home

Absent A Change . . .

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 04:12:39 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

. . . in the dynamics of this election, Barack Obama will defeat John McCain for the Presidency in November. Obama leads by 6, roughly the margin for a month now. How can he lose it? By exposing a flank. The flip flopper flank, by listening to his inner Dick Morris. Speaking of Morris, he, not surprisingly, loves Obama's tack to the "middle":

For the past two weeks, Obama has moved quickly toward the center. He has reversed his previous positions for gun control, against using faith based institutions to deliver public services, against immunity for tele-communications companies that turn records over to the government in terror investigations, for raising Social Security taxes, for imposing the fairness doctrine on talk radio, and a host of other issues.

. . .[I]f McCain doesn't answer, or just replies with his own positive ad, he will let Obama move to the center, a key mistake from which he may never recover. If Obama can hold his 5-10 point lead until the conventions, he will have set in place a pattern that will be very hard to change. With his new ad, Obama could even elevate his lead to double digits.

More . . .

What's a progressive to do? In my view, hold Obama's feet to the fire and point out, not only that Obama is wrongly and unnecessarily tacking to "the middle," but that he is opening up an avenue of attack, the flip flopper attack. Morris even suggests it for McCain:

[H]ere is a heaven-sent opportunity for McCain to strike. In his effort to move to the center, Obama has distorted his own record . . .

. . . [I]f McCain calls him on his distortion, he can do grave damage to Obama on three fronts: credibility, centrism, and experience. By catching Obama in a lie, he can undermine the effectiveness of any subsequent ads the Democrat runs. By showing that he opposed welfare reform, McCain can do much to force Obama back to the left and cast doubt on his efforts to move to the middle. . . The move is right there for McCain. Now lets see how good his campaign really is.

If the move is there, it is because Obama has forced himself to "move to the middle" for no good reason. Tiem to stop the triangulation Senator Obama. You are creating opportunities for negative attacks against you.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Options For Reforming (Or Ending) CA's Death Penalty | AP Writer Learns that Online Speech Isn't Always Free >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Absent A Change . . . | 203 comments (203 topical)
    I fail to see how (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 04:25:26 PM EST
    the flip-flopper argument holds water against McCain.

    Sure the Left can attack for it.  But how does McCain attack Obama the flip-flopper when he has done an about face on most major issues over the past 7 years?

    Most of McCain's flip flops (5.00 / 4) (#6)
    by Grace on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 04:28:54 PM EST
    have been gradual, over the course of several years.  

    Obama's flip flops are so last week.  

    [ Parent ]

    Yeah, (5.00 / 6) (#8)
    by frankly0 on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 04:36:11 PM EST
    at least if one modifies one's views over a fairly lengthy period of time, there's a plausible argument that one actually changed one's mind after seeing new facts and considering new angles.

    But how do you explain a entire slate of "refinements" which come about within weeks of becoming the presumptive nominee of your party? How do you pretend that you are doing anything other than engaging in the very worst sort of political expediency?

    Really, McCain can come up with plausible excuses.

    Obama, though, has been caught with his pants down.

    [ Parent ]

    His flip-flops (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 04:41:02 PM EST
    on immigration and Gitmo are NOT over the course of many years.

    He has shifted hard right over the past 2 years.  That is pretty hard to deny.

    A lot of Conservatives don't buy it already.  Does McCain really want to get into a fight over flip flops with a guy who has 4 years of time in the Senate compared his 30?

    [ Parent ]

    Completely agree (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 04:56:46 PM EST
    Why give this up? Why did Obama do it?

    [ Parent ]
    As I said (2.00 / 0) (#41)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 05:05:20 PM EST
    I believe they think it is simply too early to engage in a fight with his own party.  

    Let Feingold and Dodd do the heavy lifting. If they can get the Party leadership to come on aboard then great.  

    Obama is focused on winning the election, not passing a good FISA bill.  

    Let me ask you this.  If Obama fought against the telecom immunity issue but let the bill pass otherwise, do you think that he would have avoided criticism?  Or do you think that the criticism would simply be something else about FISA?

    [ Parent ]

    Have you seen who are some (5.00 / 0) (#45)
    by zfran on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 05:08:07 PM EST
    of the players paying for the Dem. convention this year! Try the telecom community!

    [ Parent ]
    Yeah, they're going to get (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by Grace on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 05:10:41 PM EST
    the government they paid for!  

    Who cares about the public?!  

    [ Parent ]

    I suspect (5.00 / 3) (#49)
    by Steve M on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 05:10:38 PM EST
    that the vast majority of the netroots would have settled for a fight on telecom immunity.

    [ Parent ]
    Even if it's true that (5.00 / 6) (#29)
    by frankly0 on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 04:57:06 PM EST
    He has shifted hard right over the past 2 years.

    How do you get around the fact that Obama has shifted well to right over the space of 2 weeks?

    I think it's just a little harder to turn those lemons into lemonade.

