Obama's Disgruntled Liberal Supporters

The New York Times interviews several progressives, including bloggers about their support for Sen. Barack Obama given his recent FISA vote and the other centrist positions he's staked out in recent weeks.

Will it cost Obama in votes? I hope not. I want a Democratic president. But if it does, it's Obama's own fault. He's now at risk of "being viewed as someone who parses positions without taking a principled stand." On this, the Times quotes liberal writer and blogger David Sirota who says:

“I’m not saying we’re there yet, but that’s the danger,” said David Sirota, a liberal political analyst and author. “I don’t think there’s disillusion. I think there’s an education process that takes place, and that’s a good thing. He is a transformative politician, but he is still a politician.”

I disagree. I see no transformational quality to either Obama or his candidacy. Obama said he was a new kind of politician. He sold an entire younger generation on the theory of change, a new kind of politics in Washington and he's delivered the status quo. He's shown us that on FISA, the death penalty, guns, religion, Iraq, Afghanistan and trade policy (so far) he's all about preserving the status quo and not rocking the boat in his quest for votes. How much more "politics as usual" can you get?

Other Obama supporters interviewed for the article are angry at Obama. One says she's going to vote for the Green party candidate. [More...]

“I’m disgusted with him,” said Ms. Shade, an artist. “I can’t even listen to him anymore. He had such an opportunity, but all this ‘audacity of hope’ stuff, it’s blah, blah, blah. For all the independents he’s going to gain, he’s going to lose a lot of progressives.”

Others aren't angry at Obama and take his latest pronouncements in stride.

“We’re frustrated by it, but we understand,” said Mollie Ruskin, 22, who grew up in Baltimore and is spending the summer here as a fellow with Politicorps, a program run by the Bus Project, a local nonprofit that trains young people to campaign for progressive candidates. “He’s doing it so he can get into office and do the things he believes in.”

How does anyone know what Obama really believes or, even more problematic, what beliefs he'll decide are worth expending political capital on once he's elected?

We don't. I think that's a direct consequence of his having campaigned on generalities like change. People who are unhappy with the current state of affairs just assumed he is on the same side of issues as they are. Since Obama wants change and they want change, they assumed they are all on the same page -- like one big happy progressive family. There's just no way to know that.

Another supporter interviewed says:

“When are these people going to go, anyway?” Mr. Blanchard said of left-wing critics he believes have hurt Democrats in past elections. “My attitude is lighten up on the guy. We want to win. Moving to the center is not a crime in this country.”

True, but that's not the critical issue. In fact, it misses the point. Progressives can accept a centrist candidate. After all, Hillary is a centrist. Before 2008, Edwards was a centrist. Millions of us were fine with Hillary.

It's the bait and switch we hate and it makes Obama a tougher sell now. He wasn't honest with us. He promised reform and a new kind of politics and is relying on the same old Washington play book that's been in use for decades.

I'm not surprised. It's why I didn't support him before the primaries. It's why I wrote dozens of posts debunking his generic change theme. It has always been just campaign rhetoric.

As I was listening to Gary Hart being interviewed in the new Hunter Thompson documentary Gonzo last week (described here), it occurred to me how absolutely disingenuous Obama's whole campaign theme of change has been. There can be no such thing as the politics of change in a presidential race because no one promoting substantial change could ever win. The numbers wouldn't be there. Presidential politics is all about compromise and it's unrealistic to expect anything else.

What's sad is we had a centrist candidate who spoke her mind on issues so you knew exactly where she stood. You knew just what you were going to get with a Hillary presidency. You could practically take it to the bank. I, for one, appreciated the honesty. But, she lost.

Now we have a centrist candidate who said during the primaries he was a progressive candidate for change but now has become more centrist than Hillary, his former centrist competitor.

For me, Obama's switcheroos are not disappointing since I didn't expect anything different. And I don't think talk about "holding one's nose" while voting for him or cries of betrayal are helpful. I still prefer Obama to McCain and a Democratic administration to a Republican one.

My advice to Obama supporters who think he's turned on them? Stop your star-gazing, admit you got hood-winked, but recognize the greater reality that a Democratic president is preferable to a Republican. Don't switch parties or stay home. Wake up on election day in November, go the polls and vote for Obama. If you must, spend the rest of the day in bed like Hunter Thompson did in 1972 after he voted for McGovern even though he had become disillusioned with him and his campaign.

And try not to get fooled again the next time a presidential primary comes around. Do some due diligence before getting carried away. Presidential politics is about getting votes, not staking new ground.

< Could Miami's "Little Havana" Turn To Obama? | Criticism >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • I was not impressed with that article (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by andgarden on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 05:07:46 PM EST
    What exactly does the author mean by "far left?"

    Don't get stuck on a word (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by talex26 on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 05:29:46 PM EST
    The article itself revealed what is going on and that is the important thing.

    I was even less impressed (5.00 / 4) (#24)
    by Cream City on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 05:43:05 PM EST
    that the reporter bought into the myth of the Oregon rally, that it was only an Obama rally.  Commenters here from Portland countered that convincingly.  But it will enter into the Obamythology, it seems.

    Interesting that never happened with the Kerry rally in Madison (Wisconsin), which drew an even larger crowd -- and really was entirely a Kerry rally.  But then and since, media always must point out that there was a musical act, too -- whereas it was the other way around in Oregon.

    And that Kerry did outdraw Obama, and yet Kerry didn't win, might suggest that the only turnout that matters is still months away.


    Rallies (5.00 / 7) (#40)
    by Valhalla on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 06:10:33 PM EST
    Hillary came to my campus when I was in law school and spoke in the football stadium.  I didn't get to go because by the time I knew about it, tickets were sold out.  The stadium has a 100,000 person capacity.

    The obsession with the 'draw' numbers at Oregon and other venues is annoying fake number boosterism.  It's exactly as relevant as when everyone was running around squealing 'but he won 10 states in a row!'  Sounds waaaay impressive, until (unless) you stop to think about it.  And no one called them on it.  The MSM repeated it like the Zombie Chant of Heavenly Ascendance.



    I forget (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Jackson Hunter on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 06:27:31 PM EST
    the technical term, it's been a while since I took Logic, but it is The Fallacy of Emphasizing Popularity.  (Okay, I've proven myself idiotic with that guess!  LOL)  Appeal to popularity?  It's something like that.

    Besides, Oregon is a very Liberal state, even its Regressives are moderate (certainly in Western Oregon, where the bulk of the people are.)  It's the same here in WA state.  On the presendential level, bot OR and WA are very blue.



    You got it right (5.00 / 5) (#65)
    by echinopsia on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 06:33:10 PM EST
    Appeal to popularity

    The Appeal to Popularity has the following form:

       1. Most people approve of X (have favorable emotions towards X).
       2. Therefore X is true.

    The basic idea is that a claim is accepted as being true simply because most people are favorably inclined towards the claim. More formally, the fact that most people have favorable emotions associated with the claim is substituted in place of actual evidence for the claim. A person falls prey to this fallacy if he accepts a claim as being true simply because most other people approve of the claim.


    This sort of "reasoning" is quite common and can be quite an effective persusasive device. Since most humans tend to conform with the views of the majority, convincing a person that the majority approves of a claim is often an effective way to get him to accept it. Advertisers often use this tactic when they attempt to sell products by claiming that everyone uses and loves their products. In such cases they hope that people will accept the (purported) approval of others as a good reason to buy the product.

    And media fall for the fallacy (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by Cream City on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 07:29:36 PM EST
    which just shows the superficiality of their "thought," as they fall in line with the wishes of corrupt leadership of the party.  And bloggers who claimed to be the revolution against the mainstream corporate media instead fell for the fallacy to be "cool" and fell in line with the marketing of this campaign, too.  

    The Making of the President is a classic, and The Selling of the President also has been written.  The book on this campaign will be The Marketing of the President.  Or maybe The Selling Out of the Netroots -- and of the party that once was of the people, not the sheeple.


    Netroots: Tory in the Machine (none / 0) (#123)
    by Salo on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 07:52:50 PM EST
    How the leftwing American websites backed a Thatcherite Deomcrat.

    One day Markos  Moul....


    Here' my innocent take on how it happened (none / 0) (#125)
    by Salo on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 07:58:42 PM EST
    The IWR vote and the Dems reversal on that issue after the debacle was propagandized so much in 2004 as the reason Kerry lost that CW wa that no Dem who voted for IWR should be selected as the leader.  This took root in MSNBC and the netroots simultaneously.

    The obsession over that vote dictated the terms of the debates and the terms of the debacle in Iowa.

    Once the GOP rehabilitate the reputation of the war in Iraq (which appears superficially to be more successful thatn Afghanistan) Obama will have nothing to run on.   His opposition to Iraq will be painted a gross liability.


    Thanks ech! (none / 0) (#74)
    by Jackson Hunter on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 06:45:27 PM EST
    ech, ugh. I need a new pseud. n/t (5.00 / 0) (#79)
    by echinopsia on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 06:46:58 PM EST
    Very true. I live in (none / 0) (#140)
    by mrjerbub on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 08:19:00 PM EST
    western Washington. It basically has 3 very blue counties the rest are red or very red. That's why I feel safe sitting this one out.

    Well, I was feeling guilty in Wisconsin (none / 0) (#153)
    by Cream City on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 08:42:46 PM EST
    which was supposed to be a swing state, after being the closest state last time.  But the Obama supporters here who keep pointing out what a wide lead their candidate has in the polls here have persuaded me that I can sit this one out, too.

    Cream City- I still vote Wis. absetee (none / 0) (#179)
    by kenosharick on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:35:29 PM EST
    though I am in school in Georgia. You mean I can just skip it? I guess I am nuts because I still think Wis. will be veeeery close. There's always the down ticket races.

    Yes, the down-ticket contests (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by Cream City on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 11:14:30 PM EST
    are very significant to me.  So okay, I'll wander down a whole half a block and say hi to the lovely volunteers from the LWV and get my sticker and all.

    But I'm now spared months of information-seeking and decision-making over what to do with the top boxes on the ballot, thanks to the reassurances of the Obama supporters.  They are so confident, while I had agreed with you and thought Wisconsin still was a toss-up state.  But then, I thought Clinton was the far better candidate, so I just will have to trust in the new politics that make life so easy.


    There' a good argument to be (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by Salo on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 07:41:24 PM EST
    made that the FIA bill enables fascistic merging between private companies and the state to spy n citizens.

    That isn't a far left argument.  It might be a pet issue for the ACLU but it's by no means a far left argument.


    I don't understand how most of these people (5.00 / 15) (#2)
    by tigercourse on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 05:09:19 PM EST
    got hoodwinked. Obama was pretty artless in his campaign. The surface was shiny, but fairly haphazardly applied and almost every single day he did or said something that highlighted the truth under the varnish.

    I think many people intentionally let themselves be "fooled", made themselves into disposable tools and aided Obama's trek to the top because they wanted the prestige of being even slightly involved in his victory.

    As the Kos's and Bowers of the world now cry and huff I have even less and less respect to for them then I did in the primary. You wanted him, you got him. You can't wash your hands of him now.

    Sorry Jeralyn But Hillary (5.00 / 12) (#4)
    by talex26 on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 05:21:05 PM EST
    is a not a Centrist - she is Center-Left Candidate.  And she is only 'Center' when it comes to National Security. For the most part, excluding National Security, she is very much a Lefty.

    Obama on the other hand is a not a Centrist - he
    is Center-Right and that seems to be his Natural disposition, not the one he pandered to the Left during the primaries.

