home

What Now?

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Blog Related
Posted on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:39:37 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

In an act of supreme self absorption, I will and, for myself only, not for Talk Left, answer the following question:

BTD, at what point does TL revert to a "party-line" blog? I'm going to be a refusnik when it comes to Obama, and I know that will become unacceptable here at some point (i.e. advocating sitting out November.)

I have always been a "party-line" blogger in that I have made it perfectly clear that I am a Party-line Democrat and there was never any chance that you would hear the "refusenik" perspective from me. You will not now. But you are welcome to reasonably argue the refusenik perspective, if you do so with respect, for fellow commenters and for the facts.

For me the choice of Barack Obama over John McCain is an easy one. Barack Obama's positions on virtually every issue are precisely mine. John McCain's positions on virtually every issue are precisely opposite to mine. This is a no brainer to me.

I have ALWAYS disagreed with Barack Obama's political style, his Unity Schtick. I have always advocated for Politics of Contrast/Fighting Dems. In some ways that is now a moot point because Barack Obama has been denied the Unity Schtick by the events of the campaign. He is now a Contrast Candidate in rhetoric.

What will my coverage of the election be like? Frankly, the same as before, with one major exception - after Saturday, Hillary Clinton SHOULD no longer be the subject of the most biased Media and blog election coverage I have ever seen. Many people have much to be ashamed of in what they have done in this campaign season. There may be something about that in the near future. Perhaps at another venue.

But I will cover this race as I have always, by providing my honest opinions about political tactics, strategy and events. I am no cheerleader. If I was writing for the front page of a big Democratic activist blog like Daily Kos, I would feel some obligation to be a cheerleader. I have played that role in the past - papering over problems or negatives.

But I am at Talk Left now and, thanks to the generousness of Jeralyn, I have been allowed to write what I think to an audience that mostly enjoys to talk politics and issues.

I became a horserace blogger in 2008 (I like to think that in 2007 I was an issues blogger mostly) and I expect to remain one through the General Election. So to answer the question, what now? More of the same from me at least.

< Hillary Clinton's Message On Endorsement of Obama | Khalid Sheikh Mohammed Arraignment at Gitmo Today >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    What Now? | 233 comments (233 topical)
    More of the Same? (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Molly Bloom on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:41:57 AM EST
    Oh No!!!

    Oh you mean more blogging same, not John "More of the Same" McCain.

    Whew!

    "Once in a while you get shown the light In the strangest of places if you look at it right"

    If you continue (5.00 / 13) (#2)
    by pie on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:45:27 AM EST
    to provide an honest assessment and not do what other bloggers will do - papering over problems or negatives - you will be doing a great favor to all of us.  I think people have to be prepared for everything and anything in November.

    I'm looking forward to your posts.

    Thank you.  And obviously, thank you to Jeralyn, too.

    This is where BTD (5.00 / 8) (#33)
    by madamab on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:07:34 AM EST
    has been outstanding.

    He has grasped that you can support a candidate without elevating him/her to Messiah status. Indeed, a candidate who listens to constructive criticism can only grow stronger.

    Too bad so many of the Obama cult bloggers never understood these things.

    But then, 12-year-olds are often lacking in maturity. ;-)

    [ Parent ]

    Very well put--and it is so refreshing. (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by jawbone on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:13:30 AM EST
    Of course, for the True Believers it made BTD anathema.

    But, reason and fact-based discussion are really interesting.

    [ Parent ]

    Plus he doesn't care (5.00 / 5) (#62)
    by madamab on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:20:10 AM EST
    if we disagree with him as long as we're respectful.

    That's the mark of a person with integrity.

    [ Parent ]

    Yes (5.00 / 3) (#206)
    by rnibs on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 10:28:19 AM EST
    this is the best, level-headed there is.  I only discovered it recently after all of the other blogs seemed to be taken over.  I will continue to read this a my top choice from now on.  Just probably won't post because unfortunately I fall into the refusenik category and won't really have anything worth saying that everyone else isn't already saying.  The honesty and level-headedness here, plus the basic respect is the last best hope of political discourse.  Bravo to Jeralyn and BTD.

    [ Parent ]
    Agree (5.00 / 4) (#145)
    by Athena on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 10:01:18 AM EST
    Yes, BTD, props for being a rational advocate rather than a fanatic.  And not needing blind ratification of your ideas.

    A number of us "graduated" from DK and went on to higher learning - here and elsewhere.

    [ Parent ]

    If all the Oborg was reason-based like you, BTD (5.00 / 4) (#188)
    by dotcommodity on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 10:19:15 AM EST
    the Party would not be splitting asunder. Obama would have been just another candidate choice.

    We would only be sad to lose, but instead of the race being ONE GIANT EVIL SPAWN OF SATAN aginst his 18 million thugs suppressing our voices, it would have been:

    what an exciting close race! who will win! hairsbreadth over the finish line! two great historic candidates! we are so lucky!

    YIPPEE! Now on to defeat McCain together...

    Sadly though, from the DNC hiring progressive media hacks like Ed Schultz to trashtalk her, to all the rest of the outrageous Republican dittohead campaign, culminating in the outright theft on Saturday May 31 2008, we are so far beyond mere sadness. But you BTD and Jerelyn, but mainly you, BTD are therapeutic because you alone do not practice those Oborg tactics to suppress our side of the Party.

    As I wrote at the Confluence this morning, and want to say to everyone suffering, here too:

    I wanted to say this morning, thanks to everyone for being some comfort.

    One of the hardest things about this stolen election is being unable to commiserate with our nearest and dearest, because just as there are18 million of us - I admit, (unlike them: who think there is only that one evil Hillary herself opposing the virtuous grass root millions!) there are also 18 million of them.
    And some of us, like me, are married to them. My own dear hubby is a 10 min lurker at dailykos/TPM, then its on to reading newspapers in Thai - a typical low info ( which = low interest in truth) voter.

