As for governing, I don't think that an Obama admin will have the luxury, one that Clinton had in the 90s, of achieving mere incremental change.  Not with the solid Dem majority O is likely to have in 2009, not with the major problems pressing on this country today, very unlike the mere mid-level problems facing the country back in 92.

Much will be expected of Obama and the Dem Congress, and tepid half-measures in legislation and milquetoast moderate appointments won't be acceptable for long with an impatient party and populace.  

Make no mistake about it: he is only using the Democratic Party as stepping stool on the way up, just as he's used Chicago activist community, Jeremiah Wright's church, and everyone else he's been associated with. Once in office, he'll discard the Democrats, the Kossacks, the TPMers and, yes, the TalkLefters just as he's discarded everyone else.

After the social tumult of the '60s capitalism usurped resistance itself, turning attempts at subversion into commodities.

My problem with Obama is that I believe he is a charlatan.

A silver-tongued gifted orator, that came forward espousing how much of 'a different kind of politician' he was... turning a page from the old politics.  But as the campaign unfolded, with Rezko/Wright/Ayers/No-Pac money pledge/Hopefund/Exelon/FISA,etc. I find EXACTLY the same kind of politician... and lots of 'Old Politics' as usual.

Again, to me only, I began to develop a problem, whereby every time I hear him speak - I think he's going to sell me something I don't want to buy.... and then he's going to sell me down the river too.

Right now, to me, they are about 2 inches apart in policy.  Remember, McCain was the first "Maverick", and if Obama thinks he is going to gain ground on taking a centrist tack on that level, he's got another thing coming.  The media crowned McCain the more independent/moderate thinker.

Obama is liberal in Hyde Park and in his safe enclaves.  But in front of a larger group, he ain't no progressive.  Thanks Jeralyn for pointing out the obvious but your observations solidify my gravitation towards the Greens.  If the Dems cannot put forth someone who knows who to take "safe" paths towards elected office without abandoning Dem ideals, the party is dead.  FDR is our standard bearer...wonder else who came close?  

And I think liberals, progressives and even centrists are going to learn this more and more in the days and weeks ahead.

I'm reminded of a quote from CITIZEN KANE:

I suppose he had a private sort of greatness, but he kept it to himself.

He strikes me as decidedly non-ideological myself.  I see his liberalism, to the extent there is a record of it, as having been driven more by the reality of being a black politician in inner city Chicago than anything else.  You aren't going to get ahead there as a conservative.  I think he's far more of a pragmatist than either Clinton could ever dream of.  For them, pragmatism is an approach.  I suspect for Obama it is a belief system.

So where does that leave us?  Well being a pragmatist with a D attached at the end of his name means he'll have to make the center-left his starting point for compromise rather than center-right.  So I suspect we'll get center-left judges rather than center-right etc.  But I'd fully expect him to be unabashed about compromising away liberal positions when convenient to his own power or idiosyncratic viewpoints.  School vouchers for instance or faith-based initiatives for another.

And one other thing that I believe about Obama is that he is a company man through and through.  Money grants power after all.  So I expect regulation and reform to be as dirty a word as a Dem can passably make it under Obama.

All the above, if true, is disappointing, but still much better than McCain policy-wise.  I'll readily grant that.  Getting the half loaf rather than none is typically preferable.  But then again not always.  Are there considerations that trump policy, even in admittedly desperate times like these?

• Protesting the corruption of the process and the rot in the party itself, that many see.
  
• Not trusting that the man has any empathy or respect for who you are and what you need from your government, which many don't.
  
• Refusing to validate the "Obama Movement," which many find appalling.
  
• Not trusting the man's character or qualifications, which many don't.
  
• Refusing to reward dirty tactics like race-baiting your fellow good Dems and unabashedly profiting off sexism, which many believe went beyond the pale of decency even for politics.  
  
• Expressing disappointment that your preferred candidate, and very nearly the first woman POTUS, got screwed, which many can't forget.

"We do have a comfort zone with Obama though, small as it is: Health care, social security. And I think the judges he will appoint, both to the Supreme Court and our federal courts, will be far better and less right-wing than those McCain would appoint."

There is no evidence to suggest that health care, Social Security or judicial appointments are in safe hands with Obama. Quite the contrary.

It was Obama who was unable to consider the ramifications of the Roberts nomination and was only dissauded when he was told there would be political damage.  He was never able to consider the effect such a choice would have had on the nation.

