Barack Obama knows...

Here's a must read IMHO...

Tone, Truth, and the Democratic Party
by Barack Obama

I read with interest your recent discussion regarding my comments on the floor(1, 2, 3) during the debate on John Roberts' nomination. I don't get a chance to follow blog traffic as regularly as I would like, and rarely get the time to participate in the discussions. I thought this might be a good opportunity to offer some thoughts about not only judicial confirmations, but how to bring about meaningful change in this country.

Maybe some of you believe I could have made my general point more artfully, but it's precisely because many of these groups are friends and supporters that I felt it necessary to speak my mind.

Read the rest here ===> http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/9/30/102745/165

It's well worth it.
Man I hope he considers running for Pres in '08. He's my idea of what a politician and president should be...

and read the blogs and discussions.

blogs and podcasting and non-Main Stream Media as much as possible.

Dem spine, aggressive Dem Tone, and looking like you have real guidelines for future action. I am a "moderate center-left liberal on social issues deficit Hawk progressive tax hawk" and much of what he says centerest voters want is "wrong" in that it is not what drives their vote.


Cross-posted on the Senate blog: http://obama.senate.gov/blog/ - rather long

<snip>I think this perspective misreads the American people. From traveling throughout Illinois and more recently around the country, I can tell you that Americans are suspicious of labels and suspicious of jargon. They don't think George Bush is mean-spirited or prejudiced, but have become aware that his administration is irresponsible and often incompetent. They don't think that corporations are inherently evil (a lot of them work in corporations), but they recognize that big business, unchecked, can fix the game to the detriment of working people and small entrepreneurs. They don't think America is an imperialist brute, but are angry that the case to invade Iraq was exaggerated, are worried that we have unnecessarily alienated existing and potential allies around the world, and are ashamed by events like those at Abu Ghraib which violate our ideals as a country.



<snip>The same principle holds with respect to issues other than judicial nominations. My colleague from Illinois, Dick Durbin, spoke out forcefully - and voted against - the Iraqi invasion. He isn't somehow transformed into a "war supporter" - as I've heard some anti-war activists suggest - just because he hasn't called for an immediate withdrawal of American troops. He may be simply trying to figure out, as I am, how to ensure that U.S. troop withdrawals occur in such a way that we avoid all-out Iraqi civil war, chaos in the Middle East, and much more costly and deadly interventions down the road. A pro-choice Democrat doesn't become anti-choice because he or she isn't absolutely convinced that a twelve-year-old girl should be able to get an operation without a parent being notified. A pro-civil rights Democrat doesn't become complicit in an anti-civil rights agenda because he or she questions the efficacy of certain affirmative action programs. And a pro-union Democrat doesn't become anti-union if he or she makes a determination that on balance, CAFTA will help American workers more than it will harm them.<snip>

"disagree without being disagreeable..." I think that's a key to winning over more people.

Just like the song says, there is a time for every purpose under heaven.
...a time for peace, I swear it's not too late...

One of the things I have always respected him for, his politics of hope and the tone of his speeches. I think he puts forward a good case. I know people want them to fight, I do too, but they do need to pick their fights.

I wish for 2008 as well, but i highly doubt it. 2012?

anti-choice because he or she isn't absolutely convinced that a twelve-year-old girl should be able to get an operation without a parent being notified. A pro-civil rights Democrat doesn't become complicit in an anti-civil rights agenda because he or she questions the efficacy of certain affirmative action programs. And a pro-union Democrat doesn't become anti-union if he or she makes a determination that on balance, CAFTA will help American workers more than it will harm them..."...

Maybe not, but they become less of a Democrat because those are all reasons I am NOT a rethuglican.

BTW.

excellent.

because I have a great deal of respect for him. But he still seems to think that playing by the old rules of political civility will work. I don't know if he doesn't want to admit what we are up against in a public forum or if he is in denial. The Repuke machine is just that - an enormously wealthy criminal monolith that wants only to completely and permanently destroy any opposition. There are very few areas where compromise with modern Repukes does not amount to selling out. The Repukes' idea of compromise is "what's mine is mine and what's yours is mine, too."