    So of course he is an Obamatron...I can't even discuss it any more with him. One day I blew up after being subject to the DNC sponsored Hillarybashing by Ed Schultz, and we got into a real fight about it, and I realised he just does not want to know or believe what he considers tinfoily conspiracy theories on my part.

    In 35 years of marriage we have NEVER been on different sides politically: pro Carter, anti Reagan, anti poppa Bush, pro Clinton, pro Gore, pro Dean, tepid Kerry, violently anti Bu$hCheneyRove...then I was drafting Gore (he didn't care) then pro Edwards, but after Edwards flunked debate skills 101 - I switched, he switched only when Edwards dropped..........................

    But since the internet, since the Bush years, I have spent far more time researching a whole bunch of eco political stuff than he has, and we have developed a huge info gap. (My Thai writing skills are zero, too :-))

    For instance, today there is a 600 comment diary at dailykos lieing about her not winning pop vote. Not true. There are 6 different counts for the pop vote, 3 in Hills favour, 3 in Obamas. With/without 4 caucuses, with/without MI.

    My hubby is the kind of person that that diary influences: he sees the lie, doesn't have time/journalistic interest to go read for himself the data on the truth, so swallows lie whole, ingests, moves along...da dum..

    It is sad that we Democrats could be so easily lead astray, just like ditttoheads. This is so tragic. Its the end.

    I do think it is a terrible mistake for us to vote McCain.

    Once Obama loses the electoralvotes as he will in November, I want us PUMAS to repair the Democratic Party from inside. I want her to run in 2012, if the Supers don't grow brains by August. Sadly I think they are as low info as my husband. (Look at Carter thinking she has unfavorables/he doesn't... ;)

    I want to bring back the fairness and honesty wing of the Democratic Party. I don't want to leave and become a stupid Independent like Huffnpuff. I stand for something. It is part of the Party platform. Hillary wants to bring back the Fairness Doctrine. Boxer too, Slaughter diaried on it at dailykos.

    So, I am really suffering. I can't condone or allow theft or lies. But I can't stop it. I feel we are so alone.

    When Bush had the election stolen, I was part of a huge movement, and my family and my friends were there for me. My husband does not even KNOW what happened on Saturday. This is so difficult. I am in so much pain...

    September 28th 2007 we lost 500 years of democracy. But what the DNC did to my mental health on May 31st 2008 was really the final straw.



    [ Parent ]
    when do you turn (1.00 / 3) (#207)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 10:28:27 AM EST
    13?

    [ Parent ]
    ditto (5.00 / 5) (#54)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:15:20 AM EST
    all respect and admiration

    [ Parent ]
    Thank you BTD... (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by madamab on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:47:30 AM EST
    I find this interesting.

    I have ALWAYS disagreed with Barack Obama's political style, his Unity Schtick. I have always advocated for Politics of Contrast/Fighting Dems. In some ways that is now a moot point because Barack Obama has been denied the Unity Schtick by the events of the campaign. He is now a Contrast Candidate in rhetoric.

    You think Obama's rhetoric is that of contrast? I think McCain is taking that away from him now. Did you hear McCain's snore-inducing maunderings on Tuesday? Change, hope, believe, new technologies, blah blah blah. It sounded just like Obama.

    Also...I am fairly certain Obama will pick a Republican for VP. The Democrats really seem to think that running as Republican Lite will get you the Presidency, so this is a logical step.

    By contrast (5.00 / 15) (#11)
    by Steve M on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:54:14 AM EST
    what is meant is "Democratic ideas are right, Republican ideas are wrong."

    It may seem self-evident, but for the majority of this campaign, that simply wasn't Obama's message!

    [ Parent ]

    Exactly (5.00 / 5) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:58:06 AM EST
    But now his message is all I am right, McCain is wrong.

    Which is precisely the Politics of Contrast.

    [ Parent ]

    exactly (5.00 / 12) (#27)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:02:36 AM EST
    "I" am right.  not my party. not democratic values.
    "I" am right. "I" was anointed. "I" am here to save the country from itself.

    [ Parent ]
    Can I get an Amen? (5.00 / 14) (#55)
    by madamab on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:15:30 AM EST
    From Obama supporter Barbara Ehrenreich:

    So yes, there's a powerful emotional component to Obama-mania, and not just because he's a far more inspiring speaker than his rival. We, perhaps white people especially, look to him for atonement and redemption. All of us, of whatever race, want a fresh start. That's what "change" means right now: Get us out of here!
    [emphasis added]

    I threw up a little in my mouth when I read that.

    IAAO - It's All About Obama.

    [ Parent ]

    Heh (5.00 / 7) (#66)
    by Steve M on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:24:09 AM EST
    When I start talking about the cathartic nature of Obama's candidacy people usually call me names.  Of course, during the primary we saw that not only can individuals prove they're not racist by voting for Obama, so can entire states!  But woe unto those sad, racist places like Kentucky and West Virginia.

    I have white colleagues who used to talk about how much they like Obama, in the exact same loud and proud tone of voice they talk about liking Chris Rock.  The funny thing is, as soon as the scary black preacher came along they scurried away.

    Of course, none of this is truly funny, it's actually quite tragic.

    [ Parent ]

    ...and that, folks, is why so many (5.00 / 3) (#68)
    by zfran on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:25:15 AM EST
    are voting the Sen. Obama!!! What a way to run a country!!!

    [ Parent ]
    Oh, gah! (5.00 / 4) (#87)
    by pie on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:42:15 AM EST
    What nonense.  What's sad is that we may see a bigger racial divide before this is over.

    Take off the darn rose-colored glasses!  She of all people has seen firsthand what's going on in this country.  Now she pretends otherwise?

    [ Parent ]

    right (5.00 / 7) (#134)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:57:16 AM EST
    I believe this campaign will set race relations back 30 years.
    honestly I am a little worried about what could happen if (when) he loses.


    [ Parent ]
    Classic (5.00 / 4) (#156)
    by stillife on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 10:05:09 AM EST
    Just the kind of statement that makes me ashamed to be a liberal.  At least I thought I was a liberal until this election season.