    [ Parent ]

    that;s true too (5.00 / 0) (#34)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 05:02:23 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    He hasn't shifted hard to the right (none / 0) (#47)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 05:08:25 PM EST
    That just plain untrue.

    You can say that he caved on the telecom immunity issue but all the other caves are just creative parsing of his comments getting worse and worse with each one.

    The media saw a blossoming story(Obama is a flip-flopper) and they ran with it. That's what they do.  This sort of thing is like a passing storm.  

    [ Parent ]

    You forgot about public financing? (5.00 / 3) (#59)
    by Grace on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 05:21:17 PM EST
    That was a flip flop too.  Spin it any way you want to, but now that he is chasing after the donors who can give $30,000+, it sure doesn't look like the "small fry" public donors Daschle tried to spin it as.  

    [ Parent ]
    What? (none / 0) (#61)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 05:25:19 PM EST
    forgoing public financing is the proper action.  Just because he agreed with McCain a year and a half ago that he would accept public financing doesn't mean much to me.

    Why should the money I gave him not matter?  

    [ Parent ]

    Ah, then if McCain "shifted" (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by Cream City on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 06:01:46 PM EST
    on public financing, it would be fine, sez Flyerhawk -- who requires no shifts in two years' time, but a year and a half?  That's okey-dokey.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm sure you find that very clever (none / 0) (#125)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 06:25:11 PM EST
    but it isn't very compelling.

    I don't require a thing.  

    [ Parent ]

    Believe me (5.00 / 3) (#130)
    by Steve M on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 06:32:53 PM EST
    That statement went without saying.

    [ Parent ]
    Right (none / 0) (#185)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 09:00:13 PM EST
    And most of you finding a negative in everything Obama does is to be expected.  

    Maybe if you hold your breath, Hillary will get the nomination.

    [ Parent ]

    Heh (5.00 / 4) (#192)
    by Steve M on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 09:29:57 PM EST
    You're still the best unity ambassador anyone could ask for.

    You've made it quite clear there is nothing Obama could do between now and the election that would warrant criticism from you, so calling others' good faith into question is really a hoot.

    The only purpose you serve here is to alienate people even further, and I really have to wonder why.

    [ Parent ]

    Do you realize that (5.00 / 6) (#129)
    by seeker on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 06:29:20 PM EST
    Obama's rejection of public financing may just have killed that system for all GEs.  For a number of years, public financing has been inadequate for primaries, but it has worked well for the GE.

    Some of us consider private financing of campaigns the most significant reason that corporate interests dominate the pol. system.  And Obama is clearly moving toward financing by those with money.

    I cannot forgive him for destroying this small precedent for eliminating big money from our politics.

    Given his schedule of big money fund raising events, it is hard to give any credence to his claim that small donor contributions are somehow a substitute for public financing.

    [ Parent ]

    Ok (none / 0) (#184)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 08:59:20 PM EST
    Add another evil that Obama has perpetrated.  

    [ Parent ]
    What I said was that (5.00 / 3) (#65)
    by frankly0 on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 05:27:39 PM EST
    Obama has "shifted well to the right".

    In every single flip flop -- on FISA, on a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, on abortion, on the death penalty, on NAFTA, his positions have shifted distinctly toward the right. In the case that Morris mentions, Obama's current claim that he was in favor of welfare reform, the lie Morris identifies is one that would position him away from his previous leftward position.

    All of this in two weeks. Two weeks. I'm sorry, but I just have to think that represents some kind of record.

    I can easily imagine a McCain ad that mentions all of these flip flops and how they came about in two weeks, and exactly at the moment when it would serve his political expediency.

    That would be a pretty devastating ad, I should think.

    [ Parent ]

    And shifts are okay for good reason (5.00 / 4) (#103)
    by Cream City on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 06:04:04 PM EST
    so what has happened in the last two weeks to so change the reasoning on abortion, Iraq, NAFTA, public financing, and myriad other Obama "shifts"?

    He rarely cites a reason.  Why?  He tells us that what we see as shifts are what he always said.

    [ Parent ]

    And yet it's (5.00 / 6) (#38)
    by frankly0 on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 05:04:14 PM EST
    precisely because McCain has been around for 30 years that his flip flops are more excusable. And what is incredible about Obama is how he has managed so many flip flops in such a compressed period of time. Where's the core? What's left?

    At least McCain gives the sense that there's some long record one can look at to get a sense of the man.

    And McCain, unlike Obama, is not running on the premise that he's going to change "politics as usual" in Washington.

    All of Obama's flip flops are inherently vastly more damaging to him than any McCain has engaged in, because of their history and because of how they are casting themselves.

    You may remember how Bush in 2004 was able to turn John Kerry's vastly superior military record against him. I don't think it's going to be hard for the Republican attack machine to turn Obama's record of flip flops against him, even if it were the case that his record is not as bad as McCain's (which I don't even believe -- I see no reason to think that McCain is more compromised than Obama on this account, despite Obama's short time on this political earth.)

