Skip to main content

Digby:

There are reasons why the country has been polarized, but it's not because of Al Gore or John Kerry. (And anyway, Gore won the popular vote by more than half a million votes. There was a little issue down in Florida that lost that one.)

I guess there's nothing wrong with running against former Democratic candidates, but it seems kind of gratuitous. Maybe it'll work, though. Everybody knows that divisive Democrats are the problem (although it's the first time anyone's made a point of that in a Democratic primary. Bold move.)

Ezra Klein:

On the down side, some of [Obama's] closing-weeks attacks are a bit, err, worrisome. Going after trial lawyers, for instance? Flooding the radio with ads claiming "Clinton would force people to buy insurance even if they can't afford it" and "Barack Obama will cover everyone"? The first two statements are simply conservative arguments being uttered by a progressive, the last isn't true. On some level, this is politics, and all these folks are trying to win, and you're not going to find any candidates pure as the driven snow and innocent as the newly-born. But Obama's comfort attacking liberals from the right is unsettling, and if he does win Iowa, it will not be a victory that either supporters or the media ascribe to the more progressive elements of his candidacy. Instead, they will search for the distinctions he's drawn, and, sadly, a number of those distinctions point away from the heart-quickening progressivism of much of this race, and back towards the old politics of centrist caution and status quo bias.

Matthew Yglesias:

[I]f Edwards wins in Iowa by running left and pissing people off, that'll be a good thing for the world. By contrast, while there's a lot I like about Barack Obama, if he wins Iowa it won't have been by running hard on the things I like best about him.

You know, I was going to vote for Obama and even announced that a week or so ago. But this is a great example of why it's best to wait and see how things shake out. Not being blinded by candidate worship, it's easier to sniff out the bullshit. And you have to have your head stuck deep in the sand to deny that Obama is trying to close the deal by running to the Right of his opponents. And call me crazy, but that's not a trait I generally appreciate in Democrats, no matter how much it might set the punditocracy's hearts a flutter.

I don't get to vote for another month, so we'll see how the next four weeks go. Certainly none of these guys have earned my vote yet.

Amazingly enough, none of them walk on water, no matter what their frenzied supporters might think.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 10:52 AM PST.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

    •  Edwards or Obama, both good 1st/2nd choices in IA (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      betson08, TMP
      •  I'm undecided still (27+ / 0-)

        but I really think this remark is being taken badly out of context.

        This is a remark about style and strategy, not about the substance of Gore and Kerry.

        "Reality has a well-known liberal bias." --Stephen Colbert

        by InsultComicDog on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 10:56:18 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Did you read the whole diary? (4+ / 0-)
          •  Yes (6+ / 0-)

            "Reality has a well-known liberal bias." --Stephen Colbert

            by InsultComicDog on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 11:18:05 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Ezra Klein (8+ / 0-)

            says this has been going on few weeks.  Why are we hearing about it now in the final two days?  And with such umbrage no less. Maybe because Barack is going to win?

            One statement about the 2004 election and the progressive pundits go rabid.  Geesh.

            truth, kindness, endurance

            by CupofTea on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 11:43:14 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  I am snarklessly shocked (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            dallasdave

            I'm from MA.  I get to vote next month, I think.  Used to be March. I heard a rumor that the NH primary was moved up to the day after Thanksgiving last year but the results wouldn't be announced until some time next week?  Is it truthy?

            And what's all this shit about IA? It's a fucking caucus in the middle of the winter when the locals have way too much time on their hands and find themselves with the fate of the entire human race awaiting their wisdom.

            The rules are so arcane that if the caucus hoster set out a free bar with enough vodka they could have Putin emerge as the leading candidate.

            And everyone is setting their hair on fire and running around the room in anticipation of what a bunch of ethanol huffing, heavily government subsidized, corn farmers are going to decide? What's happening here?