    To suggest that they are both the same is just not true at all and you being a Clinton supporter know that. I trust you are just fudging to try to convince people here to vote for Obama. For most of us who have stated we won't vote for him that ship has already sailed never to return.


    she is centrist (5.00 / 5) (#42)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 06:12:07 PM EST
    on crime issues, as is Obama. She supports the death penalty, would abolish some but not all mandatory minimums and would end raids on marijuana dispensaries in states where it is legal but does not support legalization of marijuana for everyone. They are about the same on immigration. The point to me as I've said repeatedly throughout this campaign is "the devil you know is better than the devil you don't" and the presidency is too important a position to take a chance. She and Obama are as close as two candidates can be on issues. Her policies are well thought out and better delineated so you know where she stands, and she knows them like the back of her hand. He just makes it seem, depending on his audience, that he's more progressive than he really is.

    She's better on health care and social security and I believe more willing to fight than compromise than he is, but it's not correct in my view to say either one of them is anything but a centrist. Centrist right and centrist left are not meaningful distinctions since the operative word is centrist.

    (I also think she understands the Constitution better than he does.)


    Your parenthetical sentence (5.00 / 5) (#45)
    by Cream City on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 06:16:59 PM EST
    at the end ought to be cause to give the University of Chicago Law School serious pause.

    I really want to find out (none / 0) (#120)
    by Salo on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 07:48:03 PM EST
    who Pinche Tejano actually is.

    All these fakers who had umbrage about the IWR vote and essentuially backed Obama.  Foul propagandists were at work.


    Jeralyn, which candidate (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by zfran on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 06:26:51 PM EST
    does your quote here refer to.

    "the devil you know is better than the devil you don't"  

    I think we know McCain much better than Obama. I think, for me, this year, it will be more important to have a dem congress than one with a dem president. Who would be watching, and I believe someone, somehow, must watch!!


    Over the course of the primary campaign (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 06:48:31 PM EST
    I repeatedly called Obama the devil you don't know as opposed to Hillary who is the devil you do know.

    The rest of the phrase was "I'm not buying a pig in a poke."

    Now I am ready to vote for Obama and hope for the best because McCain, who also is a known quantity, is much worse for the nation.


    OK, (5.00 / 3) (#72)
    by talex26 on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 06:42:48 PM EST
    on crime issues and supports the death penalty. But abolish some mandatory minimums and would end raids on marijuana dispensaries in states where it is legal is not Centrist IMO. that is a Leftist stance

    "She and Obama are as close as two candidates can be on issues."

    Well of course. During the primaries he mostly waited to see what she would present and then copied her except for trying to fit in some talking point to say he was different. He is not versed like her on these issues he just said "me too". And not only is he not versed he is not committed. That is a deal breaker.

    "the devil you know is better than the devil you don't" .

    It's still the devil and as I've said repeatedly throughout this campaign is that 4 years of McCain checked by a Democratic majority is better than someone who will ill define who we are as Democrats and set our Progressive causes back a decade or more. The future of the Party is far more important than 4 years of McCain who can't do us much harm without the approval of congress.

    "Centrist right and centrist left are not meaningful distinctions since the operative word is centrist".

    I'd say that if both are Centrist is some way then their differences have to be measured whether they lean Left or Right. You can't toss those leanings out the window as if they don't matter. Hillary is Left and as such she would never do or be saying what Obama is at this point were she the nominee. FISA. Womens Choice without the caveats. Pandering to the Right - both Pols and voters. Not standing for anything for more that a day or two. That is someone who will destroy the Party and in good conscience I can't vote for that.


    I'm with you, Talex (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 08:21:05 PM EST
    Energy is Obama's worst subject, by (4.00 / 1) (#164)
    by MarkL on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 08:56:02 PM EST
    far. He really takes away my hope in that area.

    Center Left (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by daring grace on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 06:14:44 PM EST
    Several of her votes as my senator have convinced me Hillary Clinton is not of the left.

    While many of them I could let go by without  holding her feet to the fire one which particularly got my goat was legislation she co-sponsored to criminalize flag burning. At the time, her approach was discussed as a nuanced response to the more egregious anti flag burning constitutional amendment that was being floated. In any case, not the move of a center-leftie to me.

    While reflecting on this vote, I came across a NY Times story from June 28, 2006 with this interesting passage which seems relevant to current conversations about moving one way or another:

    "The divergent views of her position reflect a broader rift in the Democratic Party over whether the key to electoral success rests in winning over centrists or by drawing clear distinctions with Republicans by staking out unapologetically liberal positions.

    "What's politically pragmatic isn't always what's pleasing to the left," said Steve McMahon, a Democratic consultant. "But pragmatism is what wins elections for Democrats." "


    I don't understand (5.00 / 5) (#54)
    by Steve M on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 06:24:14 PM EST
    what it is about being a center-leftie that would disqualify a legislator from sponsoring entirely constitutional legislation as a strategic move to neutralize a Republican attempt at demagoguery.  That's a very odd litmus test.

    You're Talking Strategy (none / 0) (#87)
    by daring grace on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 06:53:00 PM EST
    And a very pragmatic one at that which is quite consistent with a centrist posture. Clinton has done a fair amount of this and that's one reason I agree with Jerilyn's characterization that Clinton's a centrist.

    But leftie-centrist? Criminalizing flag burning,  which even Scalia acknowledges is anti constitutional is about as leftie centrist as some of the arguments Obama apologists are coming up with for his (and other Dems') pro FISA vote this week, i.e. Not.


    Sorry (3.00 / 2) (#89)
    by Steve M on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 06:54:16 PM EST
    There is no argument whatsoever that Clinton's bill was unconstitutional.

    I don't agree with trying to identify someone's ideology based upon a purely strategic maneuver.


    I Can't Claim (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by daring grace on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 07:17:34 PM EST
    any knowledge or wisdom as to whether Clinton's bill was constitutional. I have no training in that area. I quoted Scalia's surprising disclosure about HIS stand on flag burning in general merely because I thought it was interesting, and indicative of the divide in opinion.

    My point was to the issue of center-left or centrism. I don't know how else to identify (truly identify) the positions of someone in public office if not by the policy they make (or try to make) and by the votes or vetoes they register.


    You would prefer (none / 0) (#144)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 08:25:54 PM EST
    that a progressive/liberal just lie down and let the GOP pass a constitutional amendment?  You know darn well it would pass around the country, and once accomplished, be nearly impossible to repeal.  The point of Hillary's legislation was an emergency measure to derail that-- AND IT WORKED.

    This is really a very silly and unrealistic complaint.


    Oh come on - Flag Burning! (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by talex26 on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 06:47:36 PM EST
    My God that is some kind of silly wedge issue and to tell you the truth if I was at a rally and saw someone burning the flag I would ask them to stop and I am sure I would not be alone doing that.

    Flag burning is for the real oddballs who are always doing something to make others look bad. and if it wasn't flag burning they are the type who show up at WTO marches and smash windows.


    Oh, Come On Is Right (3.00 / 0) (#94)
    by daring grace on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 07:03:10 PM EST
    First of all, when was the last time you DID see someone in person or in the media burning an American flag--an American burning an American flag?

    And, I agree with you. When I have seen someone doing this they usually looked like the biggest clown in the group. Not my choice for a way to dissent. But hey, isn't that what the 1st Amendment is about: protecting unpopular expression?

    My point was in response to someone who referred to Clinton as center-left in her positions. While Clinton definitely has some progressive positions, she also has held some like this legislation sponsorship which is as un-left as you can get, because flag burning is the poster child boogeyman for the right in this country. They trot it out every time they want to play that nasty little game: Who's the Bigger Patriot? And it deserves to be repudiated every time they do.


    OK (5.00 / 4) (#100)
    by echinopsia on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 07:17:13 PM EST
    when was the last time you DID see someone in person or in the media burning an American flag--an American burning an American flag?

    On February 15, 2003, at an anti-war rally.

    The anti-flag-burning legislation she endorsed was quite specific - it was to ban flag-burning as part of a hate crime. Like cross-burning.

    But the really wonderful thing about that bill is that Obama supported it too.


    Center Left (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by daring grace on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 07:22:22 PM EST
    Never thought either senator was anything other than a centrist Dem with occasional refreshing swerves leftward, and occasional distressing swerves to the right.

    So you do know that (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by Cream City on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 07:31:49 PM EST
    your candidate voted for the flag-burning bill.

    Actually, I Don't KNOW That He Did (2.00 / 1) (#114)
    by daring grace on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 07:41:27 PM EST
    I'm taking echinopsia's word for it. Shouldn't I? Didn't he?

    The main reason I know that Clinton sponsored it and voted for it is that she was my senator at the time, and I was paying attention to that.


    Flag burning? (4.00 / 1) (#136)
    by Salo on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 08:11:34 PM EST
    snort.  That' something that tells you about being left?

    If someone trod the Union Jack underfoot or burned it I'd probably start yelling at them to cut it out. I certainly think  that it's offensive to stamp a flag. It' just counter productive.  By al means furn effigies of leaders though.

    It's probably not really even left wingers doing it. I'd bet that half the the time it's agent provocateurs and the reat are anarchists.


    I think that it would be very difficult (none / 0) (#202)
    by weltec2 on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 11:56:37 PM EST
    to prove that burning a flag at an anti-war rally was a hate crime; a meaningless act of childish petulance perhaps, but a hate crime... nah.

    Besides, most flag burning takes place in other countries.


    Flags and Crosses Burning (none / 0) (#105)
    by daring grace on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 07:28:31 PM EST
    And as to the grouping of flag burning and cross burning as hate crimes...the cross burnings are obvious as such.

    The only times I've seen domestic examples of flag burnings have been at protests directed against the  federal government and its policies. do you know if there were examples presented that compared with the terroristic nature of cross burnings?


    Who cares? (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by echinopsia on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 07:38:48 PM EST
    It's not an issue that separates Clinton and Obama.

    I Care (3.00 / 1) (#118)
    by daring grace on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 07:44:51 PM EST
    I'm not asking the question because of anything having to do with Clinton or Obama. I missed this equating of the two things and I wondered about it.

    It seems like an odd (and disturbing) distortion of the two things.


    When TeamO support keeps hiding behind HRC's skirt (5.00 / 4) (#121)
    by Ellie on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 07:50:57 PM EST
    ... it only reminds me yet again that Obama is no leader.

    He's a run-away-and=hider.

    Sen Clinton suspended her campaign. Obama must stand or fall on his own words and deeds, and it's apparent daily that neither he nor his supporters can live or die by his candidacy.

    His own record shows how laughably unprepared he is, how unskilled he is, and how shallow and paltry his dedication to service has been.

    Once again, it is not "his" virtue that his supporters and others in the throes of CDS do not like nor approve of Sen CLinton, for whatever reason.

    She's not the candidate for President, unfortunately, because she's earned it, she's qualified, and she deserves to be.

    We just got saddled with this loser for a lamentably growing list of increasingly indefensible "reasons".


    Who's Hiding? (none / 0) (#127)
    by daring grace on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 08:01:57 PM EST
    Assuming this is directed at me, because it's hard to tell from the lengthy thread...

    First of all, huh?

    I never compared or contrasted Clinton and Obama. Someone else introduced Obama into this discussion. I was responding to another writer's characterization of Clinton as center-left.

    Second of all, I'm on record here as saying:

    I would be voting for Clinton if she was the nominee.

    If Obama fails to get elected in November it will be because HE fails to get elected and not because of anything Clinton did or did not do.

    Don't know where you see this so called CDS but it ain't in this corner.


    Give Obama his REAL due as CDS isn't 'his' virtue (5.00 / 3) (#143)
    by Ellie on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 08:25:05 PM EST
    While Clinton definitely has some progressive positions, she also has held some like this

    ... flag burning is the poster child boogeyman for the right in this country. They trot it out every time they want to play that nasty little game: Who's the Bigger Patriot? And it deserves to be repudiated every time they do.

    Repudiate Obama harshly then. Sen Clinton isn't the nominee for President. What you might do if she were isn't the issue.

