Absent A Change . . .

. . . 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 >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I fail to see how (5.00 / 0) (#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.  


    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.


    His flip-flops (5.00 / 0) (#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?


    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?

    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?


    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!

    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?!  


    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.

    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.


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


    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.  

    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?  


    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.

    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.  


    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.

    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.


    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.


    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.


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

    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.


    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.


    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.)


    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.

    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.


    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}

    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?

    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?


    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.


    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.  

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

    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!


    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.


    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.


    I thought they were shrewd too (5.00 / 0) (#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?


    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.  


    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.


    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.


    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.

    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.

    New Politics = Accept Wingnut Memes (5.00 / 3) (#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.


    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.


    And most Americans (5.00 / 4) (#9)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 04:36:57 PM EST
    don't want unnecessary wars or telecom immunity.

    Or (3.00 / 4) (#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.

    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,


    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?



    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 (1.66 / 6) (#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).


    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.

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

    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.


    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?

    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.

    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.

    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.


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

    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.


    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.

    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 (1.50 / 2) (#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.


    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?

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

    Heh (5.00 / 9) (#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.


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

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

    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.


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

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

    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.

    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?


    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.

    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?

    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.

    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.

    It's because the party is still split (5.00 / 0) (#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.

    Rejecting the Democratic candidate (5.00 / 0) (#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.


    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!

    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.

    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?


    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.    


    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!

    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?

    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.

    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!  


    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

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

    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.

    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 .

    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?

    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.

    I think he's throwing them a bone (5.00 / 0) (#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.

    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.

    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.


    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.


    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?


    What about (2.00 / 1) (#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.


    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.


    How can I know what lmv should do (2.00 / 1) (#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.


    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. :-)

    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.  


    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." :-)


    Those kind of tactics (5.00 / 0) (#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.


    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!!!


    What? (none / 0) (#177)
    by MyLeftMind on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 08:11:54 PM EST
    Ellie, (none / 0) (#179)
    by samanthasmom on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 08:25:00 PM EST
    It's time to send your house guests on their way. .

    I don't understand what it has to do with (none / 0) (#181)
    by MyLeftMind on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 08:27:23 PM EST
    my comment.  Please clue me in.

    Wrong (2.50 / 2) (#116)
    by Veracitor on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 06:14:44 PM EST
    Most Clinton supporters are on board with Obama.

    Hah (5.00 / 3) (#120)
    by RalphB on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 06:19:59 PM EST
    Isn't it something like 54% right now? (5.00 / 4) (#123)
    by Grace on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 06:24:06 PM EST
    But don't forget, a lot of people who don't read much about politics seem to think he's going to pick her to be VP.  

    If you mean more than half, (5.00 / 3) (#127)
    by samanthasmom on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 06:28:11 PM EST
    you're correct.

    In a CNN/ORC survey conducted in early June, entirely before the New York senator officially ended her White House bid, 22 percent of Clinton supporters said they would not vote at all if Obama was the party's nominee. Now close to a third say they will stay home. In all, only 54 percent of Clinton backers say they plan on voting for Obama.

    And you'll see from the article, Obama is losing support - not gaining it.



    Majority of Americans (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 05:34:22 PM EST
    are against telecom immunity. So what constituency is the back-track on FISA trying to appease?

    My preference would be for other Senators (none / 0) (#102)
    by MyLeftMind on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 06:03:55 PM EST
    to remove retroactive immunity so Bush is forced to pardon before he's fired.  We'd get more info from discovery, but at least Bush would have to implicate his staff in the illegal spying.  

    Low info right wing and centrist voters believe we need FISA to protects America.  I think most people who follow this realize that the government will cheat or has cheated, but they think it's just a question of refining FISA to prevent abuse.  

    Obama's official support of FISA (well, the amendment) means he can't easily be painted as weak on terrorism.  I'd like it to be otherwise, but here I am in America with a lot of people who don't understand the dangers.  Given that, I don't want Obama to lose the election because those same people get tricked into believing he can't or won't protect them.


    An honest question (5.00 / 5) (#107)
    by Steve M on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 06:07:26 PM EST
    Did you sleep through the 2006 election, the one where the Republicans ran ad after ad calling Democrats soft on terrorism for opposing warrantless wiretapping?  The one where not a single Democratic incumbent lost, anywhere in the country, despite the Republicans making their best effort to demagogue the same issue you are currently petrified of?

    I simply wonder if you have any capacity to incorporate empirical evidence into your theories, or if you're simply convinced beyond all reason that this is a conservative country and the only way a Democrat can ever win is to disavow all their liberal positions.


    "realize that the government will cheat" (5.00 / 2) (#144)
    by nycstray on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 07:04:01 PM EST
    so why would they be for a bill that expands that ability?