It's a loser strategy, and I often wonder if some folks here actually like losing, so they have something to complain about. Obama already deals with your points, and he is right: Americans don't like those kinds of labels and they won't respond to them. Full stop. The more you keep spitting them out, the less seriously you are taken by all around you. That might hurt, but it is true as can be.

???

The margins are actually remarkably thin.

And it may be that they win at all because people are turned on that slim margin precisely by people like you, who produce the kind of political cynicism and despair that Republicans thrive on.

So, short answer: Because of you.

If Kerry had run in 2000, he probably would have won.

Had the Democrats had a presidential nominee with the sort of conviction Obama talks about in 2000, the Democrats could have built on the Clinton years, and I'm sure America would be in a much better position today and there'd be no question about the Democratic party's ability to reflect and represent the interests of the people effectively.

n/t

n/t

The fact that many Democrats pretend to still trust them and still put forth the idea that "we can work with" liars & criminals- all my fault.

Yes- it's all just my cynical perception that the past 5 years has produced the most corrupt, dishonest & back-stabbing Republican politics in history.

Time for me to own up- it's not lying, corrupt Republicans and the DEMs who wont call them on it that is the problem- the problem is some dude on a message board who points out all these things.

personal responsibility to do what it takes to win elections, no matter how angry we are personally about Republicans.

In fact, it's that anger which should encoruage people to try even harder to do what it takes to convince moderates and Republicans to vote for Democrats. The majority of the time that requires that one acknowledges that the same things that motivate you don't work to motivate other people, and to acknowledge that no matter how right you personally feel you are about your view of the world, other people might see the world in other ways, and you are never going to get them to be as angry or alarmed as you are. That doesn't mean that you'll not be able to get them to vote for Democrats and support policies that work to solve people's problems.

The recently-registered are more than eager to show you the error of your ways.

that's all I can say.

"And it may be that they win at all because people are turned on that slim margin precisely by people like you, who produce the kind of political cynicism and despair that Republicans thrive on.

So, short answer: Because of you."


I'm sorry, but this is bullshit. No one cares about taking the high road. The right wing owns almost every radio station on the dial, their hosts mostly republicans spewing talking points 24/7. They get good ratings. The country FEEDS off of it. Republicans love it. Republicans are FAR, far more mean spirited and cynical, yet they have bee kicking our tail lately. We started losing because we lost the media, and never figured out how to get our talking points past the cable news/radio firewall. And it will continue that way unless you start fighting back.

people don't vote.

He may be right.

On the other hand, he's advocating a "big tent" approach, yes? So, I'm going to take that as meaning that there's room for the more fiery among us in that big tent. As long as we don't rend each other in the process.

and any Dem who thinks you can go into 2006 taking the "we wont point out the other guys faults" route has the genetic makeup of Shrum.

They don't WIN anything!

... to say it overtly, but if your actions do not reflect that FACT, you haven't a snowball's chance in hell.

Personally, I like Obama's words but his votes are not that likeable. He seems to think Republicans are reasonable people who disagree. That used to be true, but the bunch in power now have left that construct behind long ago.

My dear friend Paul Simon used to consistently win the votes of much more conservative voters in Southern Illinois because he had mastered the art of "disagreeing without being disagreeable," and they trusted him to tell the truth. Similarly, one of Paul Wellstone's greatest strengths was his ability to deliver a scathing rebuke of the Republicans without ever losing his sense of humor and affability. In fact, I would argue that the most powerful voices of change in the country, from Lincoln to King, have been those who can speak with the utmost conviction about the great issues of the day without ever belittling those who opposed them, and without denying the limits of their own perspectives.

And a must read by everyone in the DU echo chamber.

Right on, Senator!

but his argument is elegantly written and well stated. I'd like to see more Senators do this type of thing.

The American people ARE suspicious of this administration. They KNOW this administration is incompetent. What the fuck is he talking about?

suspicious and now see this administration is incompetent....though for us it took wayyyyyy too long.

The point he made which hit me hardest was this:

"And I firmly believe that whenever we exaggerate or demonize, or oversimplify or overstate our case, we lose. Whenever we dumb down the political debate, we lose. A polarized electorate that is turned off of politics, and easily dismisses both parties because of the nasty, dishonest tone of the debate, works perfectly well for those who seek to chip away at the very idea of government because, in the end, a cynical electorate is a selfish electorate."