    That sort of fuzzy logic brings to mind one of my husband's favorite sayings: "pointy-headed intellectuals who can't drive their bicycles straight."  I think it might be a quote from George Wallace (ugh) but my husband, who is a very liberal Brit of working-class origins (and who, unlike me, actually likes Obama) uses it to describe a certain type of neighbor we have here in Brownstone Brooklyn who lacks blue-collar skills and common sense.

    [ Parent ]

    race and gender are red meat distractions for Dems (5.00 / 2) (#226)
    by dotcommodity on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 10:39:23 AM EST
    just like guns and God for Republicans.

    Haven't we lived through 8 years of fascism?!!???! This focus on non policy issues is a ruse to continue the spending-free YOYO policy instead of rebuilding.

    [ Parent ]

    But is he a fighting Dem? (5.00 / 3) (#86)
    by lilburro on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:41:56 AM EST
    I think his speech on Tuesday swung in a more traditional direction - he embraced Bill Clinton's prosperity/balanced budget.  It was the most clearly positive thing he has said about Bill Clinton that I've ever heard.

    Maybe he'll become a fighting Dem by default, but I would think being a fighting Dem involves more that that?

    [ Parent ]

    you mean is the (5.00 / 3) (#194)
    by Andy08 on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 10:22:18 AM EST
    first time he did not trash the Clinton Adm.

    [ Parent ]
    I Believe He Will Move Even Further (5.00 / 6) (#196)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 10:24:43 AM EST
    right during the GE. His campaign just yesterday stressed the importance of attracting independents and Republicans over courting the Clinton supporters.

    During the entire primary season, Obama has run on the Obama brand rather than the Democratic brand. I believe that will continue doing so during the GE.

    [ Parent ]

    His AIPAC (5.00 / 1) (#215)
    by Andy08 on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 10:30:18 AM EST
    speech flip floping on Iran 180 degrees said it all. Time to play
    cowboy now.   I am glad he said it (I was appalled by his previous position) but I don't believe him now.

    [ Parent ]
    His AIPAC (none / 0) (#211)
    by Andy08 on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 10:29:14 AM EST
    speech flip floping on Iran 180 degrees said it all. Time to play
    cowboy now.

    [ Parent ]
    could do oppo on McCain (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by Salo on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:50:00 AM EST
    and speculate about his VP picks.

    Romney, (Dick Morris suggests) Lieberman, Crist, Sanford.

    What would each do demographically and should Obama attempt to anticipate the various Mccain VP permutations?

    [ Parent ]

    Unfortunatley, there are a whole slew (5.00 / 1) (#224)
    by Radix on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 10:38:01 AM EST
    of Indies and Republicans that aren't going to except, on mere faith, that Obama is right. He better figure that out quick. And no, repeating over and over again, he was write about the war wont get it done, it just becomes boring.

    Because there are no facts, there is no truth
    Just data to be manipulated.

    Don Henley-The Garden of Allah

    [ Parent ]

    I know! (5.00 / 7) (#20)
    by madamab on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:59:43 AM EST
    And I don't believe it will be his message going forward.

    It should be, of course.

    Obama has repeatedly proclaimed that he doesn't care about Clinton Dems and that he will win with his nomination coalition, including Independents and Republicans. He has said that he is going after Indies and Republicans specifically.

    How will he do that? By saying Republican ideas are wrong?

    [ Parent ]

    the obama campaign.... (5.00 / 11) (#46)
    by p lukasiak on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:13:24 AM EST
    has never been about an appeal to rationality.

    contradictions don't matter to Obama -- and we've just stepped into a whole 'nother "non-reality based community" with the coronation of Obama.  

    So questions like this are besides the point -- you're still stuck in the reality based community...

    personally, I'm staying the reality based community -- I'm just hoping that the community association will vote to make it a gated community, because when all the A-list bloggerboyz realize what they've done, I want to make sure that we're not over-run by fauxgressives who will demand the mantle of leadership based on their "expertise" and "credibility" (aka their gender and Village connections).

    [ Parent ]

    The press have allowed him so (5.00 / 7) (#120)
    by Salo on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:53:52 AM EST
    contradict himself in the space of datys in a way that would have led to anyother pol's extinction.

    So they are in the bag for him.

    However Mccain can come back with media love if he does something like pick Lieberman.  Dick Morris suggested this the other day.  

    Broder would love it. So would Russert.   A demonstration of bipartisanship that Obam acould nopt dare to emulate given the suspicion about him among Clinton voters.

    [ Parent ]

    It was the Mr. Obama Goes to Washington (5.00 / 5) (#37)
    by datadriven on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:09:43 AM EST
    Lots and lots of biography, ambiguity on policy. Before his run for the Presidency we had him stumping for Lieberman against Lamont, criticizing Murtha's timetable before the CFR, and "drowning/saving" Dick Durbin on Guantanamo. During the campaign we had the backstage/frontstage inconsistencies by Powers and Goolsbee. Given the absence of a Huckabee/faithy candidate and the cross-heavy campaign in KY, I assume that some new "Unity" position will emerge from the BHO camp on choice/abortion, school funding, or faith-based childcare.

    [ Parent ]
    I think Lieberman might be McCain's pick (none / 0) (#137)
    by Salo on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:58:09 AM EST
    (Romney would be more map orientated)  On Unity:  Lieberman on his ticket would gain the media love of someone like Broder or Brookes. It would be done to gain media love.

    Obama couldn't possibly choose a GOP congress critter after the acrimony of the primary. So if mccain makes his bid for a bipartisan ticket (however unlikely that really is) he will regain the straight talk glow so far as the Villagers are concerned.  

    [ Parent ]

    I can' see that happening (5.00 / 2) (#197)
    by mmc9431 on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 10:25:36 AM EST
    McCain already has a problem with his base. To add Lieberman would absolutely slam the door for him. I don't doubt he'd give him a cabinet position. I'm hoping after the GE, the dems will have enough votes to strip Lieberman of everything and throw him to the dogs where he belongs. I wouldn't doubt Lieberman knows he's done in November anyway. That might be why he's jumped on McCain's bandwagon.