            I know for sure I set the Galactic GPS for Earth. But with Kucinich popping up all over the place and streaming pure bullshit on full bandwidth, I think I know what happened.  Earth coordinates are almost identical to the Planet of the Absurd - which is where I first came across Kucinich.

            You all have a great time.  Hopefully you'll either put out or burn out those skull rugs by then.

            Peace.

            "He not busy being born is busy dying." R. Zimmerman

            by RUKind on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 10:41:26 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Thanks! (25+ / 0-)

          The original comment from Obama was about style and strategy for winning 2008. There is a legitimate debate to be had about election 2008 strategy, and it will depend on the nominee --  different approaches will work for JRE, Clinton or Obama.

          This is an important discussion to come.

          But that conversation on approach will not be had if the opening words are "Obama slams Gore". And it will not be had as long as we pretend that some minor winkle on obscure policy documents determines how progressive each candidate is.

          I guess it is an apology of sorts that Kos is now zagging towards substance rather than mock outrage over a non-insult.

          •  As far as the other stuff (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            David Boyle

            I'm not worried about a dig on trial lawyers. That's just competitive gameplaying.

            The commercials Ezra Klein referred to are more troubling.

            "Reality has a well-known liberal bias." --Stephen Colbert

            by InsultComicDog on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 11:20:46 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  ' just competitive game playing' ??? (7+ / 0-)

              if we are going to make the world better it will be by getting people to focus on the real problems, not the phony problems.  the ' trial lawyer'  thing is a rightwing attempt to distract the public from the real problems, like the corporations owning the politicians, like the government using the war to steal billions for favored private interests.  

              if that is the way obama plays his competitive games, and add to that his advocacy for the ethanol sham, he becomes extremely unattractive to me.

              Politics is not arithmetic. It's chemistry.

              by tamandua on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 11:28:39 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Ethanol sham? (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                David Boyle, IL dac, Overseas

                I guess I haven't been following that one.  Here in Illinois we have been very grateful for the way he has represented the farmers and pushed for more ethanol usage and research over foreign oil.  It was one of his campaign promises that he ran on and kept.

                truth, kindness, endurance

                by CupofTea on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 11:46:37 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Well that's great! (12+ / 0-)

                  Problem is it's real bad policy. Why all the interest in ethanol? Well, turns out corn based ethanol takes more energy to produce than you get out of it.

                  But that's not what's important. What's important is this:

                  In 1998 the U.S. exported 3.55 milion metric tons of corn to the EU. In 2005 it was down to 30,000 metric tons. What happened?

                  GMOs happened. Much of the American corn crop was contaminated by GMO corn. Now Europe has an absolute ban on GMOs being imported there.

                  So....

                  No more market for American corn in the EU which happens to be the largest economic blok in the world.

                  Whoops!

                  This goes back to centrist, I luvs lobbyists Clintonia and the utter failure of this issue to be discussed by Obama negates anything he might say about 'having the experience..' yadda and yadda. What it says is that he is with the Liebercrats who want to saddle the American taxpayer with the corn industries problems. Sound familiar?

                  It should. It's standard Republican practice. There are other solutions to this crisis than shipping big government checks to Big Ag in Iowa.

                  But  you'd never know it listening to Mr. 'Hope'.

                  'I'm writing as Nestor since scoop in it's awesome wisdom won't let me use my real screen name: A.Citizen'

                  by Nestor Makhnow on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 12:01:55 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

            •  Geezz Louise . . . (14+ / 0-)

              You can competitively gameplay without using rightwing memes. You'd think that Democratic candidates for national office might know that.

              You think a Republican wouldn't get holy shit for calling something the "estate tax" rather than "death tax"?, or "escalation" rather than "surge"? They sure as hell would . . . They control the dialogue by controlling the terms.