While those of us who research and read and are privy to more behind-the-scenes crap than the average citizen DO feel/know BushCo is evil and not simply incompetent, the average citizen - which, I believe, is Obama's point - doesn't see it that way. For various reasons...largely ignorance (though we as individuals must at some point take responsibility for that ignorance)....the average citizen doesn't see how deep the corruption runs in this White House. Hopefully Fitzgerald will expose that for all to see. And after the Katrina fiasco, I believe the average citizen will be more WILLING to see it finally.

However, until such time, the RW Republicans have indeed simplified their approach to the world, at least in terms of how they function. "You're either with us or against us" type of rhetoric. But that appeals to a large segment of this country who can't or won't THINK for themselves. It's a "duh" moment on my part, but after reading this commentary by Obama, I see more clearly that it's that black-and-white approach to politics versus the Dem's more gray-area approach that is a huge issue in reaching the citizens. Hopefully the American people are starting to see that the good ole boy, black-and-white approach has failed. It has resulted in loss of life...loss of so much.....loss of the vision of America many of us have been proud of. Perhaps, just perhaps, they will be ready to listen and realize that in the world of adults, just as in the world of government, things are rarely black and white and require much more planning and hard work and working together. It requires thought and consideration of all levels of society, and a willingness to be part of the world community.

I don't believe Dems should take shit lying down, yet when we/they resort to simplifying Bushco as evil and everything else we know is TRUE, until something huge like Watergate comes out that exposes the depth of the corruption, the average citizen shuts down and doesn't listen to either side. They just hear both sides saying the other sucks. I don't know that I'd be able to be "political" and not shout from the rooftops that these people are murderers and why the fuck can't all you people see that?!!!! Yet, I know that wouldn't be effective in today's climate....it's getting close....but without something following up on Katrina's heels to expose these thugs more, the average person can't, and/or won't, open up to the possibility of how bad things really are.

I don't know how the Dems are gonna do it, but I do believe Obama speaks logically and thoughtfully here, and is on to something.

Look at what he said here.

They have beaten us twice by energizing their base with red meat rhetoric and single-minded devotion and discipline to their agenda. In order to beat them, it is necessary for Democrats to get some backbone, give as good as they get, brook no compromise, drive out Democrats who are interested in "appeasing" the right wing, and enforce a more clearly progressive agenda. The country, finally knowing what we stand for and seeing a sharp contrast, will rally to our side and thereby usher in a new progressive era.

I think this perspective misreads the American people. From traveling throughout Illinois and more recently around the country, I can tell you that Americans are suspicious of labels and suspicious of jargon. They don't think George Bush is mean-spirited or prejudiced, but have become aware that his administration is irresponsible and often incompetent. They don't think that corporations are inherently evil (a lot of them work in corporations), but they recognize that big business, unchecked, can fix the game to the detriment of working people and small entrepreneurs. They don't think America is an imperialist brute, but are angry that the case to invade Iraq was exaggerated, are worried that we have unnecessarily alienated existing and potential allies around the world, and are ashamed by events like those at Abu Ghraib which violate our ideals as a country.

He thinks it misreads the American people? Which American people? The Republicans? Because almost all of the Democrats I know DO think Bush is mean-spirited and prejudiced along with being extraordinarily DANGEROUS.

that Dems know they are mean-spirited and extraordinarily dangerous. It's the independents, the fence-sitters, and the not-so-right-wing aspect of the Republican Party that I am referring to.

I'm actually exposed to so few people on a personal level, though the vast majority of them (my family, for instance) are Repugs. Unlike his hardcore bushbots, some of the traditional Repugs see the incompetence and don't want to see America going down the toilet as the current trajectory indicates. Those are the people to whom I refer....there's hope that they will see how criminal this administration is if we can get them beyond hating politics in general and feeling it's all hopeless and throwing up their hands and saying, "I give up. They're all alike."

Though, sadly, I have some hardcore bushbots in my family, too, and there is no hope there.

Hopefully we'll see something very soon which will give us more hope.....

You say "all of the democrats I KNOW do think Bush is mean-spirited..." and you are right.

He says "Americans... don't think George Bush is mean-spirited..."
And he is right. Americans IN GENERAL.