    [ Parent ]

    obama put his name on others' bill (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by hellothere on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 05:36:59 PM EST
    in the ill legislture. he has never held a major committee meeting. what has he done in the senate that really says i am for the people? huh? so though i am very tepid about mccain and probably won't go that way, i'd say pick your arguments better.

    [ Parent ]
    527s (5.00 / 6) (#12)
    by tree on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 04:41:58 PM EST
    How could Bush attack Kerry for his military service? He didn't. 527s did it for him.

    But, as Grace mentioned, Obama's flip-flops are much more current and more rapid and can be much more easily discredited as rank pandering. "Say anything to win" may easily come back to haunt Obama.

    [ Parent ]

    And they can use his and his campaigns' (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by nycstray on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 05:51:46 PM EST
    audio to narrate the "Anything to Win" commercials. I can see it now. Split screens with all his flips and V.O. being their voices saying "Say anything, do anything to win" while the type on the screens will be the flip quotes. Wouldn't take me anytime at all to put together an effective ad. {sigh}


    [ Parent ]
    It may not work (none / 0) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 04:28:09 PM EST
    But why open the door?

    [ Parent ]
    There are several possible reasons (4.00 / 1) (#10)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 04:39:08 PM EST
    His campaign may have decided that they needed to run to the Right.

    They may have decided that they needed to show they were not beholden to the MoveOn wing of the party.

    They may have decided that the fight wasn't worth the political capital.

    I don't really know the answer.  I don't think it has anything to do with political cowardice.  I think it all has to do with their internal polling and seeing how many people really care about this issue.  I suspect very few do.  If it isn't going to move the meter, one way or the other, why go against the Dem leadership?

    [ Parent ]

    And why should a progressive (5.00 / 6) (#22)
    by frankly0 on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 04:53:46 PM EST
    bother to vote for a candidate who, every day, becomes still less of a lesser evil?

    Are we better off voting for a deeply compromising and compromised candidate like Obama now, or should we instead register a protest by not voting for him, see him go down in defeat, with the hope that in the next round, a true progressive might arise?

    It's no longer a case of the perfect being the enemy of the good. It's, at worst, a case of the good being the enemy of the not-even-passable.

    And let's face facts here: nothing short of a refusal to support or vote for the chosen Democrat will ever be recognized by the party bigwigs as something they need to respond to. Every time we vote in their guy, with all his defects, we are only encouraging them to ignore us and what we stand for.

    Many on the left blogosphere talk about their anger over FISA, and our need to protest what the Democratic Party has done with regard to it. Yet with rare exception, they give us nothing -- nothing -- that might plausibly count as an effective way of fighting the Party. The Party "leaders" will simply ignore us as they have in the past if there are no real consequences.

    One thing I know will be effective: seeing their nominee go down in flames in November because he couldn't get the money and votes of progressives. And I know of nothing else that might be effective.

    [ Parent ]

    Perhaps you missed (none / 0) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 04:56:00 PM EST
    my directive - NO discussing of how people should vote in my threads.

    Flyerhawk - Ignore this comment. No more comments on this topic and no replies to it please.

    [ Parent ]

    OK (none / 0) (#30)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 04:57:17 PM EST
    So could you give me a few of the Progressives you could see running in 2012?  Legitimate options please.

    [ Parent ]
    I asked you not to respond (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 05:03:05 PM EST
    Come on. I am trying to avoid these who are you voting for spats.

    [ Parent ]
    Sorry about that (none / 0) (#42)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 05:05:55 PM EST
    I responded before I saw your comment.  

    [ Parent ]
    Joking, right? (none / 0) (#54)
    by Veracitor on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 05:15:07 PM EST
    a deeply compromising and compromised candidate like Obama

    Deeply?

    [ Parent ]

    "Deeply?" (none / 0) (#171)
    by otherlisa on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 07:58:06 PM EST
    Yes. Have you not been paying attention?

    [ Parent ]
    Say what? (5.00 / 6) (#24)
    by tree on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 04:55:05 PM EST
    I don't think it has anything to do with political cowardice.

    Brave, brave Sir Obama. Bravely he runs to the right. Bravely he decides not to fight. Bravely he decides to diss Move-On, whom he's dissed before with no negative consequences. Time for a song of bravery!

    [ Parent ]

    I figure they may have deicded all that too (none / 0) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 04:55:01 PM EST
    My question is WHY? you admit you have no answers for that question and no defense for opening up this flank.

    It is just conventional Dem stupidity.

    [ Parent ]

    That may be so (none / 0) (#35)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 05:02:39 PM EST
    And I will fully admit that my own personal bias is convincing me to see something that isn't there.

    But the one thing that I believe that Obama and his campaign have shown is political shrewdness.  While it is possible that he is simply being risk averse because that is conventional wisdom that doesn't jibe with his past M.O.

    I do believe he is keeping his powder dry until after the Convention.  