            •  ???? (8+ / 0-)

              George Bush reformed the tort system in Tx and made it almost impossible for an individual to sue a corporation.  The caps on recovery are very low, and often the cost of litigation exceeds the recovery, by statute.  Thus, you can't find a "trial lawyer' to take the case.
              And then, Bush went on to convince the whole country of the tort crisis, how it was ruining us by causing insurance premiums to rise.
              Ok.  Anybody our there seeing your insurance premiums being lowered?  
              I take strong exception to anything about trial lawyers, meaning "tort lawyers", as being competitive gameplaying.
              It is too deadly serious to be considered political fluff. On this issue, we have very recent history as out teacher.
              Kos and Digby do not need to explain what Obama is saying or what he wants to do.  He wants to win, and has thrown in his fate with the centrists/lobbyists/corporatists.
              I love the man.  Thought he was too smart and too independent to be tempted by the dark side.
              It is not too late to fire his staff and hire some progressives to help define his goals for change.

              Cowards die many times before their deaths... Shakespeare, Julius Ceasar, II, 2

              by on the cusp on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 11:44:02 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Cowards (6+ / 0-)

                are the people that are saying he will go to bed with the corporatists.  He fought hard against the big steel here in Chicago and fought for the rights of the disenfranchised.  His record is clear no matter how you want to spin it.  

                Last minute desperation is in the air.

                truth, kindness, endurance

                by CupofTea on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 11:51:10 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  I have been called a lot of things (6+ / 0-)

                  But coward?  hehehe
                  I consider any politician who takes money from lobbyists and then tells his constituents that he/she will not allow corporations to write legislation, or influence it to the harm of the middle and low classes to be a coward.
                  The Texas Tort Reform was written by insurance companies.  It was passed into law by the lege who got their campaign $ from the insurance industry.
                  That makes hundreds of elected officals all over this country sorry-ass cowards in my opinion.
                  As always, follow the money.
                  Fearlessness is pretty cheap.

                  Cowards die many times before their deaths... Shakespeare, Julius Ceasar, II, 2

                  by on the cusp on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 11:59:53 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Typical Cultist behavior... (7+ / 0-)

                  ......name calling.

                  Yeah, I can hardly fukin' wait for the White House to be filled with folks who respond to every criticism of their work with personal attacks.

                  Oh...wait....

                  We've already got that with Mr. 'The Defeatocrats want us to lose' swaggering around the Oval Office!

                  What the hell do we need Senator 'Hope' for? Gulianni, HuckaBee! or Romney would to a better job at it.

                  'I'm writing as Nestor since scoop in it's awesome wisdom won't let me use my real screen name: A.Citizen'

                  by Nestor Makhnow on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 12:07:48 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

              •  Problem with trial lawyers (5+ / 0-)

                I think Obama's comment on this is ridiculous as a means of sniping at Edwards.

                However, using the tort system as a means to regulate dangerous products or negligent healthcare services, what Edwards made his career in, is a hugely wasteful enterprise.  Caps on tort recovery are unfair to many people.  However, many many cases have no legitimate basis, cause doctors, hospitals, and product manufacturers to incur huge expenses and endure basically libelous statements, and don't benefit society as a whole.  There has to be a better way than private civil lawsuits, and I do think we should all, as progressives, be interested in finding a better way to prevent the sale and marketing of defective products, or the practice by bad doctors, along with fair compensation to victims, without the wasteful and ridiculous tort system.

                In the interest of full disclosure, I defend corporations that manufacture products.  In my entire career, I have not seen one "Ford Pinto" case.  I have only rarely seen products that are legitimately dangerous.  Mostly, what I see is people who do dumb things and who expect to win the lottery as a result, arguing that they weren't fully "warned" about risks.  I see people sue a product manufacturer just for "completeness," when there is no reason to believe that the product (rather than the user) was the problem.  