Why do you think that 4 years of making fun of George still ended with millions and millions of people voting for him?

People on the DU need to remember the swing voter, the average American, and how to get him on your side. Clinton did it for eight years.

The only people I know that think Bush isn't mean-spirited are Republicans.

So saying "Americans in general" doesn't work. Perhaps, "Republicans in general" would be more accurate a comment.

"The only people I know that think Bush isn't mean-spirited are Republicans."

Yes, the people YOU know. Take a drive around America and you will meet many, many people who voted for Democratic senators, congressmen, governors and mayors, but still voted for Bush.

I don't know anyone who like Nascar, but I still know that it is popular.

That I DO drive and fly around the country. That kind of puts some holes in your theory. You have fallen into the logic trap where you project your life onto mine. My job carries me all over America, from East to West coast.

I know MANY MANY MANY people who aren't Republicans and don't think Bush is mean-spirited. It isn't a theory that those people exist, it's a fact. You have fallen into the logic trap where you think that if you don't personally know a certain kind of person, that they don't exist.

Take, for instance, the fact that Obomba is implying that most people don't think Bush is mean-spirited.

They have beaten us twice by energizing their base with red meat rhetoric and single-minded devotion and discipline to their agenda. In order to beat them, it is necessary for Democrats to get some backbone, give as good as they get, brook no compromise, drive out Democrats who are interested in "appeasing" the right wing, and enforce a more clearly progressive agenda. The country, finally knowing what we stand for and seeing a sharp contrast, will rally to our side and thereby usher in a new progressive era.

I think this perspective misreads the American people. From traveling throughout Illinois and more recently around the country, I can tell you that Americans are suspicious of labels and suspicious of jargon. They don't think George Bush is mean-spirited or prejudiced, but have become aware that his administration is irresponsible and often incompetent. They don't think that corporations are inherently evil (a lot of them work in corporations), but they recognize that big business, unchecked, can fix the game to the detriment of working people and small entrepreneurs. They don't think America is an imperialist brute, but are angry that the case to invade Iraq was exaggerated, are worried that we have unnecessarily alienated existing and potential allies around the world, and are ashamed by events like those at Abu Ghraib which violate our ideals as a country.

Well, it is my experience that his opinion isn't true.

He made of point of saying he didn't agree with the DLC and demanded they stop representing him as a member (which he wasn't).

at the hands of a gun man. I like what the Senator is saying but there is a time and a place for every action, it is time for action against the Republican party and their followers for the damage they have done to our country. I hope he is up to the fight coming his way.

:kick;

"good guys" get trampled in the Fox News/Karl Rove/Delay era. Look no further than Gore and Kerry. Offer up a plan, and while you have people talking up the plan, have your otherpeople attacking the opposition.

This "taking the high road" only works when you defend yourself, and in order to defend yourself you have to go on the offensive at times.

It cannot be said, though.

Political reality dictates that you may never speak that truth.

We can't leave Iraq, we can't criticize * too harshly, we don't need principles, blah, blah, blah.

I think Obama misreads the American people, they are PISSED but see no real alternative. Obama uses a lot of pretty words to say "don't expect much from us".

Reread his post and use cut and paste to show me where he says that.

I don't think you can do that.

OBAMA is a GLobalist

I am not a GLobalist

I like national economic soveriegnty

And I mean, with regards to Obama.

not a quote but close--

we're moving towards a global economy, its inevitable

It may be he doesnt know the difference between voting against CAFTA and this sort of statement.

400 years. It fails every time. OBAMA maybe niave. I have a hard time with the "its inevitable" crowd. If OBAMA is is touting the inevibilty of gloabalism--- I'm not interested.

TO me in the Charlie Rose interview-- I saw a globalist in OBAMA.

In my recollection of history, that would take us back to the days of mercantilism. I'm interested in hearing what makes you consider the 400 year mark distinguishing. Not hostile, here, just interested as a lifelong student of history!

largest fleet of sailing ships, an education was considered important for the middle class, a tradesmen/craftsmen middle class that was the envy of the world. Enter transnational economic alliances. which introduced investment in factories (weaving, pottery, metalsmithing) outside of the country--- & the jobs followed-- then the Tulip scandal of 1629-- the 30 years war-- the Spanish Inquistion, which was a holy war - Christians VS Moslems.

