actual backroom opinion of the GOP/Media too) and it's just sad to see superdelegates get all hopeful over a three-legged horse for the race.  That missing leg?  Experience in time of war.  Watch them exploit that more than any of the thousand angles they'll attack from come Sept. 1st.  

    Here are some of those "pesky details" (5.00 / 5) (#92)
    by FlaDemFem on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 10:31:56 AM EST
    this website shows the bundlers, mostly corporate, that contributed to Obama's campaign. Here are a couple of indications..

    Total Raised: $264,492,301

    Bundlers: 358

    Lobbyist Bundlers: 14

    If you look, you will see that many of them come from lobbyists, or their spouses. So much for the "little people" funding his campaign. So much for the "new politics". Same old, same old.

    [ Parent ]

    And there will be more (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by dianem on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 11:29:30 AM EST
    Has anybody else noticed the lack of news releases about how Obama is getting most of his money in small donations? Ever since he took the lead, the big money donors came out in force. They aren't promoting an ideal, they are getting access to the machine.

    [ Parent ]
    And since the DNC is moving (5.00 / 4) (#201)
    by FlaDemFem on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 11:53:39 AM EST
    to Chicago, they will BE the machine and control the machine. Although, I read somewhere that in Chicago it's called the "Chicago Combine". Which is appropriate, since from what I can see from Obama's unity rhetoric and his pandering to the right, he wants the Dems and the Repubs to unite into one party..under him. Partisan unity at it's finest...Heh.

    [ Parent ]
    Agree with BTD (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by 1jane on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 09:32:09 AM EST
    With the launch of 3,600 Obama "Fellows" into 17 targeted states next week, the on the ground campaign (where it really matters) is back. Each of the Fellows are taking 6 weeks away from their professions to campaign. They are in training now and report to their posts on Monday or Tuesday. Our county will welcome 10 Fellows who are working out of the county Democratic offices as are most Fellows in the 17 targeted states where they are assigned. In addition Obama offices will reopen in my state the first week of July.

    I see the Debate's as a McCain campaign ploy, one of the oldest and tiredest attempts to place an empty chair on the stage. I hope the Obama campaign agrees to less than 5 debates. McCain risks major embarrassment in the debate format.

    nice to see (5.00 / 9) (#23)
    by frankly0 on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 09:37:54 AM EST
    you defending Obama's cowardice on the debates.

    Not a big fan of openness in a President, are you? Can't have a candidate actually answer questions if he can avoid it, I guess, is your view.

    But if your candidate is a gaffe-amatic, I can see why you'd be defending cowardice.

    [ Parent ]

    BTW, when was the last (5.00 / 8) (#28)
    by frankly0 on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 09:42:09 AM EST
    time that we had a Democratic candidate running for President who actively sought to reduce the number of debates?

    So far as I can remember, Obama's cowardice is unique in the annals of Presidential history.

    [ Parent ]

    Reminds me of Bush (5.00 / 4) (#37)
    by stillife on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 09:47:30 AM EST
    Maybe his handlers could conceal a Wi-Fi device under his suit, a la Bush 2004.

    [ Parent ]
    The last time a Democrat was clearly in the lead (5.00 / 4) (#64)
    by Molly Bloom on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 10:06:11 AM EST
    As a rule front runners don't want to debate, those behind do.

    [ Parent ]
    Here's the thing (5.00 / 5) (#98)
    by joanneleon on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 10:38:32 AM EST
    that makes this situation different:  How many times have you heard an Obama surrogate or a media pundit talk about how people just haven't gotten to know Obama enough yet?  They talk about how we just need to know more about him.

    The best way to get to know him is to see him actually engaging in dialog with his opponent and with other people.  A gazillion campaign commercials and big rallies don't help us get to know him.  

    For awhile I was watching the rallies and it quickly became clear that he was saying the same thing over and over, using the same phrases and jokes, etc.  Then we were deluged with campaign commercials here during the weeks preceding the PA primary.  They played the same exact commercial over and over, for weeks!  The same damn ad.  They spent millions in one of the most expensive media markets airing the same campaign ad for weeks.  Think about that.

    This isn't the way to get to know a candidate.  It's the way to shove a candidate down people's throats.  

    Honest debate is the way to do it.  Let's find out what he's really all about, warts and all.  Let's find out what he really wants to do.  Let's be able to compare and contrast.  He's got to do debates, one on one.  He can't keep talking about how he's done dozens of debates, because the reality is that most of them were with a whole slate of candidates and didn't require much from him.  

    He looked really bad when he refused to debate further with Hillary and now is doing the same with McCain.  This week he refused to