I'm still offended, as a Democrat, that Obama is 'appealing' to republicans

Sure, we want their votes. That's fine. But, I can't help wonder what the draw is supposed to be for republicans. Anytime you broach this with Obama's supporters they insist that there's nothing in his positions which is designed to overtly draw republicans to his campaign. There's the appeal he makes to 'work together' with republicans. But, I mostly think he's getting voting support, in those states which allow it, from manipulative republican voters.

What is the appeal to republicans SUPPOSED to be, from the campaign's perspective??

and carries a dozen new Congressional districts on his coattails.

in the congressional races. that's a stretch, I think.

for Congress, knowing that Obama promises to 'work with' the republican they vote for

You won't get their vote if you don't ask.

Or you can click on the link. Whichever you prefer.

He's promising them some kind of moderation of his approach to these, isn't he? Or, is all of that talk of a 'new way' just bullshit to draw them in?

Why? I can't figure it out. I think it has to do with leadership and he's not a scary liberal. Funny thing is that Obama is far more liberal than most people perceive.

that Obama is reaching across the isle to bring us together where it matters. keep in mind that Hillary already garners a lof of support from the right.

I'm an Obama supporter, but far from a wild Obama partisan.

What I've heard him say is that he wants to reach out to independents (a shared goal by all Democrats) and to those Republicans who have become turned off by the wild-eyed conservatism of the GOP.

He did not say "I'm going to endorse GOP policies." He did say "We're going to encourage those Republicans who can support a Democratic agenda to come over to our side." (paraphrased of course)

That is very different from adopting Republican policies to appeal to Republicans, or the "triangulation" strategy.

If we can "turn" enough Republicans, that is good for the party long-term! We need to show those disaffected or even just DOUBTING Republicans, that all the BS said by their party "leaders" about Democrats is wrong, that we want a lot of the same things they do, and that they've been lied to all this time to keep their votes.

members of the other party.

Bottom line, the insane partisanship is NOT a good thing for our country. It may benefit the parties, and is certainly drawing FAR more dollars to the candidates' coffers, but its horrid for the country.

We truly do need to get over hating our neighbors. We truly do need to look towards what brings us together, instead of spending our time focusing on every issue which divides us.

Yes, this is a GREAT thing.


Now, if we could just get rid of the electoral college, make gerrymandering illegal, and impose term limits on those in congress, we might be able to get back to representative democracy. But an end to the insane partisanship is certainly a start.

It's good thing for this country...we are so divided..race, money, politics, ugh

Don't forget, there ARE hecklers on these threads who will try to confuse you.
Don't be fooled!
Obama IS THE NEXT PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED ....
I REPEAT ...
............. U-N-I-T-E-D- ...............
states of America!
UNITED we stand!
Divided, we fall!

They can't confuse me...

lol

I see nothing wrong with someone seeking unity..how anyone else does...kind of surprises me...

without compromising ANYTHING.

Lenny: "And we did it because of teamwork!"
Carl: "Yeah... my teamwork..."

*shrug*

As far as policies go, both Clinton and Obama seem to be so completely in the mainstream of American beliefs currently that I don't think they'd have to change much of anything to get people to agree with them on the issues. The difference is Obama doesn't have 40%-or-so negatives among the general population. Lots of people just don't trust Hillary (I have a hard time with it sometimes). For reasons that escape me, lots of people don't trust Edwards either. That's the breaks.

I guess nobody is 100% happy with their party's positions on everything; I myself would love to see the Democratic party stop trying to ban classes of rifles that are essentially never used in crimes, but that's probably not in the cards so I deal with it (though that one issue has been a huge draw for the GOP). But we wouldn't even have to change that tendency towards political suicide to appeal to people; we just need to offer them a candidate they personally trust.

YET

who have frothed that they hate his calls for hope and unity. They want revenge. They apparently think more strife is just what the nation needs. I don't get it either.

of pissed off Republicans out there. Their party has left them. I'm all for asking them to join ours.

Mz Pip
:dem:

also decry the "excesses of the 60's and 70's," something his spokesman called the Democrats' Disease. Since I still suffer from the Democrats' Disease, I will never support Barack Obama.

right to choose, affirmative action, take away tax breaks that went to the wealthy and reform those of the middle class and working poor . . . I AM extreme in my firmness on these.