    Your approach to the argument by smacking HRC is the core definition of Obama supporters running behind Sen Clinton's skirts rather than affirmatively presenting his fitness for office.

    Please, spend the appropriate bandwidth leveling the hits at HRC, despite her suspended campaign, and take Obama to task for his "patriotism", given his run for the Presidency of the United States, and you won't come off so disingenuous.


    CDS (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by Edgar08 on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 05:45:09 PM EST
    Explains a lot.

    There are a number of other motivations that could be discussed as well.


    Riverdaughter nails it (5.00 / 4) (#46)
    by echinopsia on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 06:17:58 PM EST
    Correction: madamab nails it! (5.00 / 3) (#75)
    by echinopsia on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 06:45:33 PM EST
    pacifits are easily fooled. (none / 0) (#119)
    by Salo on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 07:44:57 PM EST
    They backed Gladstone, who as it turned out was more bloody than Disraeli.

    I'm looking forward with trepidation at the tupid wars Obama will start in his admin. Pakistan is one obvious spot in his war planning.  I'd not be urprised if Obama knock out Chavez either.


    College kids (none / 0) (#173)
    by tek on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:09:10 PM EST
    took to Obama because their parents were for older, more seasoned Democrats.  It's the generation gap.

    As andgarden points out... (5.00 / 8) (#5)
    by OrangeFur on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 05:21:19 PM EST
    ... the folks who are dismayed by his sprint to the "center" are now described as the "far left".

    So, if you thought FISA was an outrage, or that we ought to withdraw from Iraq, or that the DC handgun ban was constitutional, or the death penalty should be abolished, you're not just liberal. You're on the "far left".

    As for Mollie Ruskin, who says "He's doing it so he can get into office and do the things he believes in," I just want to ask her how she's so sure that he believes what he said to you, not what he's saying now. And how exquisite that she works for something financed by the "Bus Project".

    When I saw Mollie's quote (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Cream City on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 05:27:42 PM EST
    I could only think that she must have had blessed high school and college years and hasn't had her heart broken yet.  Not a sadder but wiser girl, not yet, as the song goes.

    "Bus Project" (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by wasabi on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 07:04:55 PM EST
    Is that like... get under the bus project?

    Funny you should mention Hunter Thompson (5.00 / 4) (#6)
    by Pol C on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 05:21:44 PM EST
    I just wonder what he (and Ralph Steadman, for that matter) would have made of Obama if they were at the height of their Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail 1972 powers.

    Just a thought. It's saturday evening, and I've had a few.


    Would they see Adam Clayton Powell (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by Cream City on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 05:26:06 PM EST
    as I have seen in this candidate for some time now?  At least, they would know who I mean.  It is not a conversation that can be conducted with many of the younger set on the 'Net, quoted here.  

    I see absolutely no connection (none / 0) (#207)
    by weltec2 on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 12:29:09 AM EST
    between ACP and Obama with the exception of their racial mix. ACP actually did a lot for the Afro-American community back in the forties, fifties and early sixties until his list of enemies became too great. Some may disagree with his conservative stance against homosexuals. But beyond that he was very liberal.

    I'll probably write about that later (5.00 / 6) (#15)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 05:27:53 PM EST
    since his wife Anita will be here in an hour for dinner. She has been a huge Hillary supporter who, like me, will be voting for Obama. I'll ask her what she thinks Hunter's take on Obama would be.

    What's on the menu??? (none / 0) (#104)
    by Angel on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 07:28:30 PM EST
    I think (5.00 / 4) (#19)
    by Jackson Hunter on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 05:32:02 PM EST
    he would have been VERY upset about FISA, he was very (justifiably) paranoid about giving the Government that kind of power.  From what I read, he was a fairly centrist fellow who HATED the Regressives (and especially Nixon), but he supported gun ownership.  I have a general feeling that he supported the Death Penalty, but not because he loved the System.

    Remember, he was pretty tough on Bill Clinton, he mocked him pretty unmercifully at times.  He never pulled any of his punches for "Party Unity" and I have a feeling he wouldn't have now.  I would love it if he were still around to hear his thoughts on the Primaries, it would have been fascinating.



    interesting thought. hunter did not suffer (5.00 / 4) (#52)
    by hellothere on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 06:22:11 PM EST
    fools. i can't help but think at the very least he'd have taken the so called pundits to task for their incredible and breathless audacity/gross stupidityt.

    It happens every generation (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by blogtopus on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 05:22:56 PM EST
    In this case, it took 36 years to cycle around again, but no, the 'shiny new politics' campaign waved its banners and spouted its platitudes wildly and loudly enough that people got 'winked.

    I'm with Jeralyn; I didn't expect anything different. I'm voting for Obama because I don't like McCain, but I honestly understand why people will be turning to McCain in the general. Nobody likes to be lied to about such important things.


    Ah, youth (5.00 / 6) (#8)
    by lambert on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 05:22:58 PM EST
    "He's doing it so he can get into office and do the things he believes in."

    It's sweet, really.

    Now, it really does happen, but it's not simple and it takes more that one election. LBJ on Civil Rights is one example. LBJ and the Democrat Party did the right thing then, it cost them, but it was good for the country. On the flip side, Bush. He wanted to destroy the government, and gave it his best shot, but it took a generation of conservative dominance to work up to that point.

    He's so DIFFERENT (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by blogtopus on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 05:28:39 PM EST
    Of course he is.

    I really think I'm going to have to put my McGovern bumper stickers up for sale in December.


    Great point by Jeralyn (5.00 / 7) (#31)
    by ghost2 on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 05:53:36 PM EST
    What's sad is we had a centrist candidate who spoke her mind on issues so you knew exactly where she stood. You knew just what you were going to get with a Hillary presidency. You could practically take it to the bank. I, for one, appreciated the honesty. But, she lost.

    I am not sure when I made the point, but it was a long time ago.  I said Hillary is like the student that the teacher (aks: MSM) hates.  No matter what she does, the MSM is going to look for any possible error, no matter how small and magnify it.  On the other hand, there is a teacher's pet (here: Obama) who can write 2 babbling paragraphs for an essay and be called brilliant. It doesn't deter Hillary. She is just going to work as hard as she can, and not give the teacher an exuse.  

    I realised Hillary was a politician, but she was forced to be brutally honest by circumstances. One reason was the media's dislike of her (see above).  The other reason is that she is a very compelling personality and people remember anything she says (at least someone remembers).  So she is forced to be consistent.  

    Hillary is a true liberal at heart (dangerous to read other's minds and hearts, but what the heck).  Why do you think Bill Clinton insisted on having a female attorney general against the objections of Republicans?  Who tried to get Universal healthcare in 1993?? Who was the force behind mandatory public education for disabled children?

    The answer, every time, is Hillary.  


    Oh, lambert! (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by Radiowalla on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 06:25:27 PM EST
    I hope this was just a typo on your part, but it's not the DEMOCRAT Party!
    Repeat after me:  Democratic Party!

    no (4.66 / 3) (#129)
    by boredmpa on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 08:03:50 PM EST
    it's the democrat party.  and henceforth i will refer to it as such.  (unless jeralyn deletes such statements).

    The party ceased to be Democratic when it completely tossed out democratic ideals during its own primaries and supported a candidate that believes in hoodwinking his own party members (anti-democratic, low information, cynical, managerial) and challenging thousands of petition signatures at the last minute to knock opponents out of primaries in IL (who couldn't afford to mount a legal defense).

    I do not support false advertising or blatantly misleading names.  The Democrat party dishonors and cheapens the word democratic.


    You have a point there (none / 0) (#146)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 08:33:43 PM EST
    Oh, come on! (none / 0) (#201)
    by Radiowalla on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 11:45:27 PM EST
    I'm just as pissed at the party as you are.  In fact, I'm so pissed that I re-registered as "Decline to State" after a lifetime of slavish devotion to the party.

    But I'm not going to adopt the Republican's terminology that was devised to mock and marginalize the Democrats.  No way.


    There is life after November (5.00 / 15) (#10)
    by Cream City on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 05:23:48 PM EST
    of course -- but for the Democratic Party?  I think that what was done to the Dem base for the sake of winning the primary phrase, even if he wins the general election, will mean a damaged party due to his Axelrovian divisive tactics.  And that those tactics continued after the primaries and do so even now, about the convention roll call, is a bad sign.

    Because there is life after 2008 to worry abuot, too.  I think that what was done to the Dem base may not bode well down the line -- and we still have to see just what it means for midterm elections.  More needs to be known about this restructuring of the party headquarters and staff, which can mean a lot to Congressional and state legislative candidates.

    In sum, it's really not all about Obama.  And I think most worrisome is that some of these 20-somethings quoted do still think it's all about Obama, which basically means all about them.  That could result in even more bad decisions ahead about when to hold 'em and when to fold 'em for candidates who can't raise millions, set up en masse netroots campaigns, etc., on their own.

    If this blog (5.00 / 5) (#20)
    by Coldblue on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 05:33:36 PM EST
    had a Top Comments forum, your comment would get my vote.

    ah youth grow older all too soon! (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by hellothere on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 06:25:41 PM EST
    that means they won't be a base but will move on down the road. if their opportunity in the dem party(which i don't think is so) then some will stay. if democrats fail to support the will of the american people(which i think they will) off they will go.

    so what do the democrats have to show for all this hubris? nothing is the answer and more's the pity.


    raises hand (5.00 / 2) (#124)
    by Little Fish on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 07:53:12 PM EST
    The twenty somethings sometimes forget to vote.

    That's me!  I almost didn't vote in '04. I just got busy (re: lazy) and um shiny things were everywhere and John Kerry was less than inspiring for me (I lurve Edwards though) and I don't know a Seinfeld repeat was on or something.  I finally got a bug to to vote so I rolled up at the polling place at 7:55. They had practically called WA on my way over and I wound up having to vote provisional for some reason so I just decided to write myself in.

    And in '00 I was all fired up during the GE but come Tuesday there was a party and I had a test.  I did vote though, only because I was CONVINCED that Bush was going to get to overturn Roe.  


    I worked in that campaign (none / 0) (#108)
    by Cream City on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 07:35:15 PM EST
    and yes, it has been deja vu all over again -- in part because I sometimes see the Senator in my neighborhood.:-)

    Funnier thing is (none / 0) (#131)
    by Politalkix on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 08:05:40 PM EST
    giving 20-something year olds, candidates that they cannot relate to in every election cycle eg: Mondale, Dukakis, Gore-2000, Kerry and expecting them to show up and vote for the candidate the elders had "wisely" chosen. Ah, the arrogance that comes with age! :-). Yes, 20-something year olds were supposed to leap with joy when Gore-200 uttered lock-box!

    Well (5.00 / 2) (#191)
    by Jane in CA on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 10:27:43 PM EST
    they got McGovern in 1972, and the republicans got 49 states in the GE.

    Comparing (none / 0) (#198)
    by Politalkix on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 11:21:18 PM EST
    McGovern of 1972 with Obama in 2008 is as quixotic as McCain comparing the situation in post Saddam Iraq with post WW2 Germany/Japan.
    You might not see any differences between McGovern and Obama and some Obama supporter may not see any differences between HRC and Mondale (who incidently lost 49 states in the GE) but both analogies are flawed IMO and does nothing to move the debate forward.

    Excuse me? (5.00 / 1) (#204)
    by Jane in CA on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 12:10:11 AM EST
    You made a comment that very strongly implied the democrats did not nominate youth-oriented candidates, which was why the youth vote didn't turn out for them. I informed you that the democrats had indeed nominated a youth-oriented candidate, and subsequently lost the election in a rather embarrassing republican landslide.

    Not sure where you get that I'm being "quioxtic" (?) or that I'm making comparsions to any other elections besides 1972.  I'm simply correcting your misconception. and explaining the results of how that strategy played out in 1972.