    [ Parent ]
    Personally I think that the issue of 2007, (5.00 / 4) (#4)
    by andgarden on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:47:32 AM EST
    Iraq, still matters. McCain threw down the gauntlet the other day when he said that Obama refused to fund the troops, so it's clear that he's going to have to attack this head on.

    National Security election. (5.00 / 4) (#5)
    by madamab on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:48:31 AM EST
    That's what it's gonna be.

    [ Parent ]
    I disagree (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by dk on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:52:05 AM EST
    Everyone always says the election will be about national security/foreign policy, and it never really is.  

    McCain will try to paint Obama as a "tax and spend" democrat.  Whether that sticks, and the price of gas in the fall, will pretty much determine the outcome, in my opinion.

    [ Parent ]

    "Some say that Obama is (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by zfran on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:53:53 AM EST
    in the pocket of big oil" If true, don't look for gas to go down anytime soon, only up. Besides, it really isn't the president who determines these things.

    [ Parent ]
    Well, I think it's clear ... (5.00 / 4) (#200)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 10:25:53 AM EST
    Obama is in the pocket of someone.  You don't get the kind of fawning media coverage otherwise.

    That's just a fact.

    [ Parent ]

    Actually (5.00 / 7) (#39)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:10:45 AM EST
    the price of gas is not going to help Obama. He voted for the Cheney energy bill and McCain did not.

    [ Parent ]
    The price of gas will help McCain (5.00 / 3) (#216)
    by RonK Seattle on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 10:30:24 AM EST
    ... thanks to Obama's "anti-pandering" cheapshots at Hillary (which turn out to be empirically wrong-footed as well).

    [ Parent ]
    I agree. (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by RJBOSTON on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:11:25 AM EST
    "Show me the money!" This election is going to be about the economy if it keeps tanking.

    [ Parent ]
    Actually, I think (5.00 / 6) (#153)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 10:04:05 AM EST
    Hillary contributed a really huge element to what this election has the potential of being about. Her genuine caring about the people, the domestic issues, and how this country needs to be strengthened again. It is the economy, again. It is jobs, again.

    Obama makes no decisions based on what the people need. It's all political, and he depends on the experience around him to tell him what to do.

    [ Parent ]

    Yes! (5.00 / 2) (#163)
    by pie on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 10:08:32 AM EST
    Obama makes no decisions based on what the people need. It's all political, and he depends on the experience around him to tell him what to do.

    In other words, Obama has not yet found his voice.

    [ Parent ]

    His voice (5.00 / 2) (#219)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 10:31:27 AM EST
    is something he really isn't even looking for.

    He borrows the voice he needs at the moment, and then he delivers his message like a southern preacher. Since that appears to be working for him, why would he exert himself looking for something he doesn't believe he needs? :)

    [ Parent ]

    Obama has no credibility (5.00 / 5) (#168)
    by madamab on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 10:09:30 AM EST
    on those issues. He does not have a record of standing up for women, children and the working class like Hillary does.

    He thinks he is teh awesome on National Security - he said so himself.

    He's going to walk right into McCain's trap.

    [ Parent ]

    Well, the Republicans (none / 0) (#8)
    by andgarden on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:51:18 AM EST
    won't be able to run it the way the usually do, in my opinion. That just didn't work in 2006, and won't work now.

    [ Parent ]
    Heh! (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by flashman on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:02:06 AM EST
    What else they got?

    [ Parent ]
    They've got Obama's character issues (5.00 / 10) (#169)
    by Cream City on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 10:09:33 AM EST
    since he is running on character, not issues.  And that will be a field day for the Republicans.

    [ Parent ]
    Congress is a different animal (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by madamab on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:03:14 AM EST
    than the Presidency.

    "Genius" KKKarl Rove didn't get that, which is why his "The Math" was wrong in 2006. I predict an amazing year for Democrats in Congress - possibly even a filibuster-proof majority, which would be incredible.

    Plus, the media loves McCain more than anyone. McCain will dictate the memos and the media will parrot the talking points.

    Finally - what if Bush attacks Iran or another terrorist attack happens?

    It's going to be a long summer.

    [ Parent ]

    As for... (5.00 / 5) (#91)
    by NWHiker on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:45:09 AM EST
    As for the other terrorist thing, it doesn't even have to be in the US.

    My "poll size" is only about 150 or so moms, so between the ages of (at this point, heh!) 30 and 50, from skating on the edge to wealthy. Most were Dems prior to 2000, some switched then, having totally bought into the "Gore is a liar" meme, but the major mouvement was in 04, right after Beslan. Women who'd been Dems had been planning on voting for Kerry, despite how "Bush had kept them safe", but when Beslan happened... well, they just didn't trust Kerry. Some of them, after the fiasco that's been Bush's second term, could have come back to Dems (some have totally bought the R Koolaid, going from pro-choice to praying for Bush and the souls of the murdered babies today every night with their children... and they don't mean murdered Iraqi children). We haven't had any major list wide (4 lists) discussions on the primary, but privately I've talked with many of these woman, and most are now planning on supporting McCain. They'd have voted for Clinton, largely in part thanks to Bill's legacy of peace and prosperity, but won't for Obama. As one woman told me "Who the heck is he?" These are, perhaps, the "security moms" and they're very very skittish. (Don't get me started on the nomenclature or the silliness of thinking quite that way). Anyhow, I'll add that I knew 02 (Washingtin sniper and war), and 04 were going to come out the way they did, as well as predicting 06. We'll see about 08. So far it's not looking hopeful. As I said, small sample size, but it's been pretty accurate. After Beslan, in September 04, I figured Kerry was in deep trouble, no matter what the polls said.

    Again, the main issue here is trust in Obama's capability to keep their kids safe from terrorists  or whatever. He has small kids, that'll play in his favour... but I'm not sure it'll be enough to overcome the McCain perception of strength.