Obama is a unifying force.
We are not blue states, or red states, we THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!
United we STAND!
Divided we fall!
America is now flat on it's face because of Jorge B^sh's divisive politics!
God bless America!
God Bless Barak Obama!

May the force be with you!
:>)

and I don't see a problem in lopping off the obstructionist republican bullshit which passes for policy

...but I bet a lot of it's members are.

that Obama will soft-sell the Democratic agenda and let their counter-agenda nonsense have a place at the table.

That's the reality. You can pretend that the Republicans don't have a seat at the table when it comes to passing legislation, but you will just be sticking your head in the sand. The political reality of today means that anything significant requires 60 votes. When you consider that a future Democratic Administration won't be able to even rely on every member of their own party to go along with them, you begin to understand just what it takes to get something like health care legislation passed. If you want to see what partisan bickering and refusal to work with the other side will bring you in health care, turn the clock back to 1993 and Hillary Clinton.

Clinton can't get us universal health care, Obama can.

I can see the republicans now . . . putting aside their brickbats and knives to follow this charismatic Democrat. Didn't the present Democratic majority practice conciliation and compromise? To what end?

Tell me, do you honestly think that Hillary (the anti-Christ of the Republican party) has a better chance of winning over the handful of Republican votes needed than Barrack does?

there is no such thing as a functioning unified democracy.

Tell them they're full of shit, not real Americans, and that they'll be totally marginalized after '08. It'll feel really, really good, and we'll win, too. Sure we will.

I mean, he may be pandering for any vote but if any republican's brain can be changed I'm all for that. And I still have hope that my girl will win but if she doesn't it won't be the end of the world.

many Republicans will stick with BO if he makes it to the general, and second, we don't know why he appeals to them in the first place. I don't take it as a good sign when people like Joe Scarborough, William Bennett, Tim Russert, and Chris Matthews sing a Democrat's praises.

moderate.

They're both centrist enough that their policies don't scare off a lot of voters; the difference is a lot of voters dislike Clinton and like (or at least don't dislike) Obama.

the campaign is just beginning, and he hasn't been tested by the same fire other nominees (and their spouses) have endured

or any republican who will enable Bush or the republican party.

Is his appeal to them false? Is he really just saying 'vote for me, because democratic policies are better,' or, is it a more subtle appeal that says he's willing to bend their way on issues? I see the latter.

across as honest and genuine, and he's given the Clinton machine a real fight, which Repubs respect. They know he's pretty progressive, but by not coming across as a divisive, vengeful, power-hungry, calculating pol, he's able to draw them despite his voting record and agenda.

There is nothing divisive, vengeful, power-hungry, or calculating about our efforts to confront the republicans and advance the peoples' agenda.

infecting our country. I am related to them, work with them, am old friends with a few. They have a somewhat different take on what ails our country, but they're not some "other". They're voters who will respond to a message that tells them they will be heard and respected, even if they don't get their way--they might even be convinced that what Obama wants doesn't sound half-bad. Remember, the Chimpster won on a message of unity and bipartisanship in 2000. All that fuss made about how the Texas Dem legislature was able to work with him, blah blah blah. That's how you WIN--the real challenge is fulfilling your party's agenda afterward. I think Obama would have tremendous goodwill in this regard, at least during his first year. I'm not naive, maybe nothing will pass--but if people sense you're taking office to steamroll them and cram shit down their throats, they tend to resist.

it won't be about 'cramming' anything. And if we soft-sell our agenda to avoid offending these folks, we will get the mush we deserve in the end.

what he wants to do: End the war, because he always opposed it and opposes it now. Help families in foreclosure with a 10 billion dollar assistance program. A national health insurance plan that does everything it can to get people to buy and afford health insurance, and mandates that children must have some form of insurance coverage. A plan to begin engaging in talks with "enemy" states, not to appease or negotiate, but to establish a connection and find common ground. I don't see him equivocating on any of this. He may not get always get his way, there may be some compromise, but his agenda should be clear to all, including Republicans.

for both the republicans he's appealing to, and for the Democratic voter who is being led to believe that all he has to do is 'work with' republicans and his agenda sails.

What effect do you think this will have on congressional races. You can't be thinking that this appeal will work to get republicans to vote for Democratic candidates. Why should they switch parties when Obama promises to 'work with' the republican senator or representative they vote for?

local and state politics, except maybe for the state I live in. So the "coattails" question will have to go to someone else. :-)

Many Republicans are no longer in favor of the war. Many Republicans have felt the crunch of the health care system. Many Republicans have lost their homes too. THIS is the time to reach out to these people and show them that we have a better way!