    They're afraid of terrorists. (none / 0) (#151)
    by MyLeftMind on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 07:23:22 PM EST
    They think FISA gives the govt the tools it needs to protect them.  They reason that if the govt abuses it's spying power, it'll be worth it to be able to catch all the terrorists using cell phones and email to plan attacks.  If individuals in the government take advantage of it, the government will somehow police itself.  If a party abuses it, well heck, if it's their party all the better to get dirt on the bad guys.  Most importantly, they don't understand the true ramifications because they don't realize that we might have to overthrow our own government sometime in the near future.

    Actually, I think most Americans don't think about this beyond what they're told to think by the Republican ads.  That's the key to why I believe Obama can not be the one to stand up against this.  It would be handing a 527 gift to the GOP.


    THe only reason (5.00 / 2) (#173)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 08:00:14 PM EST
    anyone thinks FISA will protect us from terrorists, in my view, is that only Repubs are talking.  We need to say what we think, say it clearly, and say it repeatedly.  And then we need to say what steps Dems will take from the White House & Congress that will provide real security. Allowing Repub memes to control the public conversation & dictate our campaigns is what gets DEMS in trouble, IMO, and makes us look weak & untrustworthy.  We always seems to be trying to prove we're not as bad as the Repubs think, twist ourselves into pretzels, & end up looking pretty feeble.  We need to say what we stand for, & how we will secure the nation.  There are a lot of good ideas out there; suppose we start with article today by William Webster on How U.S. can Improve Our Intelligence, because it's not working properly now; then go onto true airport and seaport security; security of our nuclear plants; the security of knowing we will open up diplomatic lines of communication that may well prevent unnecessary wars; and on and on.

    This election is different (none / 0) (#133)
    by MyLeftMind on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 06:36:28 PM EST
    2006 was a snooze compared to this year, but I wasn't sleeping.  I think we should have done better in the `06 elections.  We should have fired Joe Lieberman and gotten Democrats elected from Tennessee and Vermont.  

    There is a lot of money all over the world riding on this election.  OPEC stands to lose billions if the Iraq occupation ends and oil production is cranked up there.  War profiteers have too much invested to let go of their cash cow.

    Some would say that we don't know for sure that Obama will get us out of Iraq.  But what he's got is more than half the Dem party backing him, Democrats who trust and believe in him the way you guys believe in Hillary.  Those voters, those letter writers, those Dems who will blast our Senators and Reps with emails, calls, in-person protests when the Obama administration tries to forward our agenda and Congress balks.  They're not all silly boyz on the blogs.  A huge proportion of them are centrist and left wing mature voters.  Teachers, professionals, people who are fed up with Bush politics and the war in Iraq.  If Obama is secretly a stealth anti-abortionist, they're not going to blindly support a change that affects the status quo on Roe v. Wade.  And if Obama stalls on getting out of Iraq, they'll be in the streets.  

    Are you going to let all that political leverage dissipate just because you don't agree on everything Obama says and does?


    I made a very specific point (5.00 / 4) (#138)
    by Steve M on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 06:45:01 PM EST
    Maybe you should have thought about it instead of just rambling on.

    Once again, the Republicans ran exactly the ad you are worried about all over the country, and they didn't defeat a single Democratic incumbent.

    Perhaps if you would uncurl from that fetal position for a few moments you could find the time to take this sort of thing into account.


    My response is specific - (none / 0) (#139)
    by MyLeftMind on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 06:52:20 PM EST
    this election is different.

    Just to make sure you didn't miss this in my ramble:

    Are you going to let all that political leverage dissipate just because you don't agree on everything Obama says and does?


    The problem is (5.00 / 4) (#145)
    by samanthasmom on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 07:05:53 PM EST
    that any time I have agreed with Senator Obama, he's changed his mind or "refined" my agreement away. I want real UHC, but his plan isn't. I 100% support public financing of political campaigns, but he's not accepting it anymore. I want faith-based everything out of my government, but he wants to expand it. I don't want to have to hope that my President is completely pro-choice. Obama gives me doubts. I want FISA defeated. Obama not so much so anymore. I don't think it matters much who gets elected as far as Iraq goes. My list of things I agree with him on is getting shorter and shorter. I don't think I want him to have much leverage. I'm too afraid of what he'll do with it. If he's elected, I want it to be a squeaker with no mandates. Less than 50% of the popular vote would do it for me.

    How is this election (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 07:29:43 PM EST
    different from the election of 2006 and how does that difference (whatever it is) relate to your point?

    2006 was a snooze compared to this year (none / 0) (#165)
    by MyLeftMind on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 07:48:02 PM EST
    People are paying attention, the economy sucks, they're finally fed up with the war, even on the right.

