The DLC--the average voter, I dare say, the "average" activist, these days, doesnt care what it is,

nor do they know what it is.

Hillary has said it herself. People wanna President who's someone they think they can have a beer with. How ever on earth would George Bush have gotten elected? Why would anyone care about an apparatus that calls themselves the DLC; sounds like the label people want to give sometimes to a phantom "tri-lateral commission."

I have only recently been convinced that Obama should be the next President, and if you wanna know why, it's because of Clinton's old style attack (can't help herself) politics. It's bad, old habits of hers, and, I actually feel bad for her, because both she and her husband have indeed had to fend off phony vicious evil attacks on their positions and character. But we need a new thinking that can transcend bullshit and inspire others to acknowledge it, move on, keep belief in our causes, and keep working, and have the faith to rise to action when the time(s) come.

Hillary is caught in a time warp, if she wasn't before, not she's outright defensive, and she's lost control of her campaign. She is a good person, but she's just not got what it takes to lead and "manage" in these times or at to the level she aspires. The DLC with which she associates and identifies with, has become irrelevant, largely because of their tactics in the last go-round. Any of us that were involved on the grass-roots level, the ground last go-round, felt it, and that's not her fault; it's just a fact.

For all of those of you who have ever been marginalized, keep coming back. These people just don't know what they are doing anymore. We need to show them how; we need to bring back the YES WE CAN attitude, without obfuscation, word parsing, and avoidance of real questions that people have.

You just strung a bunch of talking points together -- and they are almost identical to anti-Bill talking points. The only innovation is that you have inserted some strategic pity. (Blaming her, then declaring "it's not her fault.")

Malign but not at fault. Oppressive and weak. An iron grip, but no control. It's a rambling attack that makes no sense.

"... obfuscation, word parsing, and avoidance of real questions ..." (Also see below.)
"People wanna President who's someone they think they can have a beer with."
"... Clinton's old style attack (can't help herself) politics ..."
"... bad, old habits of hers ..."
"... Hillary is caught in a time warp ..."
"... she's lost control of her campaign ..."
"... she's just not got what it takes to lead and "manage" in these times or at to the level she aspires ..."

And then we have THESE whoppers:

"But we need a new thinking that can transcend bullshit and inspire others to acknowledge it, move on, keep belief in our causes, and keep working, and have the faith to rise to action when the time(s) come."

"For all of those of you who have ever been marginalized, keep coming back. These people just don't know what they are doing anymore. We need to show them how; we need to bring back the YES WE CAN attitude, without obfuscation, word parsing, and avoidance of real questions that people have."

It's a mish-mosh of Obama-speak and Clinton hate.

:crazy:

--p!

They, though, are the ones that don't make any sense anymore. They're out of step. That's exactly my point. I certainly don't "hate" either one of them; they've been great public servants. I just think their time has come and gone.

Special interest groups, and various other "groups" with little grounding in the lives of ordinary Americans. Got to divvy up the spoils among the "groups" and their grabby little loudmouth leaders. Her campaign is an exercise in trying to get all of those "groups" to behave the same way at the ballot box.

we all get that people love Obama. I have perfectly reasonable friends who act like teenagers at the thought of him. And I hope people understand that he is promising compromise. The first time that he sells your top issue down the river to the republicans in trade for something else, will you still feel the same?

Obama supporters cannot
see past the shine and
glitter to see that he
wants bipartisan compromise
after the Dems have had to
eat shit from the repukes for
years.

plus Hillary's speech and vote to give up Congressional perogative to declare war and give it to an incompetent President is the worst "compromise" of all.

Obama supporters cannot
see past the shine and
glitter to see that he
wants bipartisan compromise
after the Dems have had to
eat shit from the repukes for
years.

because that pic sure looks like me lately.:rofl:

A country where one side gets 100% while the other side seethes in anger is not a good situation.

Also look at their records. Obama got provisions in the ethics bill that no one thought possible - and which people like Reid and Schumer didn't want. Here are a couple of the very real accomplishments that demonstrate that he really can act as a catalyst to bring people together to do things that need to be done. He did this in Illinois with his bill to require police taping of interrogations - there he worked with the police. ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/03/AR2008010303303.html This is an important piece of work with real impact on people who are "voiceless", to use HRC's word.

There is also how he went against people like Schumer and with Feingold got some real constraints on lobbying money in the ethics bill.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/20/us/politics/20ethics.html?_r=2&scp=3&sq=Senate+ethics+bill&st=nyt&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
He also joined people like Feingold, Kerry, Webb and Tester to get more teeth than Reid wanted into the ethics bill. (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/7/101110/2068 )

He also brought every stake holder to the table to work out a healthcare plan in Illinois. I give both credit for wanting everybody to get insurance - all real Democrats likely do. Here, the contrast is between Obama who has the ability and the inclination to work to get a solution in an open negotiation and Clinton, whose inclination in 1993 was to work with her person - even keeping secret who they spoke to. Including people in the process makes them stakeholders in the ultimate solution, while bringing in a full blown elaborate solution that most of the Senators had no input doesn't.

The combination of how he works, the things he chose to work on and the success he had are the reasons I support him. I don't see that combination in HRC. Find me any example where HRC or Edwards, for that matter, actually took on the lobbyists or the corporations in their actual legislation. Obama is the real deal - and that is why people like Kerry and Kennedy support him.

but historically, it hasn't worked well with leaders who inspire this kind of passion in their followers. How's Bill Clinton doing in respect on this board lately? People like that Welfare Reform? How about Reagan? he compromised up the wahoo, and it took 15 years of hagiography to restore his reputation (and the fact he dropped off the public sphere due to illness and death helped)

Republicans to accomplish things that the Democrats want - like healthcare. Contrast the compromising done by Ted Kennedy and Bill Clinton in the 1990s.

Bill Clinton started with an agenda that did many things the republicans wanted that a Republican president likely would have had trouble getting. This gave us things that you allude to - NAFTA, Welfare reform, etc

S-CHIP was a genuine cooperative effort by Ted Kennedy, who took a bill he and Kerry wrote, that could not pass in a Senate with 55 Republicans, and worked with Hatch to make changes - that though they made a bill less good by Democratic standards - created the biggest expansion of federally supported healthcare since medicare. This was a net good for the country - and it was done by a Senator in a Republican dominated Senate. Bill Clinton was, at that point so far from starting with Democratic party goals, that HRC played a real role here because she convinced her husband to include S-CHIP in the budget.

Bill Clinton's popularity, until the last half year on this board and in Democratic circles was likely higher than his actual accomplishments deserved due to being a two term President and a charismatic figure. Imagine a charismatic Democratic President working to accomplish Democratic goals. With everything that faces the 2008 winner, there is a potential due to all the "opportunities" (otherwise called crises)that the 2008 President could be an FDR figure. Obama has that potential.

the general problem -- the population is TIRED TIRED TIRED of negative slash and burn campaigning business as usual.
Politicians have got to start LISTENING to where people are -- we are close to the most fascist america has been since the mccarthy hearings, and people want us to pull back from the brink, not give us more of the same.

between those two, I'll choose Obama, but I'm not convinced either of them is the stalwart against facsism that we truly need at this point in history. I hope whomever wins proves me wrong, but I'm not holding my breath.

these are difficult times at best.