Republicans aren't voting for Clinton or Obama.
Previous election results bear this out.

Obama's strategy is to appeal to Independents, without whom he (we) can't win.
It's a survival strategy and it's very smart.

Should be a dream candidate.

:shrug:

People need to grow and understand that with just getting a little gop support, a liberal agenda can happen.

If not, then the status quo (GOP agenda) will (continue) to happen.

smiling, shaking hands . . . SOMEONE in that arrangement has to lose. The issues and concerns we face break down into longstanding efforts to bring about changes which have been obstructed by a republican agenda which is designed to derail those efforts, not replace them. All of their proposals are phony, disguised as legitimate legislation, designed to derail the 'change' Obama says he wants. That's the real world. What he's selling is a fantasy.

SOMEONE in that arrangement has to lose.

Politics only seems like a zero-sum game because that's the way it's been played for the past 16 years.

or only covering 'some' Americans with health care proposals, or giving folks just a fraction of the rights they deserve . . .

Enough of the country is with Obama, and against Clinton, McCain, etc., in thinking it's time to get the hell out of there, and that even talking about attacking Iran is lunacy, and that "isolating" regimes we don't like in the end just isolates us instead.

There is value in covering 'some' Americans with health care proposals, if you can't get the better solution accomplished right now. Particularly if you can, as Obama wants to, end the insurance companies' tyranny of denying coverage for pre-existing conditions. To use an Obama phrase, it starts the walls shaking.

these half-measures do nothing but provide political cover for their neglect and obstruction, allowing them to walk away claiming they've made progress. What happened after Kennedy thought his passage of the NCLB Act was a historic vote?

A friend recently told me that her die-hard Republican husband wants to vote for Obama because "he likes what he's hearing from him."

I asked why he wouldn't vote for Clinton, since the two aren't very different on the issues.

Her answer: "He would never listen to Clinton long enough to like what she's saying."

Maybe it's because of Obama's willingness to respectfully listen to others, or because he doesn't have a lot of baggage ~ but Republicans are willing to hear Barack out. It's not that he's changing his positions to suit them, it's that they don't see him as the enemy, so they can hear him.

They want change from the direction they have supported in the past. Being new on the scene, and with the message of inclusion, Obama provides the cover. There is just too much history for Hillary to pull in the quantity of cross-over voters Obama can.

Along a similar vein, since it now appears that McCain will be the Reich's Candidate, Hillary is almost certain to lose, whereas Obama directly attacks McCains strength, the independent/wavering Reich voter.

Obama isn't immune from all of that, he just hasn't gotten his neck out far enough to attract fire from the republican machine.

If someone like me (who worked on both of President Clinton's campaigns) has had enough of the way they play politics, it is certainly NOT just a Republican invention. It's foolish to remain in denial about that ~ we simply can't afford it.

comprise the bulk of her 'negatives' among Americans polled

"What is the appeal to republicans SUPPOSED to be, from the campaign's perspective??"

Why bother asking? You're no more able to hear the answer than Republicans are able to hear Hillary's message.

The 'appeal' is supposed to be that he's not tarnished like Clinton, who has been through presidential battles with her husband? Don't think that Obama wouldn't be tarnished just as badly by the republican machine if he managed to get the nom. It's always amazing to me ho Democrats fall for the republican attacks on Clinton, Kerry . . . and piggyback their own bias against these Democrats on top of the republican attacks.

It's not just the Clinton reputation ~ it's that Obama treats Republicans like human beings and listens with an open mind.

You should've been able to get that from the story I relayed ~ next time I won't bother.

or promises them safe haven for their agenda.

If you just wanted someone to just agree with, you shouldn't have bothered to respond.

You asked about the appeal Obama has for Republicans ~ I gave you an example of one Republican's experience. You couldn't care less what that voter is saying ~ fortunately, Obama does.

voracious reader here. I appreciate your input. I just disagree with the characterizations.

McCain is probably appealing to a few Dems.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/george-lakoff/what-counts-as-an-issue_b_84177.html

” This nomination campaign is about much more than the candidates. It about a major split within the Democratic party. The candidates are reflecting that split. Here are three of the major “issues” dividing Democrats.