    Progressives have more political capital this year than any other time in our lives.

    Unity anyone?


    Holly Crap (5.00 / 3) (#200)
    by RalphB on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 10:16:57 PM EST
    You just made a good argument against your own position.  You can't mean any of this junk.  You're just making sh!t up to defend the Obama position Tilt-a-Whirl.

    First of all, I think you made a few wrong (5.00 / 7) (#92)
    by BarnBabe on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 05:55:04 PM EST
    assumptions of Hillary supporters. I do not think we are questioning Obama on the issues because we are still angry. That game is over. And please do not assume that many of us are not more to the center than to the complete left. I am against the new FISA bill. I don't want any interference with the Pro choice laws, I am not against guns, I am for NASA and against the Iraq War. I want a health care bill and that is not going to happen with either candidate. I REALLY do not want faith based initiatives in the government period. NAFTA need big time tweaking as does SS but not to the point of a complete private investing. Do you realize how much money people could have lost last week? I don't even want to look at my 401K. And we are not working on the assumption that Hillary would run in 2012 and we are not also supporting McCain. We are not really happy with either candidate and are trying to find a common ground and discuss the issues that matter to us. Instead, we are being pushed out of the process as the Dem candidate heads over to the other side before even securing our support and completely ignoring what Democrats stand for. Hillary is no longer our candidate but that is no reason to just stick our heads in the sand and not question issues that are important to us.

    I'm not making assumptions, just reading TL (2.00 / 1) (#128)
    by MyLeftMind on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 06:28:28 PM EST
    I'm also against the new FISA bill (but I don't want Obama scapegoated), I don't want any interference with the Pro choice laws (I don't think his statements indicate he'll make changes), I am not against guns and I'm against the Iraq War.

    Comments on TL indicate many Hillary supporters are willing to vote for McCain if it increases Hillary's chances to win the presidency after McCain, and there are many other comments in these threads that absolutely support McCain.  That is where I get my impressions, directly from the comments here.

    Obama has to try to get right wing votes before securing your support.  By talking to them now, he's undermining future GOP smears.  When he is the official nominee after the convention, there will be time to consolidate the base.

    He's not ignoring what Democrats stand for.  The faith based initiatives already existed and he is co-opting them to our benefit, he is still pro-choice, FISA is a lose-lose situation.  If he stands up for what's right, we'll lose the election.  Unless Hillary supporters were on board.  Then we'd be looking at a landslide victory even if FISA was blocked in Congress (barring an unfortunate terrorist attack).  

    I don't want Hillary supporters to stick their heads in the sand, I want them to find a way to ensure our party wins this fall.  If that means forcing Hillary on the ticket, the less time berating Obama the better.  Because the more the anti-Obama threads go round and round, the less likely Dems will win, regardless of who the VP is.


    I think you'll find (5.00 / 3) (#131)
    by samanthasmom on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 06:34:58 PM EST
    that most of the Clinton supporters who have not already decided to support Obama do not want Hillary to be the VP. I don't think anyone has polled it, but it is the sense that I get from reading other blogs. I may stand corrected by others here.

    Assumptions & Ad Hominen (5.00 / 2) (#163)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 07:43:47 PM EST
    attacks.  Speaking for me only, I think we'd all be better off if each person just wrote in their comments what they have to say that is germain to the topic, without ad hominem attacks on different groups whom they think they may have the opposite view. Points we make should have merit on their own -- using them to bolster your argument vis-a-vis supposed opponents who support this or that does not lend anything to the argument, but instead detracts from the argument  & paints the author in a corner to be counter-attacked for the camp he/she is opposing.  

    So, in that vein, tell me why you think Obama needs to court right wing voters in order to win the GE?  It seems to me, with DEM registration so much higher than Repub registration, Obama should be consolidating the DEM base and seeking some indep voters.  There is also no polling I'm aware of that says that Obama has to move to the center/right on FISA to be elected. The polls I have seen indicate that most Americans oppose telecom immunity. What they want is real national security.  FISA is based on the mirage of what is needed for security.  How about running a campaign on what's real?  This is what Obama tried to do in the primaries, it seems to me, at least with regard to Iraq. So why the change? Why is he so afraid to say what he truly believes all of a sudden?  No one on the right is going to be fooled by an about face on positions taken during the primaries; the McCain camapaign & the 527s will see to that.


    only one thing makes sense (5.00 / 4) (#197)
    by DandyTIger on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 09:57:46 PM EST
    from Obama's move to the right on these issues that don't win him any votes: it's what he really thinks and feels. Which I guess is impressive in the sense that he's putting it out there even though it will lose him a few votes. He's declaring to the world he's a republican light and he doesn't care who knows it. More power to him I guess.