    And I agree that any comparsions between McGovern and Obama, other than their respective appeal to the youth vote, is specious. For example, McGovern was a true liberal.  And there is no logic whatsoever between your comparison of Mondale and Clinton -- although, if by some weird fluke, she gets the VP nod, thereby  pushing Obama to the White House, and then attempted to run for the presidency after a disastrous Obama presidency -- much as Mondale did with Carter -- you just might be on to something.


    Too soon to tell (5.00 / 1) (#205)
    by sj on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 12:11:36 AM EST
    That's something that can only be determined after the election.  

    If there' s one thing I wish people would (5.00 / 11) (#23)
    by Anne on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 05:38:28 PM EST
    stop doing is characterizing Obama as moving to the center.  He's not.  He's moving away from the center to the right.

    People who believe in the protection of civil liberties, in reproductive freedom, in a stark line between church and state - we are not hard-left/far-left radicals: we are the mainstream.

    I guess I just don't get it, why so many are rationalizing Obama's ping-ponging by making it the status quo - what pols do, as if they can't help themselves.  It's as passive as being "disappointed;"  It's just so...polite.  I don't see "polite" as getting us where we need to be; what I thought we needed, and what I thought Hillary was more disposed to, was a little kicking a$$ and taking names.

    How on earth will we ever get the leaders we need and the leaders we want if we allow people like those in the Democratic leadership and Barack Obama, to play fast and loose with where they stand on the issues?  These people are supposed to represent us, after all - and if we are not holding them accountable with our votes, we are giving them license to be just exactly who they have been - and will continue to be.

    I thought I was going to be able to go "big picture" on this election; I did it with Kerry and I thought, if I had to, I could do it again.  But the last 18 months of the most spineless Congress in my memory, and after the way the DNC handled the primary, essentially saddling us with a nominee who is not the best person for the job, I can't do it.

    There has to be a line somewhere - a place where we stop just going along like good little Democrats, passively accepting whatever cr@p candidates and representatives we have - and this election season has shown me where that line is.

    interesting analysis! (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by hellothere on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 06:27:17 PM EST
    the problem for me is obama hasn't seen a line he wasn't willing to cross for gain.

    Oh, I fear that his tactics (5.00 / 0) (#28)
    by Cream City on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 05:45:38 PM EST
    have transformed the Dem Party, and for ill -- but yeh, I saw the buzzword and went "whaaa?" too, as it just stood out as so naive on the very topic of the piece.

    That's a disappointing article. (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by ajain on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 06:09:09 PM EST
    Its disappointing how some people will just go along  with anything and everything.

    Not that I am advocating not voting for Obama, but I hate how "those awful, cranky, hippie liberals" are to blame for everything.

    And I also hate that the article's headline has the phrase "Far Left" on it. As if only people in the "far left" should be or are enraged at Obama.

    I agree (5.00 / 7) (#41)
    by Jackson Hunter on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 06:10:39 PM EST
    with Matt Stoller when he writes "that Obama had better win, or he'll be the most hated Democrat in history."  Obama is making everything about him, he doesn't give one flip about the Party, he just wants to be President and he'll say anything to become it.

    He, along with his lickspittles in the M$M, did everything they could to destroy a sitting US Senator and the most popular multi-term President this Party has had since FDR.  His bloggers went all-in with their support of him, and I would imagine they have lost traffic and influence over their stupidity.  (I have no problem with someone being pro-Obama, or even that they criticized Hilary a bit, but the virulent CDS on display was just fracking atrocious.  I will NEVER forgive them, or read their stupid blogs again.)

    Oh, and for the record, Obama didn't win, he was pulled across the finish line by a corrupt process that violated its own rules in finishing Hilary off.  A vote for Obama is a vote for Dean and Brazille and rewards them for destroying the Party when they should have just stayed the H*ll out of it, and at this point I can't do it, maybe that will change.  Sorry, I have those pesky things called principles, I won't reward that kind of "suck on this" corruption.  

    Does the Dem Party want my vote?  Eliminate all caucuses as the frauds that they are.  Dean and Brazille et al must not only apologize, but publicly fall on a sword and resign.  Hilary has to be the VP Nominee and given as much, if not more power, than Cheney in that office.  Majority Leader is a compromise if it is handed to her BEFORE the Election, because for some strange reason I don't trust the current leadership to follow through on any promise they make.

    Right now, with his positions, Obama is running for Clinton's third term.  Hilary was in a far better place to do that IMHO.


    If he doesn't win (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by Edgar08 on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 06:22:47 PM EST
    He'll be made into a martyr.  The party loves to lose.

    He's also not positioned to run for Clinton's third term.

    He made it clear that he thinks Clinton was a bad president.


    Actually (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by Jackson Hunter on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 06:40:22 PM EST
    you're right about the martyr point, they'll probably want him up on Rushmore when he loses (which I think is far more likely at this juncture.)

    My point is that he is now basically running a DLC campaign, which is what I meant by "Clinton's third term."  You'll get no argument from me that he tried to destroy Clinton, but he was not succesful, at least to anyone who has been a Dem for a while.



    Stoller is dead wrong (5.00 / 2) (#150)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 08:39:51 PM EST
    If he loses, it will be blamed on Hillary's divisiveness and racist white people.

    Fascist isn't the New Centrist but the Old Fascist (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by Ellie on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 06:20:06 PM EST
    Caving on the FISA mess is not what a "centrist" would do but what an absolute unapologetic dyed in the wool scum of the earth Fascist would do.

    The disgraceful FISA lockstep was a clinic in legislative Fascist architecture, why it occurs, how it is erected and why it is difficult to knock down.  

    This sloppy "centrist" labeling should be stopped in its tracks, no matter how we, in this day and age, so lazily prefer such trains of thought to run merrily on time and without interruption that we'd sell our children's freedom and joy for it.

    Fascism is NOT centrist. Fascism is Fascist.

    Everyone, take back our freedoms and use every means necessary to do it. Indeed, do it even if it means sabotaging that all important number one priority of the Dems, their ridiculous swanning and perpetual oily posedown for the cameras.

    The primary "reason" behind their real and theatrical ineptitude, as stated by their own party leaders at long last, has been to avoid criticism from the media.

    Because that's the most important thing. Not even Britney Spears thinks that's minimally important.

    This is why we have witnessed two admins of Dems ludicrous, haughty and toothless disregard to avoid at all costs doing the ONLY job they were placed in office to do:

    uphold and defend the Constitution.

    Yes, our champions in Congress are less than the bloated display of binge-access to the public trust. Proudly they "stand up to The Left" and pat themselves on the shoulder for this historically fine stance of not even rising to the level of chain-smoking, marguerita-swilling, baby-dropping Bush-era spokesmoralist, Britney Spears.

    It's almost as if (5.00 / 8) (#51)
    by Edgar08 on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 06:20:22 PM EST
    David Sirota thinks he gets to decide for everyone where we're at.

    I can type out a long response here but I won't.

    Simply put.  Obama actually is everything that Clinton was smeared with.  There is real truth in the idea that people trapped in a cycle of self-loathing project what they dislike the most about themselves onto good people.

    Edgar that last (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 06:29:19 PM EST
    sentence is exactly the reason why they say good people don't get into politics. (for the most part they don't) Sad indeed.

    Sirota is a Fauxgressive Oboiz apologist (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Ellie on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 07:01:00 PM EST
    Liberalism is old.

    Out with the Old, in with the Kewl(aid).

    Fauxgressives have a Black BFF, B!tches (or so should the tee shirts go were there a scrap of honesty left on the torrential Oboiz' and Gurlz' bloggarrhea at Cheetohpia.)

    Huffing the orange cheese dust destroys brain cells. Huffing it from the vaunted Bush era Codpiece of Justice can frazzle a brain into smithereens and make the vision of absolute power blind the swooning addicts to continuing these years of untrammeled wreckage.


    I declined to write my honest opinion (5.00 / 0) (#102)
    by Edgar08 on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 07:18:48 PM EST
    Of Sirota because I didn't want my comment to be deleted.

    I wanna Kudo or cookie for not dropping the F-bomb (5.00 / 6) (#111)
    by Ellie on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 07:38:56 PM EST
    ... the Feminism one as well as the other one that are deletable offenses and F-bomba non grata in fauxgressive circles.

    I generally don't argue over my deleted brilliance here though I disagree with some of the harshness. I've posted enough trash to make me blush in shame at the swiftness of my Send Trigger Finger that remains indelibly on display ib front of Gawd and everyone.

    The TL Regents deserve a case of Kudos.

    Just sayin' I'd like one of the tasty morsels to go with today's hot stuff. :-p


    Ellie, you are (5.00 / 3) (#154)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 08:43:11 PM EST
    some kinda cross between James Joyce and John Lennon.  Your writing is, I mean.  Sometimes I can't follow you at all, at all, but when I can, I am often just dazzled.

    you might add and that 1/3 won't be (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by hellothere on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 06:31:03 PM EST
    voting for obama either. it is a big problem for democrats, but denial is only a river in egypt. right!

    I am with you on this.... (5.00 / 8) (#66)
    by Jjc2008 on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 06:33:58 PM EST
    I never expected that I would feel the frustration and anger so deeply.   I so resent the race baiting I can at times barely speak to it, especially when some white liberal, wine sipping professor who has done nothing for liberal causes in years talks down to people like me who for years did the "boots to ground" hard work.  Of course I am just some old white woman who worked for liberal causes all my life while he is a professor......who talks about liberal causes with all his wine sipping friends.

    While I taught in the poorest schools, worked to improve educational opportunities for the poor, for minorities, for girls, he lectured about what was needed.

    We got into it.  He sees me like he sees Hillary....old school, old woman, school marm......
    don't even get me started.

    So basically the only arguments (5.00 / 6) (#67)
    by my opinion on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 06:37:19 PM EST
    left to support Obama are rationalizations.

    Perfectly put. That is all that is left (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by Cream City on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 07:37:49 PM EST
    for those who are conquered by their cognitive dissonance.  It takes courage to conquer it.

    It's always about money.... (5.00 / 3) (#76)
    by kc on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 06:45:49 PM EST
    With money comes power under our current campaign system (which sucks by the way. One day, someone will follow the incredible amounts of money that flowed to this very junior senator with the very thin resume.

    Yep, and 'way before (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by Cream City on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 07:43:20 PM EST
    the beginning of the fund appeal to the serfs.

    Remember all that talk about (5.00 / 3) (#77)
    by chezmadame on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 06:46:47 PM EST
    how refreshing it would be to have a meaningful convention? The only thing that stands between Hillary and the nomination is 175 super delegates.

    I find it frightening that Dean & Co. are trying to engineer a convention that denies the truth of where our party actually stands. They are scared to death about what might happen if Hillary's name is put in nomination and the super delegates get to vote in secret ballot. Do we really know at this point who the nominee would be?

    The DNC's motives for staging the nomination acceptance at a venue other than the convention aren't fooling anyone. How can a man afraid to face his opponent's supporters confront the rigors of the presidency?

    It's not too late for a Hillary-Obama ticket. He can't raise money, her base (which is huge) isn't buying what he's selling, and the 527's haven't even begun with the heavy artillery.

    Whose party is it, Dean's, Pelosi's, Brazile's or ours?

    Brokered convention or broken convention? We still have a choice.

    Restoring the votes taken by the RBC (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by Cream City on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 07:41:22 PM EST
    for Obama in violation of Michigan state law, and counting Michigan and Florida delegates as more than half-humans . . . and the margin is about 100.

    Right now (5.00 / 2) (#155)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 08:44:44 PM EST
    it's Dean's, Pelosi's and Obama's, seems to me, and will remain so for a long time if he wins.