NYC was known as New Amsterdam, but the Dutch Empire fell.

The Spanish, Portuguese, French, British, all went the same route.

Now its worse--- the international fish catch peaked in 1975.
Iron ore in the form of hematite ran out in the early 1970s, This was a soft, easily obtained ore. Now miners have to dig down at least a mile & more to get the last remaining deposits of Taconite, a much harder ore, that must be crushed in large stamping plants before it can go to the blast furnace.

The moon regolith (top soil) is iron poor but none the less the moon has 23 of 27 strategic metals & minerals, so the next stop is asteroids, if you need iron. This is where the next resource driven boom will occur. In space.

I would like to see the USA get there first--- not use its military to stop the Chinese from getting there (space).

But the US has already devalued science, outsourced jobs, deprieved the masses of the education needed to produce the people to do the work of colonizing space.

Bush wants to weaponize space, instead of commercializing it. Like Lincoln did (commercialize it) with Rail road grants, RRs companies got land to build to the west coast. On the way great deposits of Coal & Iron were found, engineers were needed to build skyscrapers, bridges. New steel factories. The average worker needed to be a grad of high school, so schooling aws valued-- more schools produce more grads, more to work the new hi tech jobs. COlleges were needed to teach more engineers about how to build skyscrapers, & bridges.
The resulting Industial foundation is what won WW1 & WW2.

I am only wondering about your feeling that this is all a problem of transnationa economy. It almost seems to me to be inevitable.

What is the alternative to a global economy? I want to know.

its not "my claim", its what Obama said on Charlie Rose.

Challenge indeed. Go find it yourself-- hint-- start with PBS
OBAMA hasnt been on that show evry week-- so it should be easy to get a transcript--


If youre that upset

I don't give your claim enough weight to go look for it. You haven't even made a strong enough argument to rebut.

If you beef up your argument, I'll look for the transcript.

Or you could beef up your argument with the transcript.

Ball's in your court.

OBAMA awas sworn in by jan 6th, right?

CHARLIE ROSE: Tell me what the questions the party has to ask itself in order to come out at the other end with what you`re saying.

BARACK OBAMA: Right. No. 1, what do we have to offer low-wage workers and middle class folks who are getting squeezed, in terms of concrete proposals that are not protectionist but address the fact that we have this global competition from China and India, and the creative destruction of global capitalism....

CHARLIE ROSE: It is the most powerful new force in the world in addition to terrorism.

BARACK OBAMA: Exactly.

CHARLIE ROSE: The emergence of a level playing field precipitated by the Internet and technology...

BARACK OBAMA: That`s exactly right.

CHARLIE ROSE: ... and the rise of China and India and other countries, in Asia primarily.

BARACK OBAMA: Exactly. So if we want capital to be able to move freely, how do we make sure that we have the high skill, high value-added, high wage jobs here in the United States? How do we make sure that everybody has opportunity and not just a small sliver of the population?

But I do think that being bold involves more than just putting more money into existing programs and will instead require us to admit that some existing programs and policies don't work very well.

And further, it will require us to innovate and experiment with whatever ideas hold promise (including market- or faith-based ideas that originate from Republicans).

---------------------------------------------------

Getting dangerously close to GOP-lite. Comments?

The Republican regime has done such a *fine* job of moving our country further to the right (from the "balanced" center we seem to have achieved during Clinton years). We're going to have a tough time bringing the country back to the center, let alone take it much further left. It can happen eventually, but I think we first have to achieve a better balance that's somewhere in the middle. (I'm not advocating the DLC; hell, I don't even follow/know what they preach.)

I do agree with your thoughts that we do have to be much more innovative. And I'd add to that: organized, tolerant, persistent, strategic... and many more I'm sure. The essence of the progressive mindset to me is that we are accepting & tolerant of other views, religions, ideas, policies...and we want hold these values for ALL Americans, not just a selected few.

(OK, hit me...I'm ready...)

The essence of the progressive mindset to me is that we are accepting & tolerant of other views, religions, ideas, policies...and we want hold these values for ALL Americans, not just a selected few.

----------

Very good point, which is why I strongly advocate strict separation of church and state, which is one 'core' area that I'm not willing to go 'centrist' on.