    More power to him ONLY (5.00 / 4) (#199)
    by tree on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 10:10:23 PM EST
    if he had been honest in the primaries about where he stood. He wasn't. I won't give him kudos for only bamboozling certain naive lefties and not the general electorate as a whole, if what he's saying now is what he really thinks and feels. I suspect it is.

    No vote talk please (none / 0) (#134)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 06:36:56 PM EST
    No insults please (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 06:24:17 PM EST
    The polls all along showed that (5.00 / 5) (#169)
    by Valhalla on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 07:52:45 PM EST
    more Clinton supporters would switch to McCain than Obama supporters would, so I don't think this line of reasoning holds water.

    As for young people needed to volunteer, blah blah -- this is only valid if 100% of younger people voted for Obama in the primaries.  They didn't.  

    It is also historically inaccurate, as a great deal of the rank-and-file campaign work has always been carried out in large part by -- wait for it -- middle-aged women.  Oops!

    You don't need millions of volunteers to run a solid ground game, just 1000s.  You just need enough.

    Who the heck do you think was volunteering for Clinton for the 17-month campaign season?  That brought her within a hair's worth of winning the primary?  Martians who've reboarded their spaceships and returned to the Red Planet?


    Oh no, don't feed the grassy knoller (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by Cream City on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 08:01:08 PM EST
    here who so loves "secret plans."  If I read elsewhere about the UFO full of Clinton supporters, I'll know whom to blame, Valhalla. :-)

    This flip-flop thing will be part of mccains (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by kenosharick on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 05:30:58 PM EST
    attack- but painting Obama and his wife as anti-patriotic will be the focus of attack. If not directly from mccain, then 527s or the party. It has worked before. BTW- a six point lead in early July is meaningless.

    "Absent a change" (5.00 / 0) (#74)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 05:33:07 PM EST
    is a phrase that goes in textbooks as famous last words, right along side of:

    "Watch this!" while attempting to catch a rattlesnake in a paper cup.

    4 months is an eternity.

    Obama has not been absent a change (5.00 / 6) (#93)
    by Cream City on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 05:56:33 PM EST
    for four hours at a time in recent weeks.

    There will be a change.  Tomorrow, if not tonight.

    Obama is rivaling Oklahoma for his number of "refineries."


    Rattlesnake in a paper cup :-) (none / 0) (#80)
    by RalphB on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 05:39:08 PM EST
    That gave me chills, I hate snakes!

    4 long months (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by WakeLtd on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 05:44:04 PM EST
    The idea that a candidate cannot lose because four-months before the election they enjoy a 6% polling advantage has obvious shortcomings. No need to go into them. You look at the McCain campaign - dead in the water at one point, all but written off - and then to suppose that somehow he became his party's nominee by default seems to deny that there is something in McCain that does not give up easily. We see an opposite tracking with the Obama campaign: incredibly stong early in the process, and then limping (if not pushed by several dozen super-delegates) across the finish line.

    But the general election is a clean slate: the start-over. The past for either candidate is not necessarily prologue. But let's propose what one change may be that could produce the result that at one time seemed unthinkable:  a Republican winning the election for President this year.

    A) Attacking McCain the wrong way: all the surrogates questioning McCain's POW status as qualification have done nothing more than remind voters that he was a POW who endured years of torture. I doubt very much that anyone who was on the fence and thinking "I might vote for McCain" has recently thought "My God, Wes Clark is right about this." They are preaching to the choir only. No points gained here.

    B) The move to the center. Well, this is always an easy one. If Obama is going to act like he is listening to his "inner" Republican, voters will do what they always do when a Democratic candidate starts talking like a Republican. Vote for the real Republican.

    c) The McCain campaign starts firing on all cylinders. So far the McCain campaign has been rather tepid. Some see this as a weakness. Maybe not. In chess, the best players are very boring in the early game, just moving some pieces around, opening up some columns, nothing all that dramatic. Then comes the complete assault. Will the Obama campaign be ready for this? It is not going to be Hillary holding back on the most devastating blows. Brushing the dirt off the shoulder is not going to work now.

    Obamsa has excellent chances to win in a year no Republican should have even a shot at winning. But it is not a given. He can win by a landslide or lose by a margin that Democrats should be familiar with (See 2000, 2004).

    This may be the first election (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by RalphB on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 05:58:45 PM EST
    in a long time where the VP selection could make a real difference.  Considering McCain's age and Obama's need to unify democrats, both could become make or break decisions.

    Obama's move to the right may (5.00 / 0) (#126)
    by my opinion on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 06:27:57 PM EST
    be because he does not intend to unify the Dem party, instead he will split what remains.