    To be fair to Obama. . . (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by LarryInNYC on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 06:46:48 PM EST
    a large amount of the disillusionment being felt in some quarters is self-inflicted.  Take the Sirota comment, for instance.  Anyone who still sees Obama as a "transformative politician" is obviously fooling himself.  He doesn't need any help from Obama.

    The fact that a fairly traditional politician campaigns on the idea of "change" is not -- to me -- deceptive.  In fact, campaigning on change is typical politician behavior.  In a sense it's hard to blame Obama that so many people took him seriously when no one takes, for instance, John McCain seriously when he campaigns on change.

    And the fact that he has campaigned in general terms which allow him to be all things to all people is also typical politician behavior.  The ability to be all things to all people is the sign of a good politician.  People who fool themselves into believing the politician is someone he's not really have themselves to blame.

    Obama's major violation was his flip flop on FISA.  That's almost breathless in it's audacity -- he clearly, unequivocally promised to vote one way (indeed, to filibuster the vote) and in the event, with no change in circumstances and no argument as to why his opinion had changed, voted the other way.

    On pretty much all the other issues you could fairly easily discern Obama's true positions, or the fact that he didn't have a clear position, from his own statements.  The few remaining issues are ones which most people don't seem to care about (like public financing of campaigns).

    I can't blame Obama for allowing people to vote for him because they had kidded themselves about his politics.

    Exactly Larry (none / 0) (#92)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 06:58:24 PM EST
    Denial: (5.00 / 3) (#80)
    by pie on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 06:47:01 PM EST
    Obama's 58th state.

    It's not just the bait and switch that chafes (5.00 / 10) (#95)
    by davnee on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 07:04:02 PM EST
    In fact the bait and switch isn't what really bothers me, because I never bought into the hope and change con.  I knew Obama was never going to be a transformational candidate.  What sticks in my craw is not that we are stuck with an unadvertised centrist.  We'd be getting centrist appeals from any candidate, though they might be calibrated differently and more palatably with other Dems.  No, what we have here is a centrist who is also unworthy of the job.  In my opinion, Obama does not have the requisite experience or character to be a decent and effective POTUS.  I know some will disagree with me.  But that is what I believe.  

    This isn't just a case of ordering a blue shirt on final sale and getting a purple shirt delivered instead.  In this case, the purple shirt comes with giant holes in it to boot.  I am not going to wear this shirt just because the cool kids are sucking it up and pretending that shirts with holes in them are all the fashion.  And no I'm not going to go out and buy a red shirt instead just to throw good money after bad.  Instead, I'm throwing this shirt in the trash, stopping payment on my check, and waiting for the next sale.

    Because Obama carried the 8 states of (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by MarkL on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 08:00:14 PM EST
    denial, he had a big edge over Hillary, who only campaigned in the 50 states.

    How does Obama answer Jeralyn's tough question? (5.00 / 2) (#130)
    by downtownted on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 08:04:42 PM EST
    "I'm not surprised. It's why I didn't support him before the primaries. It's why I wrote dozens of posts debunking his generic change theme. It has always been just campaign rhetoric."

    I agree, I have always agreed. My previous posts have been that he was the only Democratic candidate who could lose. I always thought that Edwards was a lock to win the Presidency. HC had an excellent chance. But Barack Obama could lose.

    Barack Obama could lose Ohio, Pennsylvania and/or Michigan. Lose any one and it is very difficult to win. Lose 2 and we have Bush 3 in the White House.

    You can be a media darling. You can stand for nothing. You can win the popular vote. But if you don't win the electoral voters you are not the next President of the United States. Axelrod is truly brilliant to get his guy this far. But his guy seems to stand for nothing.

    The question is "why are those so-called Regan Democrats going to vote for Barack Obama?" Please tell me the answer.

    Thank you

    'Hope' is the answer, downtownted. (5.00 / 3) (#161)
    by oldpro on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 08:52:40 PM EST
    The Dems nominating Obama just hope the so-called Reagan Democrats will change and vote for Obama.

    Or something like that.

    Meanwhile, I'm hoping they don't start calling for prayer meetings to get him elected.


    Transform as in Delude (5.00 / 1) (#186)
    by fctchekr on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 10:03:38 PM EST

    He created a new following appearing as a tranformational figure. But, you could say he deluded many of those new followers, while others, who were never deluded in the first place now see him changing right before their eyes, from someone who said one thing during the primary, and is presently saying and doing things differently..

    So, the problem for him is two pronged: both his followers/believers and the non-followers/non-believers are finally seeing the same thing: a deceptively/dishonest and arrogant politician.

    The thing that gets (4.80 / 5) (#192)
    by frankly0 on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 10:39:26 PM EST
    me about the freshet of epiphanies rushing through latte land nowadays is how these worthies were just a few weeks back enjoying their derision of Hillary voters as "low information".

    Funny how the low information people smelled the phoniness on the man when the better class of people couldn't manage to detect anything the least bit off.

    Shows, I think, that there's more than one kind of IQ.

    Personally (4.75 / 4) (#139)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 08:19:00 PM EST
    I found a certain political naivete among the people I know who were gung ho Obama supporters.  They kept calling me cynical.  They wanted to believe in something good and purely good so badly after the "badness" of the Bush years that they got hoodwinked by a very clever campaign with the complicity of the MSM and the netroots.  I never believed in any of the Obama bits, that is now I am not disgruntled.  Just surprised that I have to tell them:  "told ya so" so early.  

    Like Jeralyn, I am a pragmatist, go for who you know.  I like Hillary's competence.  I like how she stood up for the Dem causes.  But alas, now we are back at this Unbearable Lightness of Centrist Nothingness.  

    Ho hum.  

    your first point is a very interesting one (5.00 / 2) (#167)
    by dws3665 on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:02:48 PM EST
    Obama has clearly appealed to large numbers of "new" voters with his primary-season promises of "new politics," "Change," and self-importance "We are the ones we've been waiting for."

    What happens when the scales fall from these voters' eyes and they wake up to realize that the Obamemporer has no clothes? How will this disillusionment affect these voters, and their willingness to continue to be politically active, donate to Democrats, etc.?

    As if there weren't enough to worry about with respect to his policies.


    Just think of Bush (none / 0) (#206)
    by sj on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 12:18:01 AM EST
    There will always be about 23% who remain true believers no matter what.

    Yes, the difference is experience (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by Cream City on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 11:20:13 PM EST
    -- but all the talk about experience of candidates missed the crucial role of experienced voters.

    Our experience didn't matter, either.  


    Well, F. Douglass flipflopped, too (4.75 / 4) (#158)
    by Cream City on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 08:49:25 PM EST
    in 1866, when he did not support Cady Stanton as president of the American Equal Rights Association, the postwar movement for universal suffrage.  She was pushed out, so she and Anthony and others had to start the woman's suffrage movement.  Douglass sided with Wendell Phillips, who said "This is the Negro's hour" -- meaning African American men went first.

    And thus, for the first time, gender -- "male" -- went into our Constitution in 1868.  No, the guys didn't care that the majority of African Americans were left out: women of color.  And thus, all women had to fight for more than another half of a century to rewrite the Constitution again.

    Douglass was an extraordinary guy.  But we don't seem to have any perfect guys in our history.  Most of the time, pretty good is as good as we get.:-)

    centrist my patootie! (4.50 / 2) (#185)
    by cpinva on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 10:01:59 PM EST
    given his recent FISA vote and the other centrist positions he's staked out in recent weeks.

    can you say "right-wing, bordering on fascist" positions, boys and girls? i knew that you could!

    realistically, soon, the only thing that will separate sen. obama from sen. mccain is that sen. obama is taller. oh, he's also still working on wife # 1.

    centrist? geez.

    But better than a republican. (none / 0) (#203)
    by Edger on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 12:08:18 AM EST
    Smarter and smoother than McCain too.

    Better at conning.


    I don't see the (2.00 / 3) (#3)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 05:19:58 PM EST
    truth in the article. For people who actually listened to the man, the only major issue BO "flipflopped" on was FISA. This is one of the reasons Hillary supporters voted for her instead. They simply disagreed with what he had to say. Many Obama supporters were just delusional to begin with if they believe he's "abondoning his principals"

    Oh! The only MAJOR! (5.00 / 4) (#9)
    by talex26 on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 05:23:32 PM EST
    Then MINOR flip-flops don't count? Nor do the positions he has taken that go against all Progressive principles? Don't count?

    Well they count to me and many others here and all around the country.


    What about... (5.00 / 6) (#11)
    by OrangeFur on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 05:25:36 PM EST
    ... public financing? These weren't just flip-flops, these were brazen broken promises.

    And whether you think it was technically a flip-flop or not, did you really expect him to 1) say what he did about mental distress and abortions, 2) imply that the death penalty is not applied enough in this country, 3) say that he didn't really mean all the stuff he said about NAFTA, and 4) back away from his apparently firm 16-month timetable for withdrawal?

    Maybe everyone who thought he was on their side wasn't paying attention. How were so many people misled? Maybe because someone deliberately misled them?


    They weren't delusional. (5.00 / 6) (#12)
    by Pol C on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 05:25:58 PM EST
    You sound like Rachel Maddow. Obama's campaign encouraged thse views of him as a pacifist liberal dream candidate. They were so committed to bolstering people's fantasies of Obama on Iraq that they smeared Bill Clinton as a racist and fired their sharpest foreign-policy person--Samantha Power--when she let the cat out of the bag in a published interview.

    Rachel Maddow (none / 0) (#26)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 05:43:54 PM EST
    critized Obama's positions and his blind supporters? I must have missed that.

    Oh, excuse me (4.66 / 3) (#49)
    by Pol C on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 06:19:41 PM EST
    I was reacting to the thinking behind your statements rather than the statements themselves. No, Maddow has not explicitly criticized Obama's supporters as delusional. What she has done is go on and on about how there's no inconsistency in Obama's Iraq positions--she's technically right, which is why I characterize it as sophistry--and that no one should be thinking otherwise, which completely ignores the conduct of his campaign throughout the primary season and its lead-up.

    It reminds of how, during the primary campaign, she said repeatedly that she was completely neutral on the subject of Obama v. Hillary, that she didn't support either candidate over the other, but she repeated Obama campaign talking points every chance she got. Not to mention her gush over "Si, se puede/Yes, we can" and other aspects of Obamamania.


    OK... (4.50 / 2) (#32)
    by Pol C on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 05:57:49 PM EST
    Where have you been for the last week and a half? She's been hawking this sophistry on Race for the White House and Countdown since the issue of Obama's wishy-washiness on Iraq went wide with his statements just before the Fourth of July. There was a whole folderol on-line about Joe Scarborough's obnoxious behavior towards her in response to it. (Scarborough, despite the fact that he's not Maddow's intellectual equal--nowhere near--was right in the spirit of his basic argument if not the letter, which Maddow took advantage of big-time.)

    Go the Race video and transcript for July 3 or the Countdown ones for July 7. You'll see Maddow in all her disingenuous glory.


    if maddow has such a high degree (5.00 / 3) (#62)
    by hellothere on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 06:29:12 PM EST
    of intelligence, i sure wish she'd start using it.

    Scarborough may not be (5.00 / 2) (#162)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 08:53:54 PM EST
    as intellectual as Maddow, but he's a hell of a lot smarter.

    In the eye (or ear) of the beholder (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by Pol C on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:40:58 PM EST
    Although I would say that Maddow is considerably less slovenly in her arguments than Scarborough. She also does her homework on subjects considerably better than he does. I have no problem calling Maddow a propagandist and a sophist, but she doesn't venture into blowhard territory. Scarborough ventures there quite frequently.

    Oh, by the way, to answer your question in a post the other day about David Shuster, I have friends who are support staff at MSNBC. One was on-shift there when everything went down in the aftermath of the "pimped out" non-apology. Phil Griffin's blow-up over it was the talk of the MSNBC offices for days.