    This is all just summertime playhouse theater.  It really doesn't much matter because so many other things will happen between now and November, the things that happen in July will simply fade away.  Unless of course some really big scandal comes out.

    [ Parent ]

    I thought they were shrewd too (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 05:04:06 PM EST
    Heck, I even wrote here that they were really pinning Bush on McCain effectively.

    What the heck happened?

    [ Parent ]

    They decided to pin (5.00 / 4) (#46)
    by Grace on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 05:08:13 PM EST
    Bush on Obama?  

    Frankly, I don't think the move to the right was good strategy, particularly enlarging that "Faith Based Initiatives" thingamajig.  That was not good at all.  

    [ Parent ]

    Why? (2.00 / 0) (#48)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 05:10:15 PM EST
    Remember that Obama's objective right now is winning not promoting an ideology.

    Winning Presidential nominees come up with something that appeals across the aisle.  Bush did it with Compassionate Conservatism.  Obama is doing it by handing out an olive branch to the Evangelicals.

    [ Parent ]

    Rationales Offered (none / 0) (#68)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 05:29:24 PM EST
    by commentators at Stephanopolous this a.m. was that Obama is aiming to bring in enough of the evangelicals to match Bill Clinton's record of winning 30% of their votes. So this could be aim at least of the faith-based initiatives, abortion comments.  

    Another pundit on same show suggested that by talking about issues that appeal to evangelicals, Obama is also hammering home the message that he is a Christian, not a Muslim.

    [ Parent ]

    And those who have not forgotten (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 05:51:15 PM EST
    Rev. Wright and Fr. Pfleger will still wonder exactly what kind of christian he is.

    [ Parent ]
    I think this was the year to get more (none / 0) (#96)
    by nycstray on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 05:58:12 PM EST
    crossovers to dems and progressive ideas. It wasn't just the dem middle class that got screwed by Bush. I'm sure there are many mod repubs (and even some conservatives) that would have been fine with the meat and potato issues/solutions being offered up (by Hillary, Edwards). Hillary did a good job of presenting issues AND keeping the GE in mind. I wish Obama had paid attention . . . Or maybe he did and WYSIWYG now.

    [ Parent ]
    New Politics = Accept Wingnut Memes (5.00 / 4) (#3)
    by seabos84 on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 04:25:47 PM EST
    on the 'middle'.

    yeah, whatever.

    I'm positive that over 80% of Americans do NOT:

    • want someone else's rabbi, minister, priest, guru ... in their doctor's office,

    • want someone else's rabbi, minister, priest, guru ... in their kids classroom dictating speech,

    • want health access ONLY for fat cats,

    • want rewards and surplus going ONLY to the well connected and to those born of the right womb,

    • want hard work rewarded with penury after a normal life trauma like unemployment, divorce, old age ... especially so the well connected can live fat,

    • want the government taking all your wealth when you work,

    • want fat cat managers taking all the wealth from your efforts,

    • an education system that benefits only fat cat kids,

    • a society with no roads or no clean water or no sewage ...

    WHY are we still living our political life under fascist definitions of 'middle' and 'bipartisan' and 'independent' ...

    Cuz we got sell outs and chickencraps for 'leaders.

    Cuz WE keep electing sell outs adn chickencraps as leaders.

    ugh.

    I'll check obama's name off on the top of the ballot, but that is the only time I'll give to a dick morris approved sell out.

    rmm.

    And most Americans (5.00 / 5) (#9)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 04:36:57 PM EST
    don't want unnecessary wars or telecom immunity.

    [ Parent ]
    Or (3.40 / 5) (#13)
    by Wile ECoyote on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 04:42:19 PM EST
    people rewarded by the gov't for sitting on their butts.

    [ Parent ]
    Like fat cat management who've (none / 0) (#118)
    by seabos84 on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 06:17:42 PM EST
    spent their whole career dodging blame they deserve and stepping on people,

    NOT

    inventing google or flying toaster screen savers or miracle grow or better sunglasses or engines that get 75  mpg ... ??

    the number of dollars who go to low level low lifes beating the system for 5 or 50 grand is 1/1000 of what the nardellis and milkens and ken lays ...

    but you know that, don't you?

    rmm.

    [ Parent ]

    I can't stand Dick Morris... (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Grace on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 04:32:40 PM EST
    I can't stand to hear him speak in that whiney, nasely voice of his.  I don't know who made/gave him "political pundit power" but I wish someone would take it away so we don't have to listen to him anymore.  

    he earned his cred (2.14 / 7) (#21)
    by tben on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 04:53:36 PM EST
    shaparding Bill from the disaster of '94 to reelection just two years later.

    The irony here is that so many who yearn for a Clinton to lead the ticket, also yearn for a "no move to the center" stragegy, and it was Bill who, over all his career, but even more so in his presidential runs, ran to the center (not that he was far from it in the first place).

    Clinton's centrism is why he did not suffer the fate of a Mondale or Dukakis.