    I know part of this is OT, but it highlights, I think, part of Obama's problem: by trying to please everyone, and voting "present" and not making any politically tough votes, he doesn't really have any substance: people have projected onto him what they've wanted (anti-war! liberal!) but when comes time for scrutiny... there is, no far, no "there" there, which will not sit well with my little sample size.

    [ Parent ]

    Well, since I'm not religious, (none / 0) (#35)
    by andgarden on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:08:35 AM EST
    I guess I'm just going to have to have hope. (Yes, that still makes me feel a little ill.)

    BTW, the American people by-and-large disagree with McCain on the issues, including national security. Iraq is the biggest example. Thankfully, Obama voted against funding last year, so he can say that he consistently opposed the Bush policy.

    [ Parent ]

    So? (5.00 / 7) (#49)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:13:33 AM EST
    They disagreed with Bush on the issues too and we all saw how that worked out. Obama's disrespecting of the voters is a huge problem.

    [ Parent ]
    So Bush barely won both times (none / 0) (#57)
    by andgarden on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:15:39 AM EST
    I think Obama can pull it off in a Democratic year like this, just.

    I will certainly be disappointed if he doesn't.

    [ Parent ]

    Yes (5.00 / 8) (#61)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:19:48 AM EST
    but you have to take into account that Obama is a worse candidate than either Gore or Kerry and that McCain is a better candidate than Bush.

    [ Parent ]
    Gotta disagree about O's (5.00 / 4) (#71)
    by brodie on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:27:49 AM EST
    ability as a candidate.  Granted, he got enormous cover from the MSM which also helped by attacking his main opponent.  

    But in the end he did run a smarter and more disciplined campaign than my experienced and smart candidate did.  Gotta give him that.  No huge blunders (like hiring a Mark Penn) and a consistent and winning campaign theme of Change, vs HRC's less exciting Experience.

    Right now, I'd definitely give him an edge over Gore or Kerry given the very high quality of his defeated primary opponent.  Gore only had to defeat Bradley (zzzz ....) and Kerry ran against two fairly inexperienced guys (Dean, Edwards) both of whom weren't in Hillary's league as a formidable opponent.

    And we'll see how McCain does as a candidate compared to Junior.  The Frat Boy was able to basically stay on message, about the only thing Rove required him to do.  McC has a tougher task -- threading the needle between seeming not to embrace the unpopular Bush while not offending the R base, plus not exploding in anger on the hustings as his reputation in the senate suggests he will at some point.

    [ Parent ]

    Actually (5.00 / 11) (#76)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:32:21 AM EST
    I see his primary campaign as a prelude to the general election. I think his primary campaign, while enough to win the nomination, has been extremely damaging to his chances in Nov. Ratcheting up Clinton hatred isn't going to win it in Nov for him. Heck, he had to be pushed over the finish line by the Dem establishment. Do you think that's a positive? I don't.

    Gore and Kerry had a united party behind them. Obama does not.

    [ Parent ]

    Sorry. If we hadn't had the (5.00 / 9) (#94)
    by pie on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:46:07 AM EST
    effed up situation with Michigan and Florida, Hillary would be the candidate right now.

    I'm convinced it changed the course of the whole race - not Obama's supposed smart campaign or hers.

    [ Parent ]

    I absolutely agree that the FL and MI stuff (5.00 / 9) (#147)
    by Angel on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 10:01:29 AM EST
    changed the dymanics of the race.  The DNC was hellbent on denying Hillary the nomination.  As was the media.  They should be ashamed of themselves, but as we have learned, they have no shame.  This process was a travesty on so many levels it is hard to even know where to begin the discussion.  But the thing that will stay with me forever is the way that Hillary Clinton was treated.  She was vilified and crucified on a daily basis.  And all because she is a strong woman and her last name is Clinton.  I will say it again, if Barak Obama were a woman or a white male he would have never been given the opportunity to have the nomination because of his thin resume.  That is the truth.

    [ Parent ]
    But.. (5.00 / 7) (#123)
    by NWHiker on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:54:20 AM EST
    Right now, I'd definitely give him an edge over Gore or Kerry given the very high quality of his defeated primary opponent.

    But he wasn't able to win against his opponent by any of the major indicators, he only won because of disenfranchisement and the party pretty much selecting him. He will not have that advantage in November. Close enough is not good enough.

    [ Parent ]

    Gore and Kerry (5.00 / 5) (#154)
    by madamab on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 10:04:25 AM EST
    had a lot more substance and experience than Obama. They had a longer record to back up their claims of what they would do as President. And, both had been to Vietnam.

    The Republicans still destroyed both men.

    Obama is going to be a cakewalk for them. Rezko? Wright? Ayers? His wife, Michelle?

    [ Parent ]

    Indeed (5.00 / 5) (#166)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 10:09:13 AM EST
    And, there are probably some we have yet to hear about.

    The Republicans claim they have had a team of researchers in Chicago who emerged with a huge list of things worthy of attack.

    I wish they would just start releasing.

    Obama's ongoing fear of debating is going to go against him.

    [ Parent ]

    "The Repubs still destroyed both (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by brodie on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 10:20:25 AM EST
    Gore and Kerry".  

    Yep, and it's pretty easy to do when both men decided to sit back and let it happen.

    Neither turned out to be a fighter, though both talked loudly and often about Fighting For Us.  Right.

    Neither too had the sort of keen political instincts, and self-confidence to go with those instincts, that other successful Dems have had (Bill, JFK, FDR) -- instincts, for instance, sufficient to withstand idiot pollsters bogus conclusions about swings, or instincts strong enough to tell a Bob Shrum to forget about the money issue and that he'll have to start responding Right Now to the SwiftBoaters, etc etc.

    Gore listened to Shrum, Brazile, Karenna and Tipper -- all softies or very flawed/incompentent advisors.  Oh don't get me started about 2000 ...

    [ Parent ]

    Hee! (5.00 / 5) (#208)
    by madamab on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 10:28:31 AM EST
    I agree so strongly about the SwiftBoating thing and Gore and Kerry listening to those stupid consultants.

    Yet...Obama has already allowed himself to be defined in my view. He is so young and inexperienced that he hasn't seen it yet.