    Is this the mantra of the week now? (5.00 / 6) (#18)
    by Cream City on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 05:30:03 PM EST
    You're at least the third Obaman to come on here and say, almost word for word, that his only flipflop was FISA.  Please don't cut and paste here, as this is not a low-info-voter site.  Your statement is nonsense.  Get real and get with the group here.

    We didn't get hoodwinked (5.00 / 6) (#34)
    by makana44 on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 06:03:19 PM EST
    we got robbed. Those who voted for Hillary didn't fall for the Obama campaign's male bovine excretion. This man was foisted on us by an establishment that has no higher priority than the benjamins in their own pockets. Maybe if they were motivated by the belief that this was the candidate most likely to prevail in the GE they could be forgiven. But that wasn't the case. And what irks terribly is that if our lesser of two evils "D" candidate wins, then that second evil will be enshrined and become the permanent new Democratic party...the party who can sell out our constitutional rights and all manner of long-cherished positions on abortion, the death penalty, gun control, separation of church and state, balance of powers, war making, trade policy, ad nauseum and get G-d stinking damn away with with it. Our new standard bearers for the next entire generation. That's myopic and mousey to an extreme. And WRONG - this year the candidate who ran with true humanity instead of dishonest calculation would have run away with gold medal. The country was finally ready for it and it was the Obama movement itself which proved that, and the Clinton campaign who learned and finally actualized that. The Dems threw away the high ground in favor of greed and despicable self interest - interest that has nothing to do with long-standing Democratic values.

    Sigh. (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 08:55:16 PM EST
    We used to have a better quality of sweeties, I think.

    Disagree (2.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Politalkix on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 06:09:17 PM EST
    Obama's position on the death penalty, guns, religion, Iraq, Afghanistan and trade policy (so far) has not changed one bit from the primaries.
    So the statement that Obama indulged in "bait and switch" politics during the primaries is based on wrong premises.
    I will readily acknowledge that Obama's position on FISA has undergone some change.
    Obama is a "transformative" politician simply because of the way he has engaged the young to participate in politics. His campaign was bankrolled by a larger percentage of small donations than most campaigns in recent memory. That is "transformative enough" for many. To be transformative, one does not have to embrace far-left positions of every issue.

    Right-o (5.00 / 3) (#57)
    by Steve M on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 06:26:08 PM EST
    Supporting an individual right to bear arms and believing that a complete ban on handguns is constitutional are COMPLETELY consistent positions.

    Yes (none / 0) (#85)
    by Politalkix on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 06:50:26 PM EST
    He has always said that he believes in the 2nd amendment supporting the right to own guns but the right is subject to "commonsense and reasonable" regulation. Commonsense and reasonable discourse on this subject, according to him, has always included an understanding that the dynamics of gun issues in inner big cities are different than that in the countryside, eg: deer country in Pennsylvania. It also depends on the kinds of guns involved and some other factors where he is willing to listen to the local communities that are involved.

    Heh (5.00 / 3) (#88)
    by Steve M on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 06:53:10 PM EST
    So a complete handgun ban qualifies as "commonsense and reasonable regulation"?  No wonder gun owners don't trust Democrats, if we're down with that kind of doublespeak.

    "Doublespeak" to some (none / 0) (#97)
    by Politalkix on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 07:06:15 PM EST
    "Commonsense" to others, including gun owners.

    Okay (5.00 / 4) (#99)
    by Steve M on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 07:09:24 PM EST
    If you can rationalize a total ban on handguns as a "commonsense regulation" that is consistent with an individual right to bear arms, then you're pretty much the poster child for Obama apologists.

    FISA (5.00 / 3) (#60)
    by Edgar08 on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 06:27:27 PM EST
    WAs not a far left issue.



    Correct! (none / 0) (#91)
    by Politalkix on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 06:55:56 PM EST
    Some liberal bloggers are still promoting (2.00 / 3) (#68)
    by MyLeftMind on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 06:38:22 PM EST
    Hillary for the nomination, which extends the conflict in the Dem party.  The Confluence article about Obama's money coming from Republicans who didn't want Hillary to win is in direct opposition to the Republican strategy of boosting Sen. Clinton.  It doesn't make sense that Republicans would donate to Obama's campaign while encouraging right wingers to vote for Hillary (the Rush Limbaugh Operation Chaos).  As a Democrat who would have voted for whichever candidate won, I think we need to move forward now and figure out how to stop Republicans from benefiting from the split in our party.  We could either choose (and agree on) another third party candidate, force Hillary onto the ticket as VP, or demand a high level position for Hillary in the Senate (Reid's job is what I'd be gaming for).  But just deriding the Dem candidate won't get our issues listened to.  We need to use our vote to put forth our issues, and I believe Obama will address PUMA concerns after he's the official nominee.  

    On another subthread in this topic, someone said I left out what strategy the Obama campaign is using.  I'll answer in this message because it's related and because the anti-Obama folks here can post as many messages as they want, while I'm limited to 10 posts.  For the same reason, I won't be responding to each jab from you guys trying to make me use up my limited allocation.  I try to write insightful posts here, and I won't back down from supporting our candidate.

    I believe Obama's strategy is to undermine the simplistic arguments against him, such as his disagreement with FISA proving he's not tough enough on terrorists to be Commander in Chief.  His vote minimizes our opponents claim that he's blocking the government from protecting us.  I don't like the vote, but the effect will be that the GOP won't be able to easily make the simplistic "fought against FISA" claim in 457s ads.  From comments here and elsewhere, the non-Obama half of our party were that way well before Obama announced his support of this FISA bill.  Most of the college crowd is off playing or working this summer, and a big chunk of Americans are more concerned about gas prices than the complexities of FISA.  They expect our government to figure it all out, to do something to stop terrorists without letting the government hurt regular old Americans.  They certainly don't want our leaders to do nothing, and we may have dodged a bullet by not letting FISA expire in August.  

    Obama's outreach to evangelicals and use of the words "mental distress" have angered feminists, but given how many Hillary supporters won't support him, I think his ability to look for votes amongst anti-abortion voters will turn out to be useful.  He's speaking to their fears about women choosing late term abortions flippantly.  Although their fears don't reflect reality, his ability to speak to their concerns is important in undermining our opponents claim that he's a crazy left wing liberal.  By reaching evangelical youth, he's reinforcing the generational difference between old school bible thumping leaders who sold votes to Bush, and the new faith based leaders and followers who may accept a more centrist compromise on hot topic issues like abortion and gay rights.  Ultimately, he could walk the walk and talk the talk with regard to women's right to choose, and still lose support from that part of the Dem party based on the perception that he was or is sexist.  So now we have Obama's pro-choice record, combined with his outreach to the anti-abortion crowd.  The payoff (and the strategy) is that many evangelicals and communities of faith won't fall for the GOP strategy of painting Obama as a crazy left wing liberal.  In fact, by appearing to be deserting the left wing of the Democratic party, he's in a better position to win the GE.  

    The big news now is the split in the party.  M$M thrives on conflict, not cooperation.  Faux News wants to promote McCain, but he doesn't have any draw.  Obama does.  Every time they report on a McCain event, their bored viewers switch channels.  As far as the event in TX goes, Obama doesn't look like a coward as some here have claimed, and if the media uses that terminology, they're just trying to create drama for ratings.  I personally don't want him to "cowboy up" and I think tough guy attitudes like MarkL's "Fine, he just LOOKS like a coward. Advantage McCain..." is exactly why we have a worthless president in place right now.  McCain can't inspire his followers.  If the campaign agrees to attend a fake townhall in that conservative corner of TX, Obama will be the draw that makes McSame suddenly look good.  They'd stack the deck with simplistic questions that right wingers like simplistic answers for.  McCain would lie and say he supports the troops, they'd all forget that he votes against the interests of the military, and they'd cheer for him.  Obama would be the draw, but lying, anti-troop McSame would get the cheers.  No, it's not about Obama looking like a coward, it's about our opponents wanting him to make poor strategy choices that boosts the image of their no solution candidate.

    I won't be responding to nit picks in my argument since you anti-Obama commenters can repeat your arguments over and over while I'm limited to ten posts before I get told I'm "shilling" for Obama.  And for off-topic complaints, I'll respond upfront to save myself a few more posts:  No candidate can persuade half the electorate to without appealing to those voters  by showing consideration of their political concerns.  The election period is simply not the venue to truly convince centrists and right wing voters that your progressive ideas will benefit them. Hence, Obama's outreach asking for them to give him a chance, using language that shows he respects them and their concerns.  If they're not adamantly opposed to him, if they relate to him on any level, the GOP's attempts to paint him as one of us, not one of them, will fail.  The end result if he wins the presidency will be policies that benefit them and us.  That is how we will move the "center" toward the left over the next four to eight years

    i'll keep it simple too. i believe you are (5.00 / 5) (#73)
    by hellothere on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 06:45:21 PM EST
    sadly mistaken in many of your assumptions.

    Heh (5.00 / 9) (#86)
    by Steve M on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 06:51:38 PM EST
    Although their fears don't reflect reality, his ability to speak to their concerns is important in undermining our opponents claim that he's a crazy left wing liberal.

    I think what you meant to say is "his ability to reinforce their concerns is helpful to his short-term political ambitions."

    This passive-aggressive argument of claiming that Clinton supporters who won't vote for Obama are the ones forcing him to move to the center is pretty annoying, by the way.  Where I come from, it's the candidate's job to appeal to the voters if he wants their vote, not the voters job to support the candidate so he'll start appealing to them.  Many Clinton supporters dislike Obama because they simply don't believe he's a real Democrat, and the more he panders to the right wing, the more justified they'll feel.


    This is circular logic (2.00 / 1) (#117)
    by Politalkix on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 07:43:51 PM EST
    A large chumk of Clinton supporters during the primaries were not liberals, but social conservatives (eg: Reagan democrats who had never voted for the Democrat candidate for a long time). Many working class Americans (including Catholics and Latino-Americans) are socially somewhat conservative. What some folks in TL consider pandering by Obama to the right wing is actually an attempt, IMO, to reach out to a segment of HRC supporters that Obama could not reach during the primaries.

    If so, then he's not getting it (5.00 / 4) (#128)
    by Cream City on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 08:03:35 PM EST
    as he's taking positions to the right of Clinton.  Why not (again) take her positions, if it's to get her voters?

    Ergo, I don't buy your line.


    I don't believe you. (5.00 / 4) (#135)
    by MarkL on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 08:11:10 PM EST
    Obama is the candidate who appealed to social conservatives quite directly---especially black social conservatives. I didn't see any of that from Hillary.

    Hm (5.00 / 7) (#137)
    by Steve M on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 08:14:41 PM EST
    And yet, somehow Hillary attracted those supporters without ever weakening her position on choice, guns, warrantless wiretapping or any of the other things that Obama has been putting on the table of late.

    If Obama wants to pick up this segment of Hillary's support, he needs to focus on adopting her populist, progressive economic message and tone that worked so well with them.  Doing interviews in Christian magazines about abortion is not the key to their heart.


    Please (none / 0) (#180)
    by Politalkix on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:38:21 PM EST
    HRC capitulated to social conservatives on policy by going from "Yes" on granting drivers licenses to illegal aliens to a complete "No". She made plenty of overtures to social conservatives on the issue of abortion (eg: plenty of talk about the usefulness of faith based programs in teaching abstinence to  teenagers; so, yes, she had already brought in pastors into the pregnancy and abortion debate). She completely capitulated on gun control issues (even backing away from her "national registration" plans and million-mom marches for gun control) to now becoming a believer in the 2nd amendment about right to bear arms (with some commonsense regulations).
    FISA vote-she did not get the nomination, do not know how she would have voted if she did. My belief is that she wouldn't have taken a different position than Obama.
    I really do not want to dwell on the HRC-Obama primary contest. I like both of them; Obama, just a little more. But I strongly believe in using objective measures while criticizing candidates. You should not have one standard for one candidate and a separate standard for another.