    I hope very much that victory can come in Nov. with minimal movement to the center - but there will have to be some. And in Obama's case more than usual, because he has a certain fear factor to get over (that black, mooslim, guy who aint quite one of us).

    [ Parent ]

    No he did not (5.00 / 6) (#33)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 05:01:43 PM EST
    On the biggest call of the period - the government shutdown, Morris gave Clinton the WRONG advice. thank gawd Clinton ignored it.

    Dick Morris is a dope.

    [ Parent ]

    that may be (2.00 / 0) (#43)
    by tben on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 05:06:58 PM EST
    but Bill kept him on, and he was the principal political advisor throughout '96, and had a major hand in designing the entire campaign, in terms of messaging and strategy.
    So yeah, it is so.

    [ Parent ]
    Bill fired Morris (5.00 / 3) (#56)
    by RalphB on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 05:16:15 PM EST
    during the '96 convention.  So yeah, it ain't so.

    [ Parent ]
    Yep that's when the whole call girl... (5.00 / 0) (#109)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 06:09:36 PM EST
    ...toe sucking thing came out.

    [ Parent ]
    Gross.....spew (none / 0) (#183)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 08:56:38 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Beg to differ (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 05:19:19 PM EST
    According to Carl Bernstein's bio of Hillary, Morris was out some time during the 1996 Dem convention. pp 273-274

    [ Parent ]
    yes, Morris (1.00 / 0) (#66)
    by tben on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 05:28:00 PM EST
    got caught with a prostitute and had to resign his official position. But, obviously, he continued to advise the camapign that he had designed.

    I remeber the hilarity of those events - Morris used to boast to the pros about how he was not only running the campaign, but the country, and would show off by calling Bill etc...
    I agree with those who say he is a very creepy guy.

    [ Parent ]

    According to Bernstein (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 05:35:54 PM EST
    Morris was pissed at being out, & see no evidence that he continued to advise Clinton.  Where do you get this?

    [ Parent ]
    Made it up? (5.00 / 3) (#81)
    by RalphB on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 05:41:09 PM EST
    because I remember Morris being quite po'ed at the Clintons back then.  I think it's one reason he hates Hillary so much now.  She kicked him out hardest.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes, that's what Bernstein says (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 05:45:51 PM EST
    & why I asked Tben for a source.

    [ Parent ]
    well sorry, (1.00 / 1) (#94)
    by tben on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 05:56:43 PM EST
    but my only source is my memory.

    One thing I will guarantee you though - and this being relevant to this discussion - Bill did not fire him because he had a sudden distaste for Morris' political strategy.

    Rummaging around my bookmark library, I found this article from '96 which is a pretty good insight into the Clinton-Morris relationship. It went to press just when Morris was on the way out.

    [ Parent ]

    would help if I gave the (none / 0) (#95)
    by tben on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 05:57:25 PM EST
    LINK

    [ Parent ]
    Morris stepped down (none / 0) (#153)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 07:25:47 PM EST
    because of the prostitute scandal. But a few days later when it was disclosed that Morris had a contract to write a tell-all book, it was all over between him and the Clintons.

    [ Parent ]
    Google search (none / 0) (#90)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 05:53:10 PM EST
    turned up NY Times articles in early Sept 1996 indicating that Clinton camp livid having found out Morris had signed "tell-all" book deal with Random House in Jan 1995.  This seemed to put a knife in the coffin of any continuing relationship between Morris & the Clintons, other than that of pure antagonism.

    I do think, however, that whatever we think of Dick Morris or Karl Rove, their commentary on the current political campaign is worth reading. Morris has an article up at realclearpolitics on Obama's flip-flops; Karl Rove has written several insightful pieces.  Don't have to like them to benefit from learning how they view things.

    [ Parent ]

    Bill kept him on probably because... (none / 0) (#108)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 06:07:40 PM EST
    ...I suspect that Morris was, at heart, a yes man who likes to pretend that the ideas were his own.. Morris gets WAY too much credit for having good ideas.

    [ Parent ]
    moving to the middle is a change? (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by LCaution on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 04:45:18 PM EST
    That's where Obama's been from the first with his assertion that both Democrats and Republicans are responsible for the toxic atmosphere in Washington, and that he admires Reagan (yea, I know, some of the BOYZ think that's good 'cause Reagan won 2 elections.  Of course, so did Bill, but that, well, that doesn't matter.)

    Obama, if he has any key political convictions (which I seriously doubt) ran his campaign as a combo of Kumbaya and Conservative Democrat.

    No, what we have here is a nominee who will do anything he thinks he has to in order to win the election.  Sound familiar?

    Yes (2.66 / 3) (#18)
    by Veracitor on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 04:49:24 PM EST
    No, what we have here is a nominee who will do anything he thinks he has to in order to win the election.

    A fighter.

    [ Parent ]

    What good (5.00 / 5) (#26)
    by RalphB on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 04:55:42 PM EST
    is a fighter for nothing?  He may be willing to fight for himself, but if that's all, who cares?