                I see guys who refuse to use a respirator that has been placed in a case next to their workstation for 20 years, who smoke on the workfloor, and then sue the manufacturer of a product that produces dust because that dust blocked their lungs and is causing them breathing problems, when they had available to them a means to prevent the injury and pigheadedly refused to use it.  I see guys who drive unstable, high center-of-gravity vehicles into big holes, or down steep inclines, despite 15 different warnings in several languages and in pictures, that warn the vehicle could tip and cause injury.  I see people who are informed that there is a known risk of developing a blood clot during an elective, cosmetic surgery, who sign an acknowledgment that they are aware of that risk and willing to accept it, who then sue when, in fact, that known risk materializes and it happens to them.  Defendants incur hundreds of thousands of dollars in defense costs associated with these BS lawsuits, and most settle, so money is paid out to people who should not have been compensated, which decreases the pool of available money to pay legitimate claimants, and makes every claim seem incredibly suspect even if it might have a legitimate basis.  

                The system does not produce end results that anyone, except tort lawyers, thinks is a good solution to the problems.  "Tort reform" is misguided, no doubt, but maybe we should be thinking about better ways to address these issues.

                Thought is only a flash in the middle of a long night, but the flash that means everything - Henri Poincaré

                by milton333 on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 02:39:59 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •   Just ask a politician to deliver your baby (0+ / 0-)

                  Next time your wife or daughter goes into labor, be sure to call your local politico who has all the answers to this problem. Any doctor will tell you of some associate whose life was ruined by something that happened and was not his fault.

                •  Points well taken ... (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  David Boyle

                  Thanks for getting out of the "if you're not with the trial lawyers, you must be for tort reform" mentality.

                  (BTW, the trial lawyer comment from Obama was a throwaway remark in a campaign with millions of words ... he was talking about the relative merits of community organizing vs trial law as an avenue for activism ... I don't think he's going to abolish trials or lawyers.)

                  On Why Obama is better than JRE though either would make a good President

                  by Bronxist on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 03:20:16 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Ha.... let's be honest here... (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Miles in WesternWA

                  OBAMA is the man.  Edwards is jealous.  Kos is jealous.  Taylor Marsh is jealous.  

                  And Hillary is hot for Obama, you can see it in her body language.  She blushes and gets hot and bothered during the debates.

              •  Real tort damage (0+ / 0-)

                I used to own a business and a man came on our property after we closed.  He said he knew we were closed but wanted to take a look.  He "fell" and "broke" his ankle.  He sued for $400,000 - a judge gave him $30,000.  This frivolous use of courts happens all the time.  There are people who make a living suing people - Lawyers are just part of it. Welcome to the real world. Oh we need reform!

          •  Agreed (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Bronxist

            The only way we're going to win the election with any kind of mandate to undo Bush's pathetic failures is to appeal to the broader electorate. Clinton has a really narrow path, and it's 2000/2004 all over again. Obama would have a much wider path and a much broader appeal--the polls bear that out. There's something to be said for giving up red meat--it's good for the heart...in this case the heart of the Democratic Party ...

        •  I'm undecided too. I'll have to stay tuned. n/t (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          betson08
        •  And Obama's strategy is to publicly criticize (14+ / 0-)

          previous Democratic candidates' strategies...  I just don't think that is a good strategy at all.

          And style?  Well, it could be characterized as "a style", but I don't think Obama comes off as having style when he does that.  I think its kind of a cheap shot - at his own team no less.  

          People who live in glass houses and all that jazz.

          •  he's saying that our problem in past... (4+ / 0-)

            ...elections was division, when in fact in '04 democrats were more united than ever before.

            He's not talking about STRATEGY, he's laying fault where there it doesn't exist.  He's misreading the past.

            And, he's starting to sound a smidge like Lieberman in doing so.

            •  Our problems of division in 2004 were (6+ / 0-)

              largely centered around fictional gay married terrorists and I am absolutely certain they were not fabricated by the Kerry campaign.

              •  but it wasn't division among democrats. (0+ / 0-)

                democrats were NOT divided on Kerry.  The gay/terrorist thing was strictly a means of driving republicans to the polls to vote for Bush.

                •  So now you're claiming that Obama was (13+ / 0-)

                  talking about unifying Democrats?