I am not sure I am comfortable with the general direction of the Democratic party since Election 2004. They are coming across as 'self-hating'.

Wasn't the lesson from FDR that we try things. If they work, we keep doing them. If not, we stop.

market and faith-based ideas are working, eh?

Amartya Sen says as much about market-based solutions in Development as Freedom, and God's Politics should probably give some progressives ideas about how to harness the best parts about faith-based approaches to solving problems.

your thread title nails it, "Barack Obama knows."

He completely understands what is going on, he has managed to capture perfectly the conflict between the elected dems and the activists, he obviously has spent a good amount of time and thought on this, which frankly surprises me.

And he addresses it nearly perfectly, imo. His references to Paul Simon are spot on. I am now positive that he was profoundly influenced by Simon.

This is a particularly good line, "let truth be the hallmark of our response."

Finally, I am not arguing that we "unilaterally disarm" in the face of Republican attacks, or bite our tongue when this Administration screws up. Whenever they are wrong, inept, or dishonest, we should say so clearly and repeatedly; and whenever they gear up their attack machine, we should respond quickly and forcefully. I am suggesting that the tone we take matters, and that truth, as best we know it, be the hallmark of our response.

It is true that there seems to be no gradation of criticism among Democrats. Any deviation on any issue from any Democrat can be grounds for some group of purists to abandon them to the proverbial wolves -- and this kind of disloyalty to party and leadership is precisely what the Repug party is NOT about. So acceptance of the leaders and small differences is precisely a part of party discipline that the Repugs have that the Democrats persistently lack. I call it 'Morris-the-Cat liberalism' -- liberals and progressives are much more finicky about who they will support and about finding fault with good-faith leaders (though, like the hound that didn't bark, these forces never seem quite so hypercritical about the choruses of protestation to the effect that Tawana Brawley is other than full of it any way you slice it, etc.)



On this point, for example, the notion of demonizing a Democratic Party leader like Feingold based on voting for Roberts is precisely a case in point. One can disagree with someone who fudges on affirmative action without, as is automatic in many circles, labelling their position 'racist' or better yet, one of my fav political phrases, 'objectively racist'. Thus far Obama is right. But he concedes we should not hold our tongue in the face of conservative misleadership. OK, he could hardly say otherwise. But should we "hold our tongue" when Feingold, Leahy, Levin, and numerous other Democrats who really should have known better display their lack of what unionists call 'fire in the belly' and voted for Roberts as the Chief Justice? I think that the category of criticizing without bashing, of strongly disagreeing without then turning against someone needs to be expanded not contracted. And that category is narrowed by the bashers on one side (those who don't distinguish between bashing and criticism, just like those in the machinery of US astroturf roots genocidalism who don't distinguish between 'judging' someone, or even vehemently and angrily criticizing them, and 'crapping' on them, or even viciously injuring them.)


The 'positive thinking' politicos do as much harm to the concept of civil but vigorously democratic discourse as do the bashers. Indeed, although not in Obama's case to my knowledge, they are often one and the same: Don't you dare criticize the party hacks in the Rainbow Coalition (although it is right not to do so at Rainbow sponsored events from the podium), but, hey -- let em engineer hypersensitivity on radical Q, he's earned it. Such is the "civility" of the liberal -- grovelling to the right and being blase about the oppression of authentic progressives. This is in turn rooted in the 'mercy' component of real Christianity in our society, a tradition followed assiduously by nonChristians within the Christian family, as it were, as well: 'spare hate they're angels' mercy. In short, mercy in almost all cases in our civilizations means "Don't shit up, shut up". But shitting down is, well, precisely what is to be forgiven. It is one of the reasons I reject utterly both Christian religion and Christian family values in practice. What is said to be all about mercy and civility is really in practice all about servility not civility.




You will notice that in his myriad examples, Obama never once cited a single example of incivility or intolerance of the authentic left by those to their right. Hmmm. Never once did we hear him score the DLC people for what they say about Michael Moore. Nor, even indirectly, did I see or hear any articulation of the criticism for the plague-on-both-your houses that many mainstream Democrats consider de rigeur when it comes to the worst of Republicans (with whom one quietly makes upkissing peace), and the least bigoted and obnoxious (all the more true in the face of oceans of protestation to the contrary -- see above discussion of choruses of protestation ostensibly on the left) of authentic progressives to their left.