    [ Parent ]
    Absolutism (none / 0) (#52)
    by Veracitor on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 05:12:45 PM EST
    Dream on.

    [ Parent ]
    Heh (4.60 / 10) (#55)
    by Steve M on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 05:15:20 PM EST
    "Saying and doing anything to win" is now the hallmark of a fighter.  Imagine, when the Obama campaign ran what we all thought were attack ads targeting Hillary's character, he was actually paying her a compliment.

    And anyone who insists that Obama fight for some principle, any principle other than his own election is an "absolutist."

    You're a real charmer.  Really - and I hope this doesn't come across as too harsh - you're a pretty typical online Obama supporter.

    [ Parent ]

    Exaggeration (2.00 / 1) (#105)
    by Veracitor on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 06:06:54 PM EST
    Too bad.

    [ Parent ]
    Spineless (5.00 / 5) (#114)
    by RalphB on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 06:13:29 PM EST
    tough sh!t

    [ Parent ]
    Ralph, you forgot (5.00 / 2) (#170)
    by otherlisa on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 07:52:49 PM EST
    "complete hypocrite."

    How does it go again? IOKIYAO.

    [ Parent ]

    yeahm sounds just like (1.14 / 7) (#25)
    by tben on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 04:55:06 PM EST
    Bill.

    [ Parent ]
    so has the presumed nominee (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by owenaprhys on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 04:53:09 PM EST
    ahead in polls in the summer alway won the election?

    Wasn't Kerry leading about this time in 2004???

    Yes. (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 04:57:37 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Different dynamics imo (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 05:00:29 PM EST
    And the McCain campaign is nothing to Rove.

    [ Parent ]
    Let's see - new campaign manager (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 05:22:09 PM EST
    This morning on "This Week," a new McCain campaign ad was shown on oil price issue. It was very effective, IMO.

    And wasn't Kerry ahead by more than 6 points at this time in 2004?

    [ Parent ]

    McCain's media shop (none / 0) (#99)
    by andgarden on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 05:58:53 PM EST
    has been leagues better than the campaign itself.

    [ Parent ]
    Wasn't Dukakis (none / 0) (#152)
    by cmugirl on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 07:24:36 PM EST
    ahead at this same time by something like 11 or so?

    [ Parent ]
    Dukakis (5.00 / 2) (#158)
    by Steve M on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 07:36:21 PM EST
    was actually ahead by 17 points.  Great article at the link about historical July polling.

    [ Parent ]
    Different dynamics do not preclude (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by Cream City on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 05:54:30 PM EST
    similar results, just for different reasons.

    [ Parent ]
    It's because the party is still split (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by MyLeftMind on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 05:07:41 PM EST
    If it weren't, our candidate could appear left of center and still get elected in a landslide.  Without rehashing who said what and who did what wrong in the primaries, it was a close race and the electorate went pretty much 50-50.  There was racism and sexism from both sides, and false racism and sexism claims.  If the party leadership had supported Hillary instead, we'd be in the exact same situation, only a different group of Democrats would be furious.  The young Obama supporters would walk away instead of pounding the streets for our party this fall.  AA's would have a car wash day and not vote.  People who gave up on American politics years ago and who came back to vote for Obama would leave in disgust after concluding that the Dem party is still a bunch of cheaters.  Either direction the Dem leadership went, our party would have been split.  

    So now what?  Some Dems promote McCain in the hopes of proving a point or punishing the party or enhancing Hillary's chances in four or eight years.  But we can't wait that long.  We are going bankrupt, and McCain will keep us on the sorry path we've been on for the past eight years.  

    Somehow we have to get our party back together.  BTD is right - focus on the issues, and try to get the party/candidate/electorate to be in alignment with our core values.  The unmentionable cat movement is growing, and from arguments I read hear and on other blogs, the anti-Obama rhetoric is just reinforcing the anger.  I think it's time for PUMAs to do something besides encourage votes for McCain.  Either use your political clout to demand Obama put Hillary on the ticket or choose another third party candidate who the party can and will rally behind.  If McCain wins, especially if he wins because Hillary supporters won't vote Dem, the Obama half of the party isn't going to stick around.  You'll be on your own with half the political power you would have had with a united, or at least a cooperating Democratic party.

    Even if Obama wins, we still need the majority of our party backing our shared issues, not just criticizing our new president.  We're going to need unity/cooperation well beyond the election or we'll have wasted the best chance in our lives to redirect our government toward a progressive agenda.  

    I believe most are (5.00 / 6) (#50)
    by zfran on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 05:10:40 PM EST
    arefocusing on the issues. We don't like what we see.

    [ Parent ]
    Rejecting the Democratic candidate (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by MyLeftMind on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 05:27:05 PM EST
    is very different from getting our candidate and party to promote our issues.  Deciding Obama has switched to the anti-choice side, regardless of his record, expecting him to lead the charge into the GOP's 527 FISA ads about Dems being weak on terrorism, criticizing him for co-opting the faith based initiatives so they'll be advantageous to the Dem party for once, I don't know, I just don't think any of that helps us win.