First, triangulation: moving to the right — adopting right-wing positions — to get more votes. Bill Clinton did it and Hillary believes in it. It is what she means by “bipartisanship.” Obama means the opposite by “bipartisanship.” To Obama, it is a recognition that central progressive moral principles are fundamental American principles. For him, bipartisanship means finding people who call themselves “conservatives” or “independents,” but who share those central American values with progressives. Obama thus doesn’t have to surrender or dilute his principles for the sake of “bipartisanship.”

The second is incrementalism: Hillary believes in getting lots of small carefully crafted policies through, one at a time, step by small step, real but almost unnoticed. Obama believes in bold moves and the building of a movement in which the bold moves are demanded by the people and celebrated when they happen. This is the reason why Hillary talks about “I,” I,” “I” (the crafter of the policy) and Obama talks about “you” and “we” (the people who demand it and who jointly carry it out).

The third is interest group politics: Hillary looks at politics through interests and interest groups, seeking policies that satisfy the interests of such groups. Obama’s thinking emphasizes empathy over interest groups. He also sees empathy as central to the very idea of America. The result is a positive politics grounded in empathy and caring that is also patriotic and uplifting.

For a great many Democrats, these are the real issues. These real differences between the candidates reflect real differences within the party. Whoever gets the nomination, these differences will remain.”

I think it's a bullshit appeal, to both sides, republicans and Democrats looking on. He won't be able to get this present class of republicans to compromise on important, basic concerns, and they won't come off of their obstructionist con they call their agenda. All that's occurring here is Obama 'appealing to republicans'. Empty, disingenuous, and offensive to those of us who, by NECESSITY, press forward against that opposition with all we've got.

If they want to leave their offensive labels and bigoted, corporatist expectations behind them and become Democrats, fine. Otherwise, they should stay where they are.

and are with us on all but abortion, because they've been cynically manipulated and have self-branded? No, he won't be able to get the Republican politicians. But yes, he can and has gotten a lot of the people to rethink party and vote for him. How is a supermajority a bad idea?

...seriously, who the hell are we to tell somebody what his or her interests "really" are? That whole starting point is how we get labeled as (not without some reason) as elitists. I've been waiting a while for someone to do the Obamaite strategy of listening to what conservatives say, with respect, and articulating a political narrative they can believe in that finds a common ground in the values that we do share with them.

But I also don't think they're "with us on everything but abortion". They're not with us on LGBT equality; they're not with us on gun rights (and frankly IMO we're the ones in the wrong on that one); they're not with us on immigration.

So, every coalition has some splits in it. There are plenty of conservatives with us on several important issues: ending the war in Iraq, helping out the middle class and working class, ending the power of lobbyists, ending the harsh partisanship in Washington, having a sane and reality-based foreign policy, and reducing and even reversing the damage we're causing to the environment.

Obama's judgment, and I agree with him, is that these issues are powerful enough to form a coalition that can move the country forward towards solving these problems. This doesn't mean we'll have to stop fighting for women's rights, LGBT rights, and immigrants' rights; it means we won't have their support on those issues (which is better than not having their support at all).

as safe, because of Obama's pledge to 'work with them'.

But if they can get us the White House, that's a net gain.

72 year-old crumb McCain? Slick Mitt?

EXACTLY! :patriot:

He is appealing to them by not demonizing them and by reminding people that
a lot of the divisiveness has been an illusion. We have an opportunity to leave that behind
with someone who has not been party to it.

that right vs. left, white vs. black, Jewish vs Christian vs Arab, rich vs. poor...could ever, ever be unified by a common denominator. Who in their right mind could possibly dare to utter such ideals? Who in their right mind would think that there are people who would like to shun their labels and work together for the common good?

There is no place, in our party, in my view, for their phony republican, industry-enabling agenda. If they leave that behind, they're more than welcome.

But it has absolutely no place in politics. The Pukes have nearly destroyed our country with it. That sort of thinking does not win people over to your side. There are no true republicans remember? Only misinformed Democrats.

We need a leader who can show people what these policies are really about. Lets give it a shot! It worked for FDR and to some extent JFK. The great leaders in history don't declare war on half their countries or call them idiots for doing what they've done in the last few years... they welcome them back into the fold and form a team to face the challenges of the day.

The enemy of the people is the Corporate Oligarchy. We need to wake the people up, not work within the system, but work with the PEOPLE to cast off the shackles. Obama has the best chance of doing so.