I would be much more apt to listen to Obama if his concern for intra-Party civility was as vigorous in defense of largely unprotected forces to his left as it was to the powerful forces deviating to his right.



Again, Obama is right to criticize the hostiley purist approach of supposed Democrats and progressives -- an approach in reality often if not usually driven by the sniping of 'red-headed league' type progressives who are really just using the pose of political purity to promote getting with the program, as with the incessant sniping at Dean's candidacy "from the left". Indeed, there's plenty of kudos from above in them thar hills for sniping at those the power elite want sniped precisely in the name of progressive values when these are merely an indignant pretext or cloak.




One underlying reason Obama cites repeatedly is the implicit reasonableness of the position of those who 'right deviate' but presumably those who insist that the Iraq War was an imperialist venture from the start, or that the US is in fact an imperialist power are not deserving of such a largesse of moral generosity, as their (I should say our views) are not as 'reasonable' and worthy of respect.



So I agree with the message that the Democrats should be more unified, in the ways Obama outlines. In fact, such an approach, rather than deviating from the Repugs (who call the Democratic Party the 'Democrat' party -- no mention of that here). So I respect Obama as the kind of mainstream politician who would make a good presidential candidate (and a vastly greater president than any we have seen in a LONG LONG time), but still insist that progressives have a properly different road to take, one that isn't bound by the need to make nice -- with those to their right, but only in the most limited way with those to their left. Concomitantly, there is the need to not make nice with those most disfavored by the machine (on the Left, where else?)


beyond a certain point -- after all, politicians never succeed that way; the Clinton formula is more the miles to the right-of-Nixon at the astroturf roots level direction of the Democratic Party elite as a whole today.

" and this kind of disloyalty to party and leadership is precisely what the Repug party is NOT about."

Whos son didnt play with Delay, and Delay didnt support the son in a house race, no PAC money from Delays PAC.

What about the Repub strong arm tactics in the house and senate?

Shouldnt we say to Lieberman the same as what the repubs would say to one of their own?

Like this -- hey Joe-- ya want some DNC money? for your campaign? then you have to vote with us on these issues, instead of voting like a repub.

How many got burned because they didnt play ball with the leadership? Lets put what the repubs have done in the right context.

I would like to see OBAMA support those omn the left-- to his left- It may be that OBAMA does kiss up to the right a bit much-- the ones on the farright-- that makes me mad-pissed

Just Like Corzine-- running for Gov in NJ-- I have a lot of problems with him-- BUT

I'll vote for him & Volunteer for him, and pound it into his thicjk skull he could be better

that is the problem.

there are no democrats who recognize the election was stolen.

we are never going to take back the house or presidency without fixing that little problem my friends.

need for balance between Good Dems-- Dems who stand their ground, and election reform.

IF the election was stolen, and nothing is done about the problem-- then OBAMA will never rise to the White House.
If we have good election reform at the state and county level but dont have good candidates--- we still lose, and will continue to lose.

Any good candidate who thinks they can win by camapigning hard and thats it, will never get to the white House.

David Navaro worked in the national Field operations office for Kerry. I have also spoken to Ted Carter who was Clintons national field ops director in '96, Ted has similar feelings.

Dems must come to understand what happened in 2004-- 2000 was different- Bush was appointed.

start trembling and stuttering when discussing Obama. This guy is not the "perfect liberal" but he is brilliant, politically astute and he has charisma. He is the right-wing's biggest nightmare and he ain't going to go away.

And I'd be very skeptical of criticisms of Obama that aren't supported by evidence and solid arguments because the only defense Republicans have against this guy is to try to convince progressives that he's not liberal.

:kick:

Have you spoken out against this illegal war, Obama? Have you supported the efforts against this maladministration, or have you gone with the flow, Obama? Talk's cheap.

he's very BLUNTLY disagreeing with some elements of the dem base.

Pretty words would be if he just told us how righteous we are. Which of course we know already with certainty, but which we never tire of being reminded of.

He's saying things that could result in Democratic victories and then in a real change in the direction our nation movies.