    I like BTD's approach - keep trying to get our party and our candidate to stick up for our issues.  But never forget that he's not the enemy.

    [ Parent ]

    So long as he goes in this direction (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by RalphB on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 05:29:45 PM EST
    Yes, he's my enemy!

    [ Parent ]
    For me (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 05:31:15 PM EST
    I have no candidate.  They're both the enemy.

    [ Parent ]
    The funny thing is (5.00 / 4) (#157)
    by cmugirl on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 07:32:50 PM EST
    I AM a died in the wool centrist.  Very much middle of the road - more socially liberal, but much more conservative when it comes to fiscal policy. And I don't want to dismantle the DoD, like some on the far left have wanted to do.  But Obama's shift to "the middle" is really not.  He's moving too far right for me - that's what happens when you get the media narrative to start defining "middle - right" as "the center".

    And I don't fault politicians for moving to the center - it's where a great majority of Americans lie on the political spectrum.  But Obama's changes have given me whiplash - think I can sue?

    [ Parent ]

    Much of his move to the right (5.00 / 2) (#178)
    by Grace on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 08:16:29 PM EST
    has been on social issues:  Abortion, gay marriage, religion.  

    I'm also more of a fiscal conservative but a social liberal.    

    [ Parent ]

    if he moves toward the center for votes, (none / 0) (#193)
    by hellothere on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 09:30:42 PM EST
    he can also move away when he gets the votes. just what does this man really stand for? who we really want to vote for an unknown? i wonder!

    [ Parent ]
    Okay, how do we get "our (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by zfran on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 05:32:12 PM EST
    candidate to stick up for our issues." He doesn't care about the phone, emails, letters, etc. So, how do you accomplish this?

    [ Parent ]
    Become a giant telecommunications (5.00 / 3) (#164)
    by Valhalla on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 07:44:56 PM EST
    conglomerate.  He seems to listen to them.

    [ Parent ]
    Keep in mind, (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by Grace on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 06:04:14 PM EST
    history has shown that candidates do switch parties.  

    Obama, the Democrat, could become a Republican just like this huge long list of other politicians who have switched from Democrat to Republican:  Party switching in the United States

    Yikes!  I never realized so many have switched!  Seven already in 2007/2008!  

    [ Parent ]

    Notable recent Party Switchers include (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by Grace on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 06:07:09 PM EST
    George Wallace Jr.
    Ben Nighthorse Campbell
    Virgil Goode
    Sonny Perdue
    David Duke
    Condoleezza Rice
    Phil Gramm
    and, of course, Ronald Reagan

    [ Parent ]
    And don't forget.. (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by MsExPat on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 09:43:52 PM EST
    Michael Bloomberg

    [ Parent ]
    We kitties have not (5.00 / 7) (#111)
    by samanthasmom on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 06:11:00 PM EST
    rejected the Democratic candidate.  We've rejected the whole d@mn Democratic Party. The mistake that is being made in the MSM is that we are in mourning over Hillary's loss. We continue to support her campaign financially to help her clear her debt, but we are not living in a fantasy world. The Democratic Party has lost its way.  It no longer represents the ideals that matter to us.  Obama's candidacy represents that loss. The more he tacks to the right, the more he proves our point. The Democratic Party should be unambiguously for choice for women, separation of church and state, individual rights to privacy, among other things.  Obama's willingness to compromise on those issues and the leaders of the Democratic Party's willingness to support a candidate who does is the issue.

    [ Parent ]
    HRC (none / 0) (#142)
    by Politalkix on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 06:55:51 PM EST
    advocates the use of faith based initiatives to solve social problems. Please follow link .
    link2

    [ Parent ]
    I didn't like it when (5.00 / 2) (#147)
    by samanthasmom on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 07:10:25 PM EST
    she said it either, but we should not let "the perfect be the enemy of the good", right?

    [ Parent ]
    And if Hillary (5.00 / 3) (#149)
    by samanthasmom on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 07:13:52 PM EST
    had taken faith-based initiatives to the level that Obama plans to, I would have pilloried her for it.

    [ Parent ]
    I think he's throwing them a bone (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by MyLeftMind on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 07:29:10 PM EST
    and he wouldn't have to if the party weren't so split.

    [ Parent ]
    You mean because (5.00 / 2) (#161)
    by my opinion on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 07:40:38 PM EST
    he split the party. That was his game plan. Don't turn it into an excuse or rationalization.

    [ Parent ]
    Clinton is not the nominee, Poltialkix (none / 0) (#186)
    by Cream City on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 09:08:08 PM EST
    nor is she the topic.  So why is that persuasive about voting for Obama -- or even useful here?

    Focus.  You've only got four months.  Focus.

    [ Parent ]

    Buh-bye (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by RalphB on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 05:28:48 PM EST
    Obama half of the party isn't going to stick around

    Have a nice trip.  Don't let the door hit you in the @ss on the way out.  