He gets my vote on that alone.

designed to obstruct the changes we want and need. It may sound wonderful to imagine that Obama will transcend all of that, but, if he doesn't have a Democratic majority large enough to overcome these filibusters, he'll be just as stymied as we are today. I think he's selling a scenario which doesn't exist.

"Democrats"? Do Christians need to become Jews, blacks become whites, rich become poor..in order to work together for the common good?
What about these people? http://www.nndb.com/group/269/000093987/
Are they allowed to participate in your plans?

You go ahead and make room for your republicans . . . leave room for their militarist, discriminatory, corporatist, anti-democratic agenda, as well

voter is a militarist, discriminatory, corporatist, anti-democratic citizen of this country, and has no place in working with others to decide their future? But you like these people just fine?

The DLC crap is a joke. They have as much influence on the real world with their position papers and policy pronouncements as posting here does.

And, it's hilarious to see folks who routinely hyperventilate about the DLC accept ANY entreaties to republicans. Where DO you stand, anyway?

I see political will as coming from the bottom up, and if ordinary people will not move out of the stereotypical characterizations foisted upon this society we will experience more of the same. I do not want to believe that every citizen who has voted for a Republican is evil. Nor do I want to believe that large swaths of society or entire cultures should be marginalized because of perceptions not based in fact. I do not want to believe that an ordinary citizens vote at a given time defines their person. I do not want to believe that with a proper understanding of the choices that are available people can not change their opinion, or change their mind. I know...it's crap...it's a joke. Good luck to you.

Don't be a republican.

You ask the question and diss the answer? Maybe you should worry about your own self doing the 'right thing' rather than poking sticks at other.

Republicans can kiss my ass.

. . . is that Democrats should be impressed with this. I have NOTHING to apologize to anyone about my Democratic activism. The intensity of my efforts have been in direct response to the extremes of their party. That dynamic hasn't changed at all. The republican class of legislator in Washington is dangerous, divisive, and destructive. They are the enemy. Join us in taking them apart at the seams with an unapologetic defense and support of democratic principles. If they want to join in that fight, fine. If not, I really don't see the value in moderating that intent to please them.

Being right isn't enough in leadership. Having the right ideas isn't enough. If you want to get anywhere you have to make people willing to work with you. You have to have people's trust, and as much as this seems anathema to a large group on DU, you have to trust them too.

I don't 'trust' ANYTHING from them. I believe that, we should put forward an unapologetic platform and stop pretending like our strong advocacy for these things over the republican obstruction is some fault of ours.

You don't trust any of them, at all?

support between the two ebbs and flows--only a small group remain fixed in their support for one party throughout their entire lives. There are probably a large number of moderate Republican voters who are itching for a reason to give someone else a try. Let's not dissuade them from leaving their party. Every vote counts (well... except for votes cast for Edwards... they don't count at all).

because Obama promises, to 'work with' their republican congressional choice.

ignoring bipartisanship in national politics if you want to pass bills is idiotic. How much has chimpy managed to do after the mid-term elections? What are his few successes in terms of passing legislation?

This is a fantasy. Unless we elect a working Democratic majority, many issues will remain obstructed by republicans and unresolved. This appeal from Obama gives comfort to those republicans who may want change, by telling them he'll work with whoever they choose. He may want to, but that's just not going to happen where it counts. We need the PRESSURE of a veto-proof majority behind an unapologetic agenda.

That's a start. We've got a lot of fences to mend, true, but it's a start.

I don't.

It doesn't go far enough yet (Obama is the first to say so) but it ended some of the more egregious abuses.

What is the appeal to republicans SUPPOSED to be, from the campaign's perspective??

I know a few Republicans who like him, and the appeal is that they find him trustworthy and they think he can do something about how ridiculously complicated and expensive health care has become. They also like what he says about limiting the influence of lobbyists and ending huge no-bid secret contracts.

Do people on DU seriously not get how many Americans vote "person" rather than "issues" in a Presidential election?

and Obama is encouraging that by insisting he'll work with the congressional republican they vote for.

Your problem is you think his Repub. support is "from manipulative republican voters." That's where you're wrong. There are Repubs. out there who are TIRED of the partisanship, which Hillary would continue. She brags about "still standing" after "16 years of RW attacks." So she will CONTINUE being attacked. It's time for that bull to end and to have someone who DOESN'T have years of hatred built up against them.

we don't have an extreme agenda.