    But the "Obama Hates America" meme is going to destroy him.

    Sorry to be a downer. I have thought this way since the Wright video came out and it's only gotten worse now IMHO.

    We can agree to disagree of course.

    [ Parent ]

    Indicators schmindicators, (4.00 / 1) (#164)
    by brodie on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 10:08:41 AM EST
    he won by taking just enough votes in primaries and caucii to get him the needed delegate edge and thus the win.  Taking advantage of the situation as he found it, he simply did a better job than HRC's team in cobbling together enough delegates.

    Of course, I've already noted how he was enormously aided in the PR war with the massive assist from the MSM, and it was in that battle that he prevailed with many SDs.  

    This HRC backer has no problem accepting that he won fair and square, using and exploiting to this advantage the MSM's help.

    It might well be tougher in the GE given the media will not be out to tarnish his opponent.  We'll see how that plays out.

    But right now I see him with much more of a sharpened killer instinct than either Gentlemanly Gore or Kautious Kerry.  That's what I want to see in a Dem going up against the dirty knife fighters on the other side.  That's my view of it right now anyway.  

    [ Parent ]

    He ran a great campaign except.... (5.00 / 4) (#205)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 10:28:06 AM EST
    ...for those times when he was under pressure. He didn't perform well in several debates. There were numerous gaffes that would have been highlighted and underlined three times over had they been done by Kerry or Gore or Clinton. While he was under the most scrutiny and pressure, the voters seemed to turn more towards his opponent. Although the media and the party leaders circled around him. So yes I will give him credit for getting those key allies on his side. But if they weren't enough to get him more than a 51% win among Democrats, I worry about the GE.

    [ Parent ]
    Well see (none / 0) (#65)
    by andgarden on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:22:35 AM EST
    I think Obama probably starts with a 5 pt national advantage over Kerry. That should be enough.

    [ Parent ]
    Actually (5.00 / 6) (#72)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:27:59 AM EST
    he is starting BEHIND Kerry. That's why I'm not hopeful for Nov. And that's before the GOP 527's have even started on him.

    [ Parent ]
    Also (5.00 / 9) (#82)
    by stillife on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:39:29 AM EST
    Obama has genuine baggage, whereas Kerry did not.  Repubs won't have to make anything up to swiftboat Obama.  He's a GOP 527 dream come true.  

    [ Parent ]
    right (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:59:22 AM EST
    no time to google but wasnt Kerry about 15 points ahead at this point?

    [ Parent ]
    Kerry ahead of Bush by 15 at (none / 0) (#179)
    by brodie on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 10:14:00 AM EST
    this point?  Maybe, but so what.  Nat'l polls well before Nov are meaningless, let alone those months before the conventions and before the Veeps are picked.

    Far more relevant is what kind of bounce we get coming out of Denver -- in 2004, Kerry got only a negligible bounce, iirc, if any.  Then what our candidate does to follow up on said bounce.  Recall that Dukakis got a huge bounce -- then decided the smart thing to do was remove himself from the campaign trail and go back to Boston to show people how he could competently govern.  Stupid stupid ...

    [ Parent ]

    thanks to pruple heart bandaids (5.00 / 2) (#217)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 10:30:31 AM EST
    you think that won happen this time?

    [ Parent ]
    Very little bounce (5.00 / 1) (#218)
    by cmugirl on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 10:31:23 AM EST
    Repubs convene the very next week, so any bounce will last 4 days.  Obama's speech is the Thursday before Labor Day - people will not be watching TV (and it's also the start of college football on TV).  After the Repubs meet, it's eight weeks until election day and in the meantime, they will get their own bounce.

    [ Parent ]
    I think Obama can pull it off in a Democratic year (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by mmc9431 on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:25:50 AM EST
    Six months ago I was inconceivable that a Repulican could win the WH. Now I'd put the odds in their favor. Unbelievable. Experience and issues seem to have nothing to do with the presidential elections. Just look at GWB. He had neither and won. It's all perception of who is the more likable! A guy you want to have a beer with. Scary isn't it. And by now everyone must know that the MSM has had a lovefest with McCain for years.

    [ Parent ]
    I dont think (5.00 / 8) (#75)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:31:06 AM EST
    the war issue is so cut and dried.
    it is going to be hard to go up against a guy who stuck by what he believed in the face of pretty amazing pressure to change his position.
    he stuck and he won.  I dont think Obamas win is the biggest upset of this election.  I think McCains win was.  a lot of people thought Obama would win even if I did not.  almost no one thought McCain would win.  I would have bet 100 bucks against him without blinking.
    when McCain starts talking about what could  happen as a result of a hasty withdrawal, well, I just dont think it will end up being an issue in the way Obama supporters expect.


    [ Parent ]
    Obama is going to have (5.00 / 3) (#102)
    by pie on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:48:37 AM EST
    to keep promising to end the war (although, sadly, I don't think he will - too much invested over there to do that).

    [ Parent ]
    exactly right (5.00 / 3) (#112)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:51:37 AM EST
    he will keep saying it and most people will not believe it.
    I do not.

    [ Parent ]
    The war issue is not cut and dry (5.00 / 3) (#176)
    by AX10 on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 10:13:26 AM EST
    at all.
    This is where Hillary's moderate stances would come in to assist in a positive manner.
    If we never went to Iraq, Al-Quieda would not be there.  But we did go into Irag and they are there now.  It is reasonable to stabilize Iraq before any pull out.  It would take a few years, but it can be done.  We will not be in Iraq forever.  We most likely will be out by 2013 as McCain has indicated.

    [ Parent ]
    Counterpoint (5.00 / 5) (#83)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:40:05 AM EST
    The American public also disagrees with Obama on raising the capital gains tax and raising the cap on SS. During a time when the economy sucks are they going to be willing to accept any new taxes? Kerry was unable to convince enough people that raising taxes on the "rich" would benefit them. We will have to see if Obama can do better.