                  He thinks he is going to unify Democrats by attacking their two previous nominees for president - one of whom is on track to become a national hero and just won a Nobel Prize?  In what universe does that "strategy" unify Democrats?

                  •  no no no. (9+ / 0-)

                    I think Obama is claiming that it was democratic division that lost us 00 and 04.  

                    He is calling for unity when we area already pretty much united.

                    He is inventing a problem that doens't exist so he can convince people he's the solution to it.

                    It really bothers me because I've seen Joe Lieberman do exactly the same thing.  While Obama hasn't gone nearly as far as ol Joe, he is starting to turn off onto that path.

                    Unity is only unity when it's us united behind HIM.   If not then it's division and fracturing.  

                    •  Oh God that is even worse. (5+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      XOVER, flatford39, Salo, dallasdave, dreamghost

                      Whatever he is doing...  It isn't helping him IMO.

                      It is interesting really because this is the kind of thing that might be said by a nominee during the general election to an audience of Independents and soft Republicans, but it is a stupid thing to say in a primary to Democrats.  I would disagree with it regardless, but "strategically" speaking - it is a dumb thing to say at this point in the process.

                    •  Huh (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      dallasdave, Olwyn

                      What Obama said is quite plain.  He's saying that Democrats, by stridently opposing Republicans, divided the nation in '00 and '04.  Sounds ridiculous and it is ridiculous, but, not to Obama's principle schtick.

                      Obama's claim is that he will be a reconcilor, that he'll reach across the aisle, etc.

                      To that end he's saying that Democrats in the past were the divisive force in our society because they opposed or otherwise attempted to distinguish themselves from Republicans. And that he, Obama, is a unifier not a divider.

                      A brief pause while I vomit.

                      I've been vomiting a lot lately.  Especially after I hear pronouncements from Obama's camp.

                      Way back when Obama was going down the uniter road I thought nice little trick.  He's trying to appeal to idiot independents, the 'I don't know why  we can't all get along' voter that flunked Civics 001.

                      Now I'm not so sure that it was a stunt.  

                      Either he believes he can 'reach across the aisle', which would mean he's slept through the last 12  years.

                      Or.

                      He actually intends to make deals with these people.

                      What convinced me that at least one of the above is true is when he took off on Social Security for ABSOLUTELY no reason.  There was no need to say anything about Social Security.  The 'debate' was settled in 2005.  

                      Now I spent an awful lot of time on that issue.  From the books, financial studies, etc and time spent on a committee that trouped around our county giving little presentations on Social Security.

                      Social Security is NOT IN CRISIS. Nothing, NOTHING has to be done about Social Security until probably 2041.  At that time a withholding adjustment expanding the base will do just fine. Doing ANYTHING now to build the trust fund balance may be counterproductive.  That accumulation of funds would always be a target of Conservatives.

                      Obama gave these people an opening that had been closed in the 2005 debate.  It wasn't easy closing that opening. It took the work of many, many people around the country to slam that one shut.

                      Conservatives have been trying to scuttle Social Security since its founding and the 2005 debate was their best shot in all that time.  Now, courtesy of Barak Obama, they've been given new life.

                      This silly gaffe sent a chill down my spine because after going through the drill I had the frightening thought that he might, if elected, actually put the matter on the table.  Nothing would make Conservatives happier, they would have another shot at slipping in the poison pill.

                      Today I read about the Obama campaign's dustup over union contributions.  There they were, Republican rhetoric in hand.

                      In order to make a deal with the opposition, the opposition must be sincere in their desire to make an agreement that preserves the object.  In short they must be honest brokers. These people are not sincere.  They want to bust the object.  THERE IS NO WAY OF DEALING WITH THEM.

                      •  Uh, really, really? (0+ / 0-)

                        Now you're putting words into Obama's mouth.  Look, Obama is playing Bill Clinton Politics 101, just earlier than normal.  Not only that, EVERY candidate has tried to play this role.  Am I the only one who remembers the debate question about bipartisanship?  The one where HRC said that she has a long history of crossing the aisle and working with the opposition? (Thats working out great in Iraq, btw.)  