We have an extreme opposition, and I resent the implication that our Democratic politics has been unnecessarily confrontational.

And the Dems. hate Bush. People are TIRED of the dynasties. Time to bring in new blood without any baggage. Obama is liked by ordinary Repubs. To deny that is to deny reality.

we've been fighting the republican obstructionists. They think Obama is a 'safe' choice for them, and for the continuation of their agenda.

And that means she's counting even time that she's been out of the WH. Obama is not a "safe" choice. He's a NEW choice.

He's deluding himself, and his supporters.

Repubs. like him just because he doesn't brag about how much Repubs. hate him.

since he attracts Repubs. and Indies unlike Hillary. He is more liberal than Hillary but he can still get votes of the other side because he's honest and pleasant while sticking to his guns.

Every vote should be straight along party lines. If a repub supports something, we should oppose it no matter what it is.

:sarcasm:

Not the other way around.

McCain-Feingold (half Republican, at least) was a good idea.
The Republican-led opposition to the assault weapons ban was fine with me (though I know I'm in a minority of my party on that)
Specter's bill to guarantee habeus corpus to US detainees
Warner's bill expressing opposition to increasing troop levels in Iraq
Warner's bill expanding the national wireless Internet infrastructure
I could find a few more, but the LOC website is slow today.

brought forward in their majority after PRESSURE from Democrats? Did Specter vote for the torture bill? Did Warner vote for ANY withdrawal bill?

Also Dodd/Hagel, which would create a national infrastructure bank to fund projects. Those are two from just my Senator off the top of my head (because I'm familiar with his record). I'm sure there's plenty of good Repub-written amendments and bills that won support from both sides of the aisle.

You're underestimating the amount of people that are very much in the middle on issues but voted for Bush last time simply because he marketed himself better than Kerry did.

The fact is that Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, and John Kerry have been demonized by the media to the point that they have lost a lot of popularity. Obama's strategy is to present himself as not Hillary Clinton, not Al Gore, and not John Kerry. This pisses a lot of DUers off because we are smart enough to know that Gore, Kerry, and Clinton aren't what the media says they are. But the fact is that DU isn't the real world and unfortunately people don't always make the most informed choices.

Many of my friends are not very politically active but the fact is that they like Obama. Remember that in 2004 Americans voted for the guy that they liked better, the guy they would rather have a beer with. DU is somehow under the impression that America has woken up since then and is ready to not elect the guy they would rather have a beer with. I don't think we've changed much.

Fortunately Obama has that appeal and he's just as liberal as Clinton if not more liberal.

They think they'll have an easy Democrat to push around because of his conciliatory rhetoric. They have given up on 2008 and are scheming to get a four-year Democrat followed by another eight-year Republican.

However, I don't think they are going to get what they think they are getting.

just because he said some vague things about unity and reconciliation.

He will fight their attack machine, definitely--his much maligned "ego" will be an ally in that battle.

The only Republican thing he can really do as President is start another war, and I personally think Clinton is more likely to do that.

A lot of the fretting here over both candidates is about legislative stuff and isn't really germane to the duties of the executive.

this is just a political discussion among allies, not (really) some campaign from here at DU. Take your time. We can talk in text.

I feel strongly that:

The political divisions, the "wedge issues" have been used to keep people apart but in reality we have much, much more in common than we think.
Let me say that another way: Did you ever think it strange that the really wealthy 5% or 10% that is represented by the policies of the Republican party is able to fight against the Democratic party that SHOULD have like 90% support? HOW DID IT HAPPEN?

I believe it happened because astute political bean counters determined that there were issues, single -issue voters, that could be brought to one side or the other at any given time to further balance the 50/50 ratio that keeps the power brokers in power. After all, NONE OF THEM really want to rock the boat, do they?

I bring this up because I believe there are a wide-range of issues that we could get "REPUBLICANS (RINOS actually)" to vote with us and even better, to see that they should BE ON OUR SIDE!

Example: Health Care -Do you really think it is a 50/50 split on whether or not health care should be universal? Of course not. Republicans (unless they are very wealthy) care just like we do. Think about all the poor, poor, dirt poor republicans.
Or what about this war? Do Republican parents want their kids to get killed? Or social security? Or losing jobs? Or the Constitution!???!!? There are very few real Republican that are invested with the idea of destroying the bill of rights! I really think so.

