FUNDING.

Many of us have been in despair over what is happening to the country.  We were excited about our choices this round.  I developed a preference but was open to more than one.   What was not negotiable for me were the progressive principles that I had starting in the 60s and watching the country turn liberal into a dirty word.  

I had great hope for Obama, but really for 2016 after a cleanup by Edwards.  However if O won I wasn't going to be overly upset.  That is no longer true.  I just don't think he is committed to progressive principles.  I think he is a good person, but not the right leader for these times.  And I have become angry with the disingenuous criticisms of Edwards.  

Many of O's younger supporters really don't understand the history and the passion of some of us who lived through the assassinations and then the hijacking of the country by Reagan.  Edwards is who we need now.  The 'sphere is the collective voice of many progressives.  It is not so powerful yet but I see it growing.  I hopw we can change some minds.  I think the nature of the country depends on it.

And you have to follow your heart.  I follow mine as well as my head.

The joy that filtered through this place when Kucinich offered to throw his supporters to Obama and when Obama came out ahead in the DMR poll was every bit as palpable as your obvious bitterness that the intellectuals in the A-List blogosphere are supporting John Edwards.

The screen name suits you in this instance.

anyone whose mind is already made up, but what about people whose minds are not made up yet?  These endorsements couldn't hurt.  Besides, the blogosphere serves as a counterbalance of sorts to the corporate traditional media for people to get information and decide their votes.  It is also where the activist base across the country come together in a community.  Remember that activists are the people who go and knock on people's doors and turn out the vote.

I don't see any evidence that Obama is disarming in terms of his ability to hit back, if need be, to get elected.  I don't see him giving up on policy issues or moving into Republican territory in terms of his actual platform or proposed actions or governance. He's not all that different in policy than the other Democrats.

Now if you are refering to "disarm" as in disarm opponents, well Obama seems to be pretty good at this. He is disarming when he talks to Iowa residents who often vote Republican.  Remember, we relish the red meat rhetoric because of who we are and what we have been through. The general public may not, and probably does not. I would guess that many bloggers here on DailyKos would alienate or piss off many less politicized, more mainstream voters out there. For example, would the passionate and argumentative author of this diary resonate with a farmer in Iowa, or just piss him off?  I wonder sometimes. If Obama speaks to people in a different tone and in a different way - if he disarms them, in other words - then that may be all for the best.

None of it really matters that much. I think the netroots have an inflated perspective of their role and importance when it comes to the primaries - we've been more successful in Congressional races, where a smaller group of dedicated partisans and a little seed money have more impact.  There's plenty of other ways to organize communities and supporters than via the internet, and many of those will come into play in the primaries.  I see the current Edwards Obama Clinton fight as a little experiment to gauge the current strength of labor, of independents, of women, and of alternative social networks in influencing a primary.  We're simply not that relevant, no matter what we like to think.

Communication is a two-way street.
Obama hardly needs to convince the choir.
He needs to show the many skeptics.
And in that, he has come up way short.

Thanks for conceding the point.  That is so rare that I'm not sure how to reply.  Ultimately the POTUS has to kick ass to create change.  Bush does even with his own side.  Obama's approach is not for these times.  It may be down the road, but we have a huge mess to clean up and even our Blue Dogs need some retraining.  The voters will support the leader that supports them and gives them results.  Both Edwards and Obama speak well, that is why I think Obama may be better in the future in calmer and less desperate times.  IMHO.

It's the same argument.  How much time does bush spend cajoling the dems in congress to pass his agenda?

He just steps on their faces.  Because he doesn't have to cajole to get what he wants, not even when the dems are the majority in congress.

The GOP does not believe in cajoling dems.  Why do dems insist that cajoling the gop is a meaningful strategy??