    I would not be surprised (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by samanthasmom on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 06:53:06 PM EST
    if Obama's plan is to redefine the Democratic Party in more conservative terms. The problem is that for those of us who really are "left", there will truly be no place to go. I think it would take a near-revolution to establish a viable third party in this country, but if the Democratic Party really splits nearly in half, this might be the time. A few months ago I joked here that perhaps those of us who find Obama too conservative for us should hijack the Republican Party and make it ours. The idea doesn't sound as far-fetched to me anymore. If Obama draws the evangelicals away from the Republicans, it might just be doable.

    So we need to make a place to go (5.00 / 3) (#159)
    by cawaltz on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 07:38:54 PM EST
    Personally, IMO It's time for an option besides bad or worse.

    so the new dems are conservative? (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by hellothere on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 09:18:33 PM EST
    seems to me the blogger kool kids, creative ones, college students, hip hop group, etc who all consider themselves quite liberal might not like that change very much. geez i am calling my broker in the morning and getting stock in all the major bus companies.

    Sounds like a joke but (5.00 / 2) (#196)
    by RalphB on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 09:45:48 PM EST
    since right-wing evangelicals are only ~7% of the population, it might be doable.  I'll bet there are lots of moderate GOP members who would love to have their voices back.

    speaking as an independent with center left (5.00 / 5) (#182)
    by kimsaw on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 08:42:39 PM EST
    leanings, this has been an obvious ploy of Obama's from the very beginning. He never intended to unify the party but give it a makeover in his own image. Obama has redefined the Dems as the purple team without defining what the purple team stands for. He can't because the candidate himself lacks definition. "Can't we all get along" is not a statement of policy, just a political maneuver a bait and switch of sorts. This is not just a movement to the center for the GE. This is a party makeover of the covert sort.

    Hey BTD... (5.00 / 3) (#97)
    by Jackson Hunter on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 05:58:34 PM EST
    It sounds like you were watching tennis (sounded like a great match!) but did you get a chance to catch any of Reliable Sources?  Now I usually invest my time in a more profitable way than watching that CW-laden dreck, but I happened to catch the last part of a Ted Koppel interview.  The last question was "Are the media boosting Obama too much?" (not an exact quote, btw) and they both basically agreed that yes the media was.  They even brought up the infamous SNL skit and they also said that that skit had "shamed" the media into giving some tougher coverage to BO.  And Koppel in a very matter-of-fact tone said "These things go in waves, and I'm confident that the media will get tougher on him."  

    The whole "We're too easy on Barack" seems to be becoming an emerging meme from the M$M, and I do think that can seriously change the dynamics of this race if they are "shamed" into giving him typical Dem Nominee coverage.  It's something BO and his team need to keep an eye on.  Especially when you consider he hasn't always loved the media back, tricking them and leaving them on the plane while he spoke to Hilary in secret and kind of putting the blame on the media for misconstruing his Iraq position.  That stuff doesn't bother me, I thought what he did to the M$M on the plane was funny as H*ll, but I doubt that they we're laughing about it.

    To paraphrase the old proverb, "What the M$M giveth, the M$M taketh away."

    (I know BO supporters will start shouting "What about Wright?!"  That only proves my point, if he had been given the typical Dem Nominee treatment, it would have destroyed him.  Gore and Kerry we're raked and roasted over the coals for far, far, far less than that.  The whole Wright thing doesn't bother me all that much, as a Liberal I understand where he's coming from [although he was a little over the top with his criticism and conclusions], but most centrists, who Barack is courting the most lately, do not and will not have that same comprehension.)

    This is a sign of trouble ahead IMHO.


    he should have minimized unnecessary flip flops (5.00 / 0) (#160)
    by DandyTIger on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 07:40:31 PM EST
    so that the ones he needed to make, or thought he needed to make, wouldn't show this disturbing pattern. For example, I can see some rationalization for some of the faith based nonsense because it might help with moderate fundys who were thinking Obama was not a christian (someone in an earlier post here mentioned that). And I can see the logic of not going for public campaign financing.

    So why on earth would you do other flip flops in areas that would not gain you repubs but would only lose you dems, like with the FISA flop and the limiting Roe flop. I like others think he's saying these because that's what he really thinks. But that's still stupid. He shouldn't if he wants to win. Just stupid.

    Do some of your fancy poll jiujitsu here ... (4.41 / 12) (#5)
    by Ellie on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 04:28:42 PM EST
    Shouldn't Obama be way more ahead than this after the free media ride and cash-money bonfires his "brilliant" campaign has gone through?

    Six frackin' points and the Repugs have barely shown up strikes me as verging on disastrous.