So it is mainly bullshit, these divisions. Even the worst offenders, homphobes, racists, etc... If you could talk to them about what they love or their children or their pets, have tea with them, you would see they are people and probably really ignorant ones too. They have the same emotions we do and that is why they CAN be worked with.

Reaching out your hand is a good idea when you need help to fix things. We have a lot in common and we are literally in the same boat toether. We do not need to sacrifice a damned thing. We need to get them to see that they are on the wrong side. Period.

well-considered

Most the "republicans" I know personally are aghast at how fundamentalist and how far right the party have become and cannot in good conscience continue to vote repub.

They are fucking useless...it's the ones like the guy 3 cubes down from me who will vote for Obama not Hillary. He hates Hillary from years of Rush. But he like Obama more than McCain cause McCain is Batshit Crazy...

There are a lot of patriotic, moral-oriented Republicans who will vote for that.

What will their opinion be after the endless right-wing attacks?

Oops, there goes unity.

That's not very 'unifying"

is.

he's not selling out.

in Saturday's Washington Post:






Like Ms. Eisenhower, many Republicans, and of even more import, millions of moderate & moderately conservative independents who formerly leaned Republican, have concluded they have no place in a GOP dominated by corporatists, warmongers, & authoritarians.

With millions of such former Republican voters voting Democratic in 2006, we won control of the Senate by 7000 votes in Virginia, with a strong antiwar, populist candidate who is not only a former Republican, but a former member of the Reagan administration.

How would you wish these millions of disillusioned Republicans, and former Republican-leaning independents, would vote?

Certainly not most, but numerous members of DU are former Republicans, as is one of our great senators from New York.

How is appeal to Republicans who can no longer vote for the GOP offensive?

most people don't even know what they themselves support.

But they know an interesting person when they see one. And someone who looks like a president.

It was hard for me for a couple weeks to decide who I would support. I thought long and hard about Edwards, Hillary, and Obama. I never have been over enthused about trotting the Clinton's out there again. I thought Dennis would have been best, but of course he was obliterated by the big money elites.
So, I feel the pain of the former Edwards supporters. It took me a few weeks to get refocused as well. Right before Iowa, I switched to Obama. In part, because of Kucinich's endorsement of Obama as a second choice if people viewed him as unviable. Also, because I saw in Obama an excitement I have never seen in my life. I'm 49 and have followed politics since the late 60's and have never witnessed such a powerful campaign. I think any democrat who looks at statistics should be concerned about Hillary's negatives with independents and republicans. One study, I believe had Hillary's favorable opinion ranking at like 15%, whereas Obama was at like 56% with republicans. Why is this important? Well, you may want to poo poo the notion that if republicans can get out to vote this year for a candidate... it will be a vote "against" Hillary, all you want to, but I think the writing is on the wall.
And you can make me out to be some kind of rotten "Hillary hater". But that's BS too. I have defended Bill and Hillary a million times to my republican friends and supported and voted for Bill. I just think it's pretty stupid to run a candidate with such high negatives (true or not), if we want to win. Then I think it'll be just like Gore/Bush, or Kerry/Bush. It should make the election close enough for the repubs to fix it again. With Obama I think we have a chance to make the margin of victory high enough so there is no question as to the victor.
Look, I spent the last seven years hating what republicans have done to our nation as well, but at some point we need to stop poisoning the well if we ever hope to get good water out of it. And it has to start somewhere. Look, you guys can run Hillary if you want to and I'll support her, and we'll have the most vicious, nasty, mudslinging affair ever in the history of American politics in all likelihood, or choose Obama and at least have some semblance of a chance at changing the awful tone of political rancor today.
And while I agree that our heartfelt anger at the repubs may all be very well founded and we may be 100% right in our convictions, and passion, but I think we do need to be the ones to change the tone of the election by nominating Barack Obama. And personally, I'd be happy to talk about racism for next six months, over the royal BJ, the Clinton mob and every other right wing BS you can think of. Yeah, I'm for Obama, no question. And you Edwards people. I made the switch from Kucinich, and it hurt for a couple weeks, but I was never comfortable with Hillary's Iraq and Iran war votes. I just couldn't get past those. Anyway, that's my take as a lifelong dem, who will be caucusing for Obama here in Minny tomorrow.