    Also, on Iraq, the polls have been pretty consistent over a two, two and a half year period on what type of action should be taken to end the occupation. 1/3 are for immediate withdrawal and 2/3 are for other actions (maintain current troop levels, stay with reduced troop levels, increase troop levels etc.) So there is a great deal of confusion and various POV among people. There are still quite a few people, even those who were against the war from the get go, who are stuck in the "pottery barn" mind frame.

    IMO Obama's greatest risk is in the area of national security. His lack of experience and record may allow Republican frames to more easily take root since Americans do not have past knowledge to counterbalance the Republican attacks.  

    [ Parent ]

    and lets not forget (5.00 / 5) (#96)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:46:32 AM EST
    for all the insults and name calling on "progressive" blogs, McCain is a known and TRUSTED guy.  a patriot and war hero.
    republicans may be able to destroy war heros but I dont think Obama campaign will have the same success for some reason.  if only because the MSM will not allow it.
    anyone who thinks the "third term" thing is going to fly is just delusional.  everyone knows Bush and McCain hate each other and McCain only backed him for the same reasons Hillary will now back Obama.
    its not rocket science.


    [ Parent ]
    Differences between heroes (5.00 / 3) (#158)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 10:06:04 AM EST
    McCain's hero status is unmatched by any other politician. My thinking is it is simply out of bounds to even consider attacking his military service.


    [ Parent ]
    it was being done on this site (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 10:25:43 AM EST
    yesterday.  unstable and dangerous.

    [ Parent ]
    2006 (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:11:55 AM EST
    was a congressional election not a presidential election. National security really isn't an issue outside of Presidential elections.

    [ Parent ]
    Nat'l security just won't (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by brodie on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:20:23 AM EST
    be the huge issue it was in, say, 2002 -- not with the backdrop of a tanking economy and the middle class increasingly concerned about home values and high gas prices.

    Plus we've had 8 yrs of a lot of terra fearmongering on the part of Junior's admin and a war in Iraq people are sick of.  Emotional appeals to frighten people about Obama as CinC will likely be of limited utility.

    Of course, it would also be helpful, to preempt the bogus terra scares, if major Dem surrogates with NS cred (Biden, Clark) would get out there starting in the summer and loudly talk about the curious way terra threats seem to pop up with frequency right around the time of Dem conventions and fall presidential elections.  

    [ Parent ]

    Here's (5.00 / 11) (#70)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:27:01 AM EST
    what people ignore: McCain won't have to convince people that Obama is unsuitable to be President, all he has to do is raise enough doubts so that people won't vote for him.

    Obama voted for the Cheney energy bill so that dog won't hunt.

    I think all those issues will work well for Dems in congressional and senatorial races. I just don't see them working for Obama in the Presidential race.

    My prediction: Huge amounts of ticket splitting with people voting for McCain for President while voting Dems downticket.

    [ Parent ]

    While a lot of Obama voters (5.00 / 3) (#191)
    by Cream City on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 10:20:43 AM EST
    don't vote downticket at all, from what we've seen in states studied, such as Texas.  So I wouldn't count on winning those contests, either.

    The Obama campaign style to win the nomination simply has been too divisive to count on winning in the general election.

    [ Parent ]

    National (5.00 / 9) (#24)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:01:41 AM EST
    security is a huge problem for Obama. He hasn't dealt with it so far and I don't know that he will.

    If Hillary had been the nominee this election would have been about the economy. McCain vs. Obama is going to be about national security.

    [ Parent ]

    Are the positions of Sen. Obama (5.00 / 9) (#6)
    by zfran on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:48:49 AM EST
    really yours, or is it that the policies of Sen. McCain aren't. Personally, the only issue I see that Sen. Obama is for, is the issue of himself and how it affects him. I believe that if it were in his best interests, he would be a reb. lite (which he may be). He seems to take every side with every issue, including pro-choice, iran, iraq, nafta. Please tell me where I'm wrong.

    Republican Lite - Exactly (5.00 / 8) (#12)
    by talex on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:55:17 AM EST
    I don't know who Armando has been watching. When in front of a Dem crowd he has spoken in broad vague terms. When in front of the Fox News crowd he has been more explicit in respecting Republican ideas and their policies.

    It will be interesting to read over the coming months the case that Armando and Jeralyn will try to make for Obama. And no, that he is not McCain is not enough.

    [ Parent ]

    His announced posiitons (5.00 / 5) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:56:42 AM EST
    are almost precisely mine.

    You see I am a Centrist. I believe Obama is a Centrist.

    In Obama I think you will see more disappointment from the Left Wing than you will from me, if they care about their issues.

    I'll give you one example. Barack Obama was touting his sponsorship of a resolution calling for the Iran Revolutionary Guard (IRG) being labelled a terrorist organization. During the Kyl Lieberman  (K-L) brouhaha, many Left bloggers were outraged at Clinton's vote in favor of a resolution that did just that. Obama did not vote on K-L. But I was familiar with Obama's sponsorship of the previous revolution calling on labelling the IRG a terrorist state and I pointed out Obama's hypocrisy in trying to make hay on K-L.

    It wa snot the position that bothered me, it was the unfair attack on Clinton that bothered. In theory, it was the ISSUE that bothered the Left blogs. So, in theory, they should be disappointed in Obama's position on the IRG.

    I am not disappointed with Obama's position on the IRG. I support it.

    [ Parent ]

    Being a Centrist is fine. I am (5.00 / 7) (#25)
    by zfran on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:01:55 AM EST
    too in many areas, however, when you are running for president and you speak to one group in the morning and one group in the afternoon and on the same subject you boldly swing left, then right, that is not being a centrist. When you do this all the time on all issues you are being wishy-washy (a presidential term). As for me, don't tell me what you think I want to hear, tell me the truth as you see it, then let me decide!!!

    [ Parent ]
    I expect to see him move pretty hard (5.00 / 6) (#139)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:58:38 AM EST
    to the right and stay there once Clinton is really out of the race.