    And regardless of how the poll question was worded, given the race-oriented arm-twisting TeamObie goes to for advantage, the question people are actually responding to is:

    Do you support Barack Obama or are you a racist?

    Voters don't have a problem electing pols not of their own particular race, creed, color, but Obama's team has exceedingly racialized and hot-buttoned this contest. I resent being targeted that way, and the assumption I can be pressured that way.

    The suggestion box for renaming The Bradley Effect is now open for submissions.

    "cash-money bonfires" (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by nycstray on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 05:42:30 PM EST
    Hillary is going to be doing NY fundraisers with him this week. I find it a tad unsettling that the cash cow needs her for fundraisers. I'd really like to see his June numbers . . . .

    I've been waiting for those too (none / 0) (#135)
    by ruffian on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 06:37:28 PM EST
    I bet they were pretty bad, relatively speaking to his prior numbers. I have not heard any bragging about them and he sure has been doing a lot of reaching out to the fat-cat-big-money set lately.

    I'd like to see some numbers on how many of Hillary's donors have given to Obama.


    Hillary's Team (none / 0) (#156)
    by Valhalla on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 07:31:24 PM EST
    has been pressing her major donors pretty hard to pay off her primary debt (to vendors, not to herself).  So I'm thinking there hasn't been a lot of free-flow from her donors to his coffers just yet.

    Although speaking of joint campaign appearances -- Rasmussen's daily numbers (5-6 point difference) have been stable since near the beginning of June.  Gallup, though, had been showing a narrowing gap between them, down to a tie, and then gradually moved up to the same spread as Rasmussen starting after the Unity, NH event.

    It may mean nothing, or it may mean their joint appearance helped him (excuse me while I go relieve my upset stomach at the thought).


    yup i have been looking for those fund (none / 0) (#191)
    by hellothere on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 09:22:36 PM EST
    raising numbers. funny i don't see any and i cannot imagine that eleven million needed for the dem convention has not been handled by now. in fact the houston chronicle has an article today saying it could be a problem for the dems. so what gives? the article also discusses how the dnc rented top of the line office space(very plush) and way too much. empty offices with very expensive rental furniture too. so dr dean what's your excuse now?

    "renaming The Bradley Effect" (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by nycstray on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 05:43:43 PM EST
    forgot to answer. I think the new effect has been in practice already:



    "The I Was Bamboozled Effect" ?? (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 05:52:28 PM EST
    The Okey-Dokey Effect (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by Cream City on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 05:59:46 PM EST
    for advice for Americans answering any question for a pollster on Obama.  Just answer "okey-dokey."

    Those here who opt to look at boosterish polls while ignoring more worrisome others than can extrapolate the answer, as it's a quote from Obama, as extraordinary evidence of his electability.


    No flipping or flopping (2.00 / 0) (#14)
    by Veracitor on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 04:45:05 PM EST
    This is a contrivance by the McCain camp, carried out by his barbeque buddies in the Press.

    A flip-flop is when you change your entire position:

     - like going from pro-choice, to anti-choice;

    • like going from opposing the war in Iraq, to supporting it;

    • like going from anti-NAFTA to pro-NAFTA.

    • like going from supporting illegal eavesdropping, to promoting it.

    Those are the kinds of flip-flops that McCain is notorious for.  The McCain of 2000 is virtually unrecognizable today.

    All Obama has done on issues is clarify and refine his positions.

    Flip=flopping (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 04:46:23 PM EST
    can be defined any way the 527's want it to be defined.

    your ENTIRE position? (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 04:53:29 PM EST
    Okaaay. Whatever you say.

    Now me personally, Id o not care about flip flops, as long as they are toward my views.

    The Media? they like to call things flip flops.


    When Obama listens to your (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by zfran on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 05:04:36 PM EST
    phone calls, without the benefit of warrant, or anyone knowing, and he tells you it's for your safety from terrorists, remember what you said here. Last year he was more willing to fight for your rights, this year nada....did he clarify or refine this position?

    oops (none / 0) (#17)
    by Veracitor on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 04:47:37 PM EST
    I screwed up that last point:

    - like going from opposing illegal eavesdropping to promoting it.


    You mean, like Obama just did with FISA? (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by Grace on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 05:05:18 PM EST
    Wrong (none / 0) (#58)
    by Veracitor on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 05:20:12 PM EST
    He made a mistake saying he would filibuster (although he might if somebody else starts it) - but he sincerely believes the pending bill - although flawed - is an acceptable compromise for now.  

    I disagree, but that's not a deal-breaker.  If he's elected, he plans to launch criminal investigations in lieu of civil suits.  That would be a much better outcome.