I see no evidence that Obama would advance a truly helpful health care program. His policy during the primaries advanced a voluntary system that would have no effect on lowering rates, etc.  There will still be millions without coverage and insurance rates will remain high.

I can't see how anyone could trust Obama regarding Social Security.  It was the Obama economics team that was staffed with privatizers. There's real reason to fear an Obama Presidency concerning Social Security. My feeling after the Social Security war of 2005 is that the Democrats only came together to oppose Bush, to keep Bush's feet firmly planted on the third rail.  Left to themselves, I have little faith that the current crop of Democrats in Congress, especially the Senate, would offer resistence if a Democratic President proposed a privatization scheme or reduction of benefits or other scheme that would reduce the efficacy of Social Security.  When Obama brought Social Security into the primaries he did so unecessesarily.  That in itself was and is frightening.

Insofar as McCain is concerned I would expect a Democratic Congress to resist any tampering with Social Security for the same reasons that they fought Bush.  The Senate could force McCain into more moderate justices. That would require a bit of spine but it's certainly doable. I would expect Obama to appoint justices that Republicans approved just to give the impression of bi-partisan cooperation.

Regarding health care the Congress would have an opportunity create a new third rail.

Obama has demonstrated nothing to inspire any level of comfort on any issue.

Why is this? Gee, can we possibly figure this one out? Running for president is an enormous waste of time unless you actually win. You cannot possibly win by being the shining noble leader out on the edge of an ideological movement. The great inertial force of "the people" will not vote for that. Even in the depths of the Depression, FDR could not actually run as any sort of a revolutionary.

Obama is not a liberal? Sorry, I know the risks of being disrespectful to the blog owner, but this is absurd nonsense. Obama is not Kucinich, but he sure as hell is every bit as liberal, if not significantly moreso than this site's formerly favorite candidate. Check out any and all polling of the American people to see what their perception is, of where each of the candidates stand on the spectrum.

Yes he is emphasizing his more moderate views in order to connect with those voters who he needs in order to win the election. Isnt it ironic that the same people who drone on constantly about how weak a candidate he is, are the same ones who criticize him for doing what is necessary to win.

The goals of a corporation are not necessarily the same as the goals of the country. A corporation seeks to maximize profit or to maximize shareholder value. On the other hand a nation has other goals such as national security and over all growth of the economy.

Let's consider the Green River and Bekkan Valley oil shale deposits. Together this deposit could amount to over one trillion barrels of oil. Estimates of the production costs of extracting this oil range from $30 to $70 per barrel. With oil now at $140 per barrel it makes sense to begin drilling now. A USA NOC (national oil company) could have the following goals: 1) improve national security by reducing our dependence on foreign oil 2) vastly increasing supply even if it means losing money on the margin. For instance if the ultimate cost to extract the oil were even $150 per barrel, the benefits to our national security and the benefits to the over all US economy and the American consumer might make it still a reasonable decision to drill.

A private company would certainly not drill if the production costs exceeded the current price of oil. Also a private company would sell the oil to China if China would pay a higher price.

Of course there are reasons to prefer a private company. They have the knowledge and the experience and the efficiency to do the job. What would prevent the NOC from using the big oil companies? Nothing! The NOC could make arrangements with the oil companies that would benefit both parties.

I am NOT suggesting that this proposed USA NOC would or should nationalize the assets of Exxon or any other big oil company.

Drilling in the Green River and Bekkan is only a small part of a comprehensive energy approach that will need to include nuclear energy as well as conservation from hybrid electric and fuel cell cars. Obviously alternative and renewables will also be a part of the mix. A NOC could also be more environmentally friendly that a big oil company.

I heard E.J.Dionne say this several months ago while on the Tim Russert show. (the show that Russert had on Saturday nights, not MTP). When I heard this, some more red flags went up for me.

Then, he played the race card on Bill Clinton's characterization of Obama's anti Iraq war position as "fairy tale" to solidify the black vote behind him.

After he had the black vote behind him, he stood the NAACP meeting in New Orleans so as not to be seen as just another black candidate in order to win the white vote.

Then, we started to hear his shift in his foreign policy positions toward the center. The centrists in the democratic party easily forget what Obama stood for just the day before and the left and anti-war activists are too deft to hear Obama's move toward the center. And the blacks can't get past the color of their skin to see that Hillary has a 96% rating by the NAACP, better than any other on the Hill including Obama.

Now that he's the Dem nominee, he's beginning to sound more like a GOP candidate.