    What will happen over at the transference blogs will be interesting to see when that shift occurs.  I'm now thinking of them as tranference blogs because I have read all kinds of conflicting descriptions of who Obama is that are so obviously born out of what the writers want to see in him.  If on a given day they need to think of him as a liberal he is one.  On another where they want him to be center or right he is.  Then there are the "he is the greatest, sweetest, bestest guy in the universe" diatribes which are so over-the-top that they should really be classified as satire.  I don't mean to be harsh, but the reality is that these candidates aren't perfect - they are mere mortals like the rest of us.

    I got a preview of what might happen when the shift occurs in a diary yesterday criticizing the AIPAC speech.  Many comments were posted that essentially said "Criticizing the Democratic candidate is absolutely forbidden."  My favorite snarky comment in response to one of the people calling the diarist a traitorous troll for writing the diary said something about it being time to start the show trials and re-education classes.  Yeah, it made me laugh out loud.  Dark humor appeals to me.

    [ Parent ]

    That's a good example (5.00 / 4) (#30)
    by dk on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:03:29 AM EST
    but to take that further, how do we know what Obama's stated position on the IRG really is?  Yes, he had the earlier resolution.  But later, when he saw that it was politically expedient at a critical point in the campaign to deny that position, he did.

    In other words, to me, that whole IRG issue is a sign that he's going to make both centrists like you, and the self-described progressives (though, frankly, I disagree with that categorization; in my book I think you're more liberal than they are even though they would disagree) unhappy.

    [ Parent ]

    In fact (5.00 / 6) (#44)
    by Steve M on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:12:25 AM EST
    He never took any other position on the IRG.  It was the blogs who criticized Hillary for her IRG position, not realizing Obama had the same position.

    He chose something else from the bill to criticize Hillary for - an issue that no one had ever brought up with respect to K-L, but since he knew he couldn't use the IRG, he had to find something else.  It was pure political opportunism.

    It always cracked me up to see people on the blogs write lengthy essays about how declaring the IRG a terrorist organization was the most irresponsible act of all time.  By the way, it wasn't just Hillary who voted for K-L, no fewer than 10 Senators who voted against the Iraq war voted for K-L.  Really one of the worst manufactured issues of all time, simply because no one really understood what they were criticizing.

    [ Parent ]

    Right Vote (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by Athena on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:49:01 AM EST
    I completely supported Hillary's vote.  The IRG is a terrorist organization.  But Obama has laid a trail of utter hyprocrisy that will come back at him.

    [ Parent ]
    I don't know - IRG won't hurt him with (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 10:04:32 AM EST
    Republicans.  The question is whether or not his lefty supporters will be able to tolerate what's to come on many fronts.  Obama's positions are pretty far right for my tastes which is why I never really was motivated to jump on his band wagon.  A lot of lefties whose previous stated positions were similar to my politics seemed to think he was just pretending to be more conservative than they would like him to be.  I don't think he is pretending so I'm not going to be disappointed by him, but they might be.  We'll see.  Of course, Obama knows that at this point I and others like me have no other choice but to go with the flow, so he's not likely to worry about losing our votes once the primary deal really is over.

    [ Parent ]
    I think (5.00 / 5) (#31)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:06:48 AM EST
    the larger problem for Obama in the general election is that he has tried to have it both ways on every issue. His primary rhetoric is going to come back to haunt him in the general. McCain has a huge opportunity to keep the Hillary supporters from voting for Obama by constantly reminding everyone of his rhetoric.

    [ Parent ]
    What I thought was strange... (5.00 / 4) (#52)
    by kredwyn on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:14:37 AM EST
    was that he reiterated that position (re: guard==terrorists) at the AIPAC meeting...where he opposed K-L during the campaign.

    We had some huge storms here yesterday...lost power, cable, and wireless access.

    [ Parent ]

    I agree with you on those points. (5.00 / 9) (#53)
    by TomP on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:15:10 AM EST
    I pointed out at the time that Obama favored declaring the IRG a terrorist organization.  Yes, he sponsored a similar bill, and he said it after Kyl-Lieberman.  Obama has a very "nuanced" position (he opposed one aspect of K-L, but not the core) and then he managed to miss the vote.

    Both Clinton and Obama were wrong on that, although Obama was verbally better on one aspect.

    Unlike you, I oppose declaring the IRG a terrorist group.  I'm with Nancy Pelosi and Jim Webb on that one.  Obama is wrong on it.  So was Clinton.

    It was just like the flag burning bill.  Many bloggers condemned Clinton for supporting the statute that likely was unconstitutional and opposing the constiutional aamendment.  It was an example of her trinagulation and old politics.  Yet Obama voted the same way!  You never heard that.  

    The hatred of Hillary Clinton by some really bothered me on a moral level.  It was wrong.  So were the vicious attacks on supporters of Clinton by some bloggers.

    Something deeper was going on when on most issues, Obama and Clinton were quite similar. Fron the perspective of an Edwards supporter who was to the left of Edwards on some things, I saw both Clinton and Obama from a different perspective.

    I think what was happening was gender, race, and a weird sort of ageism.  Clinton was demonized by the media and by bloggers.  She was turned into a cartoon, a villian into which people projected hate and fear.  The phony RFK comment outrage was the worst of many things.

    I'm not saying Clinton was perfect or that her campaign was.  She hit Obama hard. But the carricature of her was absurd.

    I also see you as a centrist, which may be why Edwards' positions, especially on trade and economic populism, bothered you.  And Obama is a centrist. And so is Clinton.

    As your name says, it's a big tent.  Better than McCain.

    I think Talk Left is a good place.  I enjoy the diversity of views here.  

    [ Parent ]

    I think you need to refine (5.00 / 6) (#130)
    by desert dawg on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:56:00 AM EST
    what you mean by centrist, and define it in terms of both foreign and domestic policy.  One can argue that the party of FDR would stand for a strong--even interventionist--foreign policy.  One could never argue that a candidate that supports tort reform, believes that self-policing, rather than regulation, is the solution to the housing crisis, thinks Social Security is in crisis, has economic advisers that think single payer health care is a mistake and  that free market solutions are best, and who advocates a health care policy that perpetuates the status quo and in fact would make un