    Why then, would a majority of the (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by zfran on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 05:26:21 PM EST
    "dem" congress pass this bill? So they can overturn it after Obama is elected. "He made a mistake saying he would filibuster." Is this the same sort of "mistake" as when he pushed the wrong button in the Illinois senate votes?

    Where do you get this? (5.00 / 4) (#63)
    by Grace on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 05:26:58 PM EST
    If he's elected, he plans to launch criminal investigations in lieu of civil suits.

    Care to point to a link?  Or is this another one of those Obama psychic readings?  


    What do you expect (5.00 / 4) (#75)
    by Steve M on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 05:33:17 PM EST
    from a guy who just claimed to tell you what Obama "sincerely believes"?

    It's amazing to see the stuff people will make up in order to convince themselves to support a political candidate.  Criminal investigations?  Not in a million years.


    Say.... (none / 0) (#203)
    by Veracitor on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 10:22:05 PM EST
    Do you have a sincere meter handy to test it out?

    It's a "secret plan" (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 05:34:04 PM EST
    and you know how those work out.

    Too easy (2.00 / 0) (#112)
    by Veracitor on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 06:12:22 PM EST
    "I do so with the firm intention -- once I'm sworn in as president -- to have my Attorney General conduct a comprehensive review of all our surveillance programs, and to make further recommendations on any steps needed to preserve civil liberties and to prevent executive branch abuse in the future."

    Man (5.00 / 7) (#117)
    by Steve M on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 06:16:34 PM EST
    If our party is really being taken over by people who see THAT statement and believe that it means Obama intends to launch criminal investigations, we're in big trouble.

    Reading comprehension (5.00 / 5) (#121)
    by tree on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 06:21:52 PM EST
    "..to prevent executive branch abuse in the future."

    says absolutely NOTHING about criminal prosecutions for past behavior.

    See Marcy Wheeler on "accountability":

    Here's my biggest problem with this statement. Obama says the IG report on politicization is a great example of accountability. Well, here's what that report said about accountability:

        "However, because both McDonald and Elston have resigned from the Department, they are no longer subject to discipline by the Department for their actions. Nevertheless, we recommend that the Department consider the findings in this report should either McDonald or Elston apply in the future for another position with the Department."

    In other words, the IG report on politicization at DOJ found that Mike Elston and Esther McDonald had broken the law. But it admitted that DOJ was unable to hold them accountable for their actions--because too much time had elapsed, because they had both snuck off to sinecures in swank Republican law firms, and because the Inspector General really couldn't hold them accountable directly.

    So next year, when we get this vaunted IG report on the illegal wiretapping, it'll include a passage that says:

        "However, because the five year statute of limitations has passed and because former President Bush, former White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales, former Chief of Staff Andy Card, and former Vice President Cheney are no longer in office, the culprits are no longer subject to legal consequences for their actions. Nevertheless, we recommend the American people consider the findings in this report should George Bush ever try to run for President again."

    Nah. I don't call that accountability either.

    That's your idea of firm? That's even worse ... (5.00 / 2) (#136)
    by Ellie on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 06:41:44 PM EST
    ... than a 180 turnabout.

    This is all over the place.


    Yes (none / 0) (#205)
    by Veracitor on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 10:24:11 PM EST
    He said "firm," and I believe it.  

    Of course, I'm not a McCain supporter like some people around here.


    All this unnecessarily convoluted quote says (5.00 / 3) (#162)
    by Valhalla on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 07:41:30 PM EST
    is that he promises he'll let someone else make recommendations.

    Heck, even GWB listened to recommendations from the other side -- and promptly filed them where the sun don't shine.

    Did you get this from his website?  He needs better writers.


    Even if you (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 05:32:11 PM EST
    are right that Obama "plans" to launch criminal investigations, it's far too iffy for my taste, both as to whether Obama will actual do so and as to whether the legal position is strong enough to mean anything.

    Solution for you (none / 0) (#113)
    by Veracitor on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 06:12:54 PM EST
    Vote for McCain.

    That's too easy (5.00 / 0) (#119)
    by RalphB on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 06:18:22 PM EST
    and the option of last resort.  But it's a perfectly viable option for me.

    Oh..... (none / 0) (#206)
    by Veracitor on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 10:25:57 PM EST
    .....then you're for reducing investigations from "perhaps" to "no chance."

    Had nothing to do with (none / 0) (#208)
    by RalphB on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 10:29:39 PM EST
    investigations.  Was responding to your vote for McCain comment.  Unless things change that's my current plan anyway.

    Yeh, if -- big if -- Obama is elected (5.00 / 5) (#110)
    by Cream City on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 06:10:53 PM EST
    But what if McCain is elected?  Obama will have handed him the power to tap your telephone -- and there won't be any investigations.  You okay with handing the next GOP president the FISA amendment and not having any vague promise of changes to it?