    That's pretty well what the Clinton wing of the party feels now.


    [ Parent ]

    And, we did leave (5.00 / 6) (#122)
    by lmv on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 06:22:03 PM EST
    I warned my local party leaders to tone down the anti-Hillary stuff because it was alienating half of the party.  (I'm in a red state.  That's an incredibly stupid thing to do.)  But, they were enamoured with the "new voters"  and all that cr@p.  

    Their answer?  I needed to look at Obama's website.  Then, I'd magically understand why supporting Hillary was all wrong and their mysogenism was ok. (yes, that's snark - but true)

    When I said I'd had enough, they taunted, "where are you gonna go?"  That was it.  I told them I was taking my vote (sorry BTD, I won't say more than that), my time, and my money with me.

    So, let me ask the die-hard Obama supporters who've caused this rift:  what did it get you?  

    Make no mistake, there are enough angry voters in swing states for McCain to win and the Republicans smell blood.  

    Now what?

    [ Parent ]

    What about (3.50 / 2) (#143)
    by MyLeftMind on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 06:57:55 PM EST
    the die-hard Obama supporters who've caused this rift

    the rest of the Democrats who did not slight you?

    There are a few thousand bloggers out there commenting on the Internet.  Since when do they represent the rest of the electorate who voted for Obama?  Or for HIllary, for that matter?  

    Millions of Democrats did not put down Hillary or use sexism to attack other Democrats.
    They just voted, and they hope to see a Democrat elected this fall.

    [ Parent ]

    What about replying to what was written? (5.00 / 5) (#167)
    by Cream City on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 07:51:24 PM EST
    This was not about (your constant mantra) bloggers.  Did you read it?  This was local party leaders dissing a Dem voter.

    They clearly are as bamboozled as are you.  Reply to what is written and stop wasting bandwidth with your cut-and-paste comments of what you want to say, no matter whether it applies.

    [ Parent ]

    How can I know what lmv should do (3.50 / 2) (#176)
    by MyLeftMind on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 08:10:24 PM EST
    with a personal interaction she or he experienced with local party leaders.  I know what I do.  I try to see their side, try to connect, call them on their sh!t if they're sexist or misogynist, try to keep my cool and if all else fails, move on.  

    But I wouldn't leave the party and abandon the issues because I didn't get what I wanted from a bunch of jerks.

    I've worked in alternative and not for profit organizations and on boards of directors where very sensible, liberal, ethical, considerate people turned on each other because they didn't agree with components of the policies or who has power and who doesn't or what should be done to solve the problems, you name it.  Although we all still had the same shared values that brought us to the organizations, the groups fought of all the little things that divide us.  

    That's what has just happened here.  Normally, voters who disagree tend not to interact with each other in the political sphere.  I voted for Bill Clinton, and so did some racist, sexist, mean guys who I have nothing else in common with me except that we're both Democrats.  I didn't know they were out there, or if I did, it didn't matter because our party affiliation didn't bring us together.  This year, thousands of people who would never have met each other are reading comments and interacting with people they wouldn't have otherwise heard from or met.

    I think many, many Hillary supporters have a bias against Obama supporters.  But most people who voted for Obama aren't the ones you'll ever hear from.


    [ Parent ]

    If you don't know what would be relevant (none / 0) (#187)
    by Cream City on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 09:09:09 PM EST
    then don't type. :-)

    [ Parent ]
    and skip the lecture! (5.00 / 4) (#194)
    by lmv on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 09:34:06 PM EST
    CC - thanks for your posts.  You are exactly right.

    Like many Hillary supporters, I suffered through the MSM and blogger boyz ganging up on my candidate.  And, that subject has been talked to death here at TL.

    But, yeah, the last straw is when friends tell you you're not welcome in the clubhouse because you've supported another club member.  It was "get on board or else" and I chose the "or else" option.  

    I'm yet to see an Obama supporter explain how those kinds of tactics - which happened all over the country - are helping the candidate.  

    [ Parent ]

    Yes, they seem to forget that (5.00 / 2) (#201)
    by Cream City on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 10:18:21 PM EST
    we can find another clubhouse, form our own club, and have many other options as well.

    I never have been persuaded by "or else." :-)

    [ Parent ]

    Those kind of tactics (5.00 / 1) (#204)
    by MyLeftMind on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 10:23:09 PM EST
    obviously didn't help our candidate.  And I think you ought to go after the people who used those tactics and stop insulting those of us who didn't.

    I am not responsible for what other people did to you.  I do not represent them.  I simply support the same candidate.

    [ Parent ]

    Author! Author! Isn't this bad dinner theater ... (5.00 / 2) (#175)
    by Ellie on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 08:04:51 PM EST
    ... really what the Obama campaign's turfing of framed and reframed hooey what the Creative Class is all about?

    Buffy for Veep!!!

    [ Parent ]

    What? (none / 0) (#177)
    by MyLeftMind on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 08:11:54 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Ellie, (