    Heh (5.00 / 4) (#183)
    by Steve M on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:42:52 PM EST
    Hillary was never "yes" on driver's licenses for illegal immigrants, no matter how much you want to spin it.  The primary is over, as you say, so can we stop telling the same old lies?

    Hillary won over swing voters by appealing to the things they agree with Democrats on, not by trying to persuade them with incremental panders on the things they disagree with Democrats on.  It's a strategy I'd like to see more members of our party consider.


    Spin? (none / 0) (#200)
    by squeaky on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 11:42:53 PM EST
    Hillary Clinton came out yesterday in support of a plan by Governor Eliot Spitzer of New York to offer limited driver's licenses to illegal immigrants, after she appeared tripped up by a question on the subject in Tuesday night's Democratic debate.

    "Senator Clinton supports governors like Governor Spitzer who believe they need such a measure to deal with the crisis caused by this administration's failure to pass comprehensive immigration reform," her campaign said in a statement. "As president, her goal will be to pass comprehensive immigration reform that would make this unnecessary."


    No spin, although she hedged like a true pol in her support of Spitzer's plan.


    Yes, it's interesting, isn't it (5.00 / 4) (#159)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 08:51:17 PM EST
    that those social conservatives overcame their objections to social liberalism and voted for Hillary anyway.

    THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT. (cough, sorry)

    An actual political realignment, instead of a fantasy one, would have been convincing these people to trust a liberal.  Hillary was able to do that without backing down or compromising her stated principles.  Obama. Is. Not.

    Oh, man, what we gave up in this election just makes me sick.


    I know (5.00 / 2) (#199)
    by Nadai on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 11:27:34 PM EST
    It's the same way I feel about Gore losing, thinking about how differently the last 7+ years would have gone if he hadn't.  Now I get to replay that for the next 4+ no matter who wins.

    This is (5.00 / 3) (#168)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:04:42 PM EST
    how he reaches out to Hillary's voters? He's clueless then as how to reach them. Lots of Hillary supporters liked her because she wasn't a waffler like Obama. And besides on NAFTA alone, he's moved away from their issues.

    Obama's biggest problem with Hillary's voters is that he treats them like children "because they have no where to go." Um, there's lots of places to go other than Obama. And if he keeps agreeing with McCain on issues then why not vote for the one with experience?


    she waffled (none / 0) (#174)
    by Salo on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:09:13 PM EST
    in the primaries.  But her primary case was much like her general election case.

    So let's end the conflict (5.00 / 4) (#98)
    by echinopsia on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 07:07:17 PM EST
    We could either choose (and agree on) another third party candidate, force Hillary onto the ticket as VP, or demand a high level position for Hillary in the Senate

    Let's do the truly smart thing and dump Obama.

    We need to use our vote to put forth our issues, and I believe Obama will address PUMA concerns after he's the official nominee.  

    The only way Obama can address PUMA concerns would be to apologize and denounce sexism, denounce the corruption in the Democratic Party that handed him the nomination, and withdraw his candidacy in favor of Hillary Clinton.

    She'd probably be gracious and politically astute enough to make him her VP, we'd win in November, the party would be energized and triumphant, and we'd have a REAL fighting Democrat in office.

    I can dream.  


    Ah yes... (1.50 / 2) (#116)
    by ctrenta on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 07:43:51 PM EST

    .... the liberal blogosphere is looking for the perfect candidate.

    I don't like how Obama voted on FISA. However as Russ Feingold said the other night on Countdown, he believes that Obama understands the issues, understands it was a bad bill, and will work to undo the worst parts of the bill if he's elected President.

    A part of me is not surprised Obama's not as progressive as we all make him out to be. If we're surprised, how much have we been paying attention to him? This isn't anything new.

    We can't turn to Obama to solve all our problems and/or issues. The most progressive, revolutionary, effective, beneficial, substantive, lasting, and evolutionary changes that have ever happened, in human history, are the direct result of people taking action- themselves- to demand it; not through ballot boxes, not through vigils, not through quaint marches or petitions, but through insisting that something about the way things are is un-exceptable and antiquated.

    Am I wrong?

    Maybe we just need to write him (5.00 / 4) (#122)
    by Anne on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 07:52:05 PM EST
    some sternly worded letters...

    Who's we, (5.00 / 2) (#132)
    by pie on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 08:06:12 PM EST
    A part of me is not surprised Obama's not as progressive as we all make him out to be. If we're surprised, how much have we been paying attention to him? This isn't anything new.


    I see the new talking points have been rolled out, as they've been all over the place after the spit-take FISA debacle.

    They're not working.



    Russ Figleaf (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by Salo on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 08:16:28 PM EST
    He can cover for any screw up by St Obama.

    Feingold is almost like Godwin when we discuss Obama' leftwing apostacy:

    The probability of a mention about Feingold in a thread discussion left wing betrayals by Obama approaches 1 as the thread continues.


    Feingold fell on a sword there (5.00 / 3) (#165)
    by Cream City on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 08:56:56 PM EST
    and I wish my Senator had not done so.  At least he voted correctly, for the Constitution.

    Obama did not.  Nor did he even come on the air to cover his own posterior.  My Senator got points from me for his vote, for his principles.  But when he backpedaled on air for the party, I could only remember . . . Ashcroft . . . Roberts . . . and my Senator is back to about even on the scorecard.

    So remember Russ' unwise votes, and now his unwise surrogacy for Obama.  A pol is just a pol even if he's Feingold, too.  And so invoking his name does not impress me.

    And I'm the one who gets to vote on Feingold again.


    I like Feingold. (none / 0) (#145)
    by ctrenta on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 08:32:25 PM EST
    I think he made a very clear, sober assessment of what happened. Afterall, he's a champion of civil rights. He said it best right here.

    "Having a Democratic president and particularly Barack Obama should allow us to change this mistake. Barack Obama believes in the Constitution. He's a constitutional scholar. I believe that he will have a better chance to look at these powers that have been given to the executive branch and even though that he will be running the executive branch, I think he will understand and help take the lead in fixing some of the worst provisions. So this is a huge setback and it would have been much better for Democrats to stand together and not let it happen in the first place 'cause it's much harder to change it after the fact. But I do believe that Barack Obama is well positioned both in terms of his knowledge and his background, and his beliefs, to correct this. And so I do think that people have a right to be disappointed but I also think they have the right to hope for change on this issue in particular starting in January."

    Obama's gonna make some good decisions and he's going to make some bad ones. It's our job to pressure Obama and correct the mistakes he'll make.

    If people are upset at Obama, tell me, who else are you going to vote for?


    Maybe people will think it doesn't matter. (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by MarkL on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 08:36:37 PM EST
    That is the danger, given Obama's course.

    here's what a friend of mine said... (2.00 / 1) (#151)
    by ctrenta on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 08:41:58 PM EST
    ... someone who's got a good sense of the big picture. Take it or leave it.

    As we all know, the FISA bill was bad. But, we also know that there was little that Barack Obama could have done to prevent it from passing -- or to ensure that the telecom immunity was stripped out.

    So instead, he apparently knowingly voted for a bad bill to prevent the vote from being hung around his neck. Who knows, maybe he would have been lionized in the press for standing on principle instead of being subjected to a summer of "soft on terror" 527 ads. But, now we'll never know.

    As the Obama campaign demonstrated during the primary, they want to win. I would hope all Democratic leaning voters feel the same way. I would hope that we don't spend the rest of the summer focusing on what we don't like about the Democratic nominee. And instead focus on winning the White House, and increasing the margins in Congress.

    If we turn into a circular firing squad then that hurts our chances. Do we want to win or squabble over our differences? We can't lose another election.


    You're missing the point. (5.00 / 3) (#156)
    by MarkL on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 08:44:46 PM EST
    Whether your argument convinces me is not important. Where is the argument which works on people who feel Obama offers nothing, and doesn't have the experience for the job? He is making it difficult  for supporters to make that case.
    "Hello. I'm Barack Obama and I'm not John McCain" is very thin stuff.

    How about... (3.00 / 1) (#170)
    by ctrenta on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:05:59 PM EST

    ....vote for Obama to stop McCain from becoming President and getting like three SCOTUS APPOINTMENTS IN THE NEXT 4 YEARS!

    If you think Obama is going to aggravate us for the next four years think about what McCain will do. I'll take aggravation with Obama.


    McCain cannot nominate just anyone (5.00 / 2) (#171)
    by MarkL on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:06:44 PM EST
    since the Dems control Congress.

    Anyway, that is not a positive (5.00 / 2) (#172)
    by MarkL on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:08:14 PM EST
    argument, and not unique to Obama.
    If that's all you can find as  a reason to vote for Obama, we are in similar positions---you have one reason, I have none.

    Re: (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by ctrenta on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:16:44 PM EST
    I'll vote, but I don't have to like it. Obama will probably end up with my vote as the most palatable candidate on card.  I find the alternatives: not voting, a write-in protest vote, McCain, Nader, Barr, or any of the other third-party and independent candidates I've heard of, wholly unacceptable.

    But I won't be digging into my pocket or volunteering any time for the Obama campaign, that's for sure.

    But if you want something positive to find in Obama, consider this. Here's what Norm Solomon, a stauch progressive media critic had to say about Obama's vote and the election ahead.

    Barack Obama is an extremely smart guy. And I can't remember a major contender for president less inclined to insult the intelligence of the public. Let's return the favor by directly challenging him when appropriate. We'd do him -- and the Obama campaign, ourselves and the country as a whole -- no favors by opting for silence instead.

    We can help the Obama for President effort when we hold him to his good positions -- and move to buck him up when he wavers.

    While speaking of the Iraq war, Obama made one of the most insightful statements of the primary campaign: "I don't want to just end the war; I want to end the mindset that got us into war." He needs to be held to that wisdom. Obama should feel enormous counter-pressure from the grassroots against the forces in the media and foreign-policy establishment that are pushing him to go wobbly on ending the Iraq war.

    Then he concludes with this.

    "Some progressives, now disaffected, might consider the prospect of Obama falling short on Election Day to be his problem, not ours. But this isn't about Obama. It's about whether the levers of power in the Executive Branch, and the Supreme Court along with it, are going to be redelivered into the hands of the right wing for yet another four years.

    We're facing the historic imperative of keeping McCain out of the White House. If major progressive change is going to be feasible during the next several years, defeating McCain in November is necessary. And insufficient. The insufficiency does not negate the necessity.

    Under a McCain presidency, we'd be back to the square one where we've found ourselves since January 2001. Putting Obama in the White House would not by any means ensure progressive change, but under his presidency the grassroots would have an opportunity to create it.

    Along the way, let's strive to eliminate disillusionment by dispensing with illusions. No one who is a presidential candidate can proceed to overcome corporate power or the warfare state. The pervasive and huge problems that have proved to be so destructive are deep, structural and embedded in the political economy. The changes most worth believing in are the ones that social movements can make possible."

    Makes some sense to me.


    Hmm (4.25 / 4) (#181)
    by Steve M on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:40:49 PM EST
    You know what the mindset is that got us into war?  The mindset Obama wants to end?  Rolling over for the GOP every time a national security issue comes up so we don't look weak, that's the mindset that needs to end.

    How's that working out so far?  Good thing we nominated the guy who doesn't do cowering.


    Thanks for the quote. I'll think about it. (none / 0) (#177)
    by MarkL on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:24:24 PM EST
    There is about a 1% chance I'd vote for McCain, but it really doesn't matter, since my state is not remotely in play for Obama. There is about a 2% chance I would donate to Obama.