    My intent...... (none / 0) (#207)
    by Veracitor on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 10:27:31 PM EST
    ....is to work hard to ensure Obama is elected.  

    What's yours?


    Actually (5.00 / 5) (#132)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 06:36:12 PM EST
    Because Obama embraced people who called Clinton a warmonger for her conflicted vote on the AUMF I see no reason to make it clear to everyone I talk to on blogs and everywhere else that Obama is PRO-SPYING ON AMERICANS, ..... for his conflicted support of FISA!!!!!!

    Obama will spy on you.  You got that? That's what he SUPPORTS!!!!

    Because that's what activism is, really, didn't you know.  Lying about the people who don't do what you want.

    And that's the activism Obama embraced.  And that's why I think he should stew in that juice at least until he proves himself to be something other than a panderer to lying activists.


    What if McCain wins? (5.00 / 4) (#137)
    by seeker on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 06:44:07 PM EST
    Who will "fix" it or "launch criminal investigations" then?  It is much harder to repeal a bill, or part of one, than it is to prevent its passage

    I see you fell for KO's Special Comment (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by Teresa on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 06:52:55 PM EST
    He is promoting illegal (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by zfran on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 05:14:09 PM EST
    eavesdropping. He says he is for the "compromise." He would win a lot more attention by fighting the immunity like he said  he was going to do. He didn't say that with a wink and a nod to the ones who want to hold his feet to this fire.  

    Schizophrenia in TL (1.00 / 1) (#148)
    by Politalkix on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 07:11:44 PM EST
    about faith based initiatives. Well, HRC believed in them! link

    Total agreement with (5.00 / 4) (#150)
    by samanthasmom on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 07:19:43 PM EST
    a candidate is not necessary for support.  Further, those of us who are against them would still be against them if she were the one proposing them. Blind adoration and complete capitulation are not  required to support Senator Clinton.

    Politalkix, cutting and pasting (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by Cream City on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 09:13:58 PM EST
    to repeat and repeat this does not make it any more relevant.  Your guy is running against McCain, not Clinton anymore.

    You do realize that the (5.00 / 2) (#198)
    by tree on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 10:04:32 PM EST
    hit piece on Clinton and the Fellowship was, in the immortal words of Ron Ziegler, no longer operative, once it was revealed that Obama has attended the same Prayer Breakfasts?

    And what does that have to do with Obama advocating expanding the FB Initiatives and designating a Secretary of Faith? Clinton has done none of that, and pretty much kept her faith out of politics instead of seeking to wear it on her sleeve like Obama does.

    Clinton and Obama are not on the same page here, and Obama is to the right of Clinton. I usually prefer the candidate on the left, if I can be reasonably sure that they are sincere about their positions.  


    You do realize (1.50 / 2) (#209)
    by Politalkix on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 10:50:51 PM EST
    how far to the right HRC stood even during the primaries? Had she won the nomination (and given the support that she picked up from socially conservative Reagan Democrats during the primaries), there is no doubt in my mind that she would be to the right of where Obama stands now on most social and foreign policy issues.
    HRC did not keep faith out of politics. I have provided some links in various threads. Please read them.

    Not sure where you get this (none / 0) (#1)
    by frankly0 on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 04:19:31 PM EST
    Speaking of Morris, he, not surprisingly, loves Obama's tack to the "middle":

    I didn't see anything in the column that suggested Morris "loved" this tack. In fact, what he seems to be saying instead is quite the opposite: that it leaves Obama exposed to McCain on the grounds of flip flopping and outright lying.

    Did anyone catch the (none / 0) (#82)
    by zfran on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 05:41:17 PM EST
    Parade Mags. article today on what patriotism means to me by both Obama and McCain?

    What if he's (none / 0) (#146)
    by Lahdee on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 07:07:20 PM EST
    blurring the differences so that all we're left with is a race between Bush III and not Bush? What if he's looking to take away all of McCain's policy ammo, to strip the campaign of it's depth? Then come the Fall voters would be left with a youthful, inexperienced dreamer who promises change versus a fighter pilot. In an instant gratification kind of a world feel good sells, a kind of anti-fear.

    Want a smile, vote for Obama, what the kids off the lawn, vote for McCain.

    Flip flop is soooo yesterday. McCain's hired the attach dogs, they'll rip Obama's nuanced reversals to shreds. Six points looks good.

    Dick Morris reportedly worked for Obama's cousin (none / 0) (#210)
    by SunnyLC on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 10:22:51 PM EST
    or whatever he is...Odinga in Kenya. The campaign sounded exactly like Obama's.  Morris knows this type of operation well.  

    I hope McCain gets moving on all this...