    Doesn't it just make you sad to type that? (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by davnee on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 10:54:04 PM EST
    All you can say to recommend an Obama vote is "it'll be bad, but it could be worse."  I mean we haven't even made it to the convention yet, and we've already reached resigned disappointment.

    heh (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by Salo on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:26:20 PM EST
    As we all know, the FISA bill was bad. But, we also know that there was little that Barack Obama could have done to prevent it from passing -- or to ensure that the telecom immunity was stripped out.

    So he knowingly votes for bad bills?  If I vote for something i'll make a couple of reservations known and then praie the bill.

    So instead, he apparently knowingly voted for a bad bill to prevent the vote from being hung around his neck. Who knows, maybe he would have been lionized in the press for standing on principle instead of being subjected to a summer of "soft on terror" 527 ads. But, now we'll never know.

    He the liberal pacifist anti-war Law school Professor already.  He's already buggered in that soft on terror way:  He plans to retreat in the face of dictator and terrorists-- in the field.

    As the Obama campaign demonstrated during the primary, they want to win. I would hope all Democratic leaning voters feel the same way. I would hope that we don't spend the rest of the summer focusing on what we don't like about the Democratic nominee. And instead focus on winning the White House, and increasing the margins in Congress.

    He want' to advacne his own career.  He's like Jerry Lewis in the secret of my success. He wants a fat book deal and the adoration of the AA community.

    If we turn into a circular firing squad then that hurts our chances. Do we want to win or squabble over our differences? We can't lose another election.

    Obama guarentee's a circular firing squad.  He's got a dodgy, easy to destroy biography and he's therefore frced to repudiate left wing policy at every single turn.  He's a fragger as far as the left is concerned. I was willing to exchange UHC (which he will not pass at all) for a good centrist from of respect for civil rights.  But Obama' now going into very dangerous territory on religion, surveillance, abortion rights an a slew of other constitutional issues oh and guns.  So He represents nothing and promises nothing.  He won't even deliver a rebuke to McCain about the Iraq war as I had hoped he would. He will offer the American people 10,000 less troops in Iraq than McCain. He's basically made certain that the left will be forced to assault him because he cannot live up to his own billing.  He's done this with his convenient primary obsession about the IWR vote and manipulating the antiwar-pacifist constituency that propelled him to the nomination.


    He's very unimpressive (none / 0) (#149)
    by Salo on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 08:39:20 PM EST
    in my book.

    You are not selling Obama's vote very well. (none / 0) (#152)
    by Salo on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 08:42:31 PM EST
    If I vote for a bill i'd highlight the positive reasons for voting for something.

    I wouldn't trot out an apologist like Feingold a a sop to lefties.he's no Nye Bevan.


    Yes you are wrong (4.66 / 3) (#142)
    by Salo on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 08:24:22 PM EST
    The big shifts in policy like the NHS or civil rights or the civil war (if you want to go back) were very much top down centralized things. The American revolution was organized by Boston Brahmins and Virginian Planters. Most Americans were ambivalent or hostile to the idea of a Republic.

    The civil war was fought out between industrialists and planters.  One side had more cash and men than the other.  It wasn't the result of uprisings.

    civil rights were supported by Eisenhower and Kennedy because the Cold War dictated that America needed to look freer than the Soviet Union. It's something that is rarely discused in the US but there was a huge propaganda value to the oppression of blacks in the US for the USSR.


    I would add to this (none / 0) (#160)
    by MyLeftMind on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 08:51:40 PM EST
    that there usually needs to be a groundswell of public opinion before change occurs.  The anti-Vietnam protestors made regular Americans who were fed up with the war seem pretty normal.  The need to end slavery was eventually viewed as the ethically right thing to do.  Knowing that some people risked their lives rescuing slaves did a lot to normalize peoples abhorrence of slavery.  Today, elected Dems can take a stand against the occupation in Iraq because the common understanding amongst many Americans is that we're spending too much money trying to keep a civil war at bay.  

    Sorry, again no responses to nit pickers until my account is restored.  


    The first American soldier died in Nam (3.66 / 3) (#166)
    by Cream City on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:00:15 PM EST
    in 1945.  The American Anti-Slavery Society, the main force in the abolition movement, was founded in 1833.

    So your examples suggest that if we start protesting the Iraqi war in about 2025 -- based on the Nam protest chronology -- we'll be fine.  Tell it to the troops.


    Nothing I've ever posted here (none / 0) (#184)
    by MyLeftMind on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:47:39 PM EST
    would indicate that I think we should stay in Iraq.  My strongest argument against McSame is that he'll keep wasting our money, our children's future and what's left of our country's good name by funding an occupation that props up oil prices by reducing Iraq's oil production and facilitating OPEC's illegal price manipulations.  

    Your comment was a troll post that grossly misrepresents my position.  I am a veteran from the Vietnam era, but many of you here mistakenly assume that those of us who support Obama are silly little boyz.  When we withdraw, the Iraq government will suddenly take responsibility for funding their own country and they'll crank up oil production. The longer we stay there, the longer the occupation artificially props up oil prices and degrades the dollar.  Tell that to the troops.

    This fall McCain (or whoever they replace him with at the GOP convention) will announce that the surge has worked and we can start drawing down our troops.  He'll lie to us and claim this will start next spring.  Many Americans will believe the lie and vote for him, and the PUMA movement may weaken support for Obama enough that McCain will win.  After McSame is installed as Prez, things on the ground will change, requiring us to keep funding the occupation and keeping the price of oil high.  BushCo and the Saudis continue to get rich, and we pick up the tab.  Tell that to the troops.

    Alternatively, our Dem candidate will be elected, and even if Obama has somehow tricked us and he's really a stealth warmonger, he and Congress will still have to bow to public pressure from Americans who are tired of our children dying and our money going down the drain.  That would be the best way to support the troops.


    Obama, Clinton, McCain? What's the difference? (none / 0) (#29)
    by 1980Ford on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 05:49:44 PM EST
    Newt is still winning.

    But at what price (none / 0) (#35)
    by Saul on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 06:03:46 PM EST
    I know we want the Bush era to end.  But in the end is Obama really going to be  better than Bush.   If he is becoming the status quo thats not say much about our next president being very different.   If Obama keeps deteriorating from what he preached in the primaries  then why should I vote for him, just because he is a democrat and  any democrat will be better than Bush.  I just don't know about this guy.I did not vote for Bush so I take no personal responsibility for his actions.  I hate to vote for this guy and then he turns out to be a real mess.  Maybe in November we will be faced with who is the lesser of two evils.  McCain or Obama  What a choice.

    You know... (none / 0) (#37)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 06:07:52 PM EST
    there ARE other choices my friend.

    Jeralyn (none / 0) (#169)
    by tek on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:05:16 PM EST
    What you said.  Nothing transformative here.

    Listen to the man (none / 0) (#187)
    by diogenes on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 10:12:27 PM EST
    Gail Collins said it best in the recent NY Times.  Obama kept saying, all along, that he would end the conflict-ridden politics as usual.  You don't do that by stepping into office on day one and governing from the left.  If the majority of the Democratically-controlled Congress passed the FISA bill now, they'd do so later-do you expect President Obama to veto it?  

    Heh (5.00 / 2) (#193)
    by Steve M on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 10:43:41 PM EST
    During the primaries Clinton supporters said this same thing, only to be told they were smearing a good liberal.  Now it's like duh, who would have ever thought he was a liberal?

    Yes..... (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by gabbyone on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 10:47:27 PM EST
    Yes I would expect Obama to veto it and tell them to take out the immunity....that is what he said he would do.  Any one that thinks Obama will even pick liberal Supreme Court Justices
    may be kidding themselves.  He was in favor of
    Justice Roberts until he realized he would have big trouble with his party if he voted for him.

    Trying to stay (none / 0) (#209)
    by bluejane on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 05:08:45 AM EST
    Long before this I got the sense that BHO dissembled. For example, he'd make a statement about Reagan or about working-class people in PA, and when asked about it he would re-state his statement in different terms in a different frame to make himself look good. He just changed the script as he went along. I lost trust early and then ran into the buzz saw of the "blogger boyz" on Daily Kos and other places so enamored of Obama and intolerant of dissent. That experience gave me chills.

    Barack's FISA stance was a jaw-dropper. He misled the public by mischaracterizing what was in the bill (a kind of lying) which is bizarre because there was no need for it. He said to people, "If FISA is a deal-breaker for you, that's okay," dismissing the Constitution and -- just as important -- dismissing any dissent with his opinion. He inoculates himself by saying, "You won't agree with everything I say" and salves disappointment by rhetorically pumping the emotionality of his "movement." It's a very cunning flim-flam.

    For a while I considered leaving the Democratic Party but I've decided this dissembling/emotional/quasi-religious Obama movement is so serious that I have to stay and work with others toward keeping a rational balance and sustaining core progressive values. After 17 election cycles as a precinct captain, this year I'm "at sea" because I haven't the slightest idea how to explain this candidate to voters.

    transformational? HA! (none / 0) (#210)
    by Bornagaindem on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 08:09:38 AM EST
    From the very beginning Obama said that both republicans and democrats were equally to blame for the gridlock/problems in Washington. I couldn't disagree more. The problems existed because the repugs refuse to compromise and the years have shown them that they don't need to. Eventually the dems will capitulate anyway. Repugs don't do compromise and they won't do compromise with an Obama either. That means he will do what he is doing now -just give them their and call it winning.

    If the democratic leadership gets away with what they did this year. Anointing Obama as though he won overwhelming support among democrats  instead of limping across the finish line then they will have the green light to continue to fold on all the important issues to progressives. They will never stand up against the centrist Obama. If they have to deal with a president McCain they will have the power to make him compromise. More importantly they will have learned that you defy the will of the base of your party at your peril. If democrats want to take back their party what better time to do it. What better way to  show the leadership that we will not be taken for granted. I can take a one term McCain presidency that leaves the repugs responsible for their war if it forces the democrats to embrace the left again.

    Entire argument fails (none / 0) (#211)
    by DA in LA on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 10:57:18 AM EST
    when faced with reality:  many of us did not vote for Hillary because we don't like her and she voted for the war.  I was not "hoodwinked" by Obama.  I thought he was far better than Hillary and still do.  I was never going to vote for Hillary in the GE and now will not vote for Obama.  I'm not really concerned about most of his centrist moves - just one.  FISA.  I won't vote for a candidate who supports undermining the constitution.  Just the same way I wouldn't vote for a candidate who voted for the war.  Dems 0 for 2.

    I'll be taking look at 3rd party candidates.

    Not Ready From Day One (none / 0) (#212)
    by tdraicer on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 04:32:36 PM EST
    >No, what we have here is a centrist who is also unworthy of the job.  In my opinion, Obama does not have the requisite experience or character to be a decent and effective POTUS.  I know some will disagree with me.  But that is what I believe.  

    And also what I believe. I want a Democratic revival, not four years of failure in the White House leading to an extended GOP revival. Which is all that Obama promises.

    Great post (none / 0) (#213)
    by Andy08 on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 11:02:15 PM EST

    I disagree with your conclusion at the end.

    (besides the SuperDelagates haven't casted their votes and won't until late August).

    But I appreciate your honesty and such a lucid and impressive commentary. Thank you!!

    Meant "haven't cast" (none / 0) (#214)
    by Andy08 on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 11:08:51 PM EST
    sorry for the typo.

    Who does this sound like? (none / 0) (#215)
    by northeast73 on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 09:07:31 AM EST
    "He's now at risk of "being viewed as someone who parses positions without taking a principled stand.""

    The very thing his supporters bashed Hillary for....

    wake up (none / 0) (#216)
    by Evole on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 04:13:04 PM EST
    I've been reading the black agenda report since Obama  became a national leader, so this move to the center is not a surprise. HE IS NOT A PROGRESSIVE, but if he gets elected, perhaps we'll be able to move him towards progressive outcomes. Who can say, but organize locally!!