                        Maybe I'm misreading Obama's comments, but I think he's doing what EVERY politico does for the general election - move to the center to try to capture the maximum number of votes possible.  If anyone thinks that HRC or Edwards (more notably) won't tone down the more progressive rhetoric if they receive the nomination, then they don't remember much about election history.  That's what candidates do from both sides (in Bush's case, his compassionate conservatism BS to capture middle of the road dems in 00).  It's the safe way to win and Bill Clinton was a master at it (and for obvious reasons Obama has to avoid saying that).

                        The difference is that Obama is doing this in the primary season and that's obviously creating some hurt feelings.  Maybe it's unusual and a bit uncomfortable to hear some of his rhetoric aimed at the Dems (and in poor taste) but I hardly think that it reveals his "true character" or disposition as a progressive or a Democrat.  

                        More than that, however, I have to take issue with your claim that Obama is suggesting that our candidates in 00 and 04 lost because they tried to fight Bush head on.  I didn't see that in his comments.  Instead, I think he's making comments about the electibility of the candidates we selected.  Kerry was an extremely vulnerable candidate for a lot of reasons (long term senators don't make great candidates because they "flip-flop" as the nature of policy and politics changes over time, for ex).  At times he came off as more befuddled than Bush and that is a telling statement.

                        Gore shouldn't be really included (since he won and all) but even he had moments in the debates where he looked arrogant and "unpresidential" (not that I blame him, he was debating a mental midget) and those moments undoubtedly hurt him in Florida in particular.  I believe this is what Obama is saying when he talks about style.  

                        But the point is that electability is a viable consideration in the primary process and its one that HRC, Edwards, and Obama have all touched on from time to time.  Ultimately, I find this whole bru-ha-ha to be a bit confusing.

                    •  Really? (0+ / 0-)

                      Am I the only one who thinks that Obama is making a point about the divided electorate and how that should influence our choice for a candidate?  Maybe I'm putting words into his mouth, but it seems to me he's not talking about divided democrats but a divided nation.  

                      By pointing to HRC's negatives, he's not saying that her candidacy divides democrats but that electability has to be a consideration in the nomination process and that HRC would divide the nation much like Gore-Bush in 00 or Kerry-Bush in 04.  If this is what he is suggesting, it's not a new issue (both HRC and Edwards have made electability claims) and it is warrented.  

                      That being said, what I don't understand is why the Edwards campaign doesn't reply by saying, "yeah, electability is a key issue and our guy is the only one who would destroy any GOP comer, so the voters should really vote for Edwards because he's the sure thing candidate."

              •  The Thugs won't need gay marriage (0+ / 0-)

                as a referendum if Obama is nominated. The candidate will be the referendum.

                Hillary Clinton: Ready from Day 1 to keep things exactly the way they are now.

                by journalschism on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 04:02:47 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

          •  The strategies (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            David Boyle, dogstar30

            of Gore and Kerry should be criticized.

            They both ran HORRIBLE campaigns and now we are the ones paying the price for it.

            It's about time someone had the guts to come out and call a horrible campaign a horrible campaign.

        •  Agree but... (4+ / 0-)

          The problem is that most of what Obama talks abouts is style and strategy, and that's not what I want to hear from him.  

          The most genuine remark of heard from him was on Letterman; Letterman said going to break, "Nice Suit"  Obama looked him in the eye knowingly and said "Yep"

        •  That's even more worrisome. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          alicia logic, dallasdave

          He is bashing the democratic brand.  He is attacking democrats. Digby wrote it best: democrats have been bipartisan and that has gotten them nowhere.  

          The style is to bash democrats.  Make no mistake. This is pandering of the highest order.  In general, people who are uninformed want to blame all politicians, republicans who are turing sour want to blame democrats at least as much as democrats (makes them feel better).  Rather than telling people the bitter truth, Obama is repeating a myth.  

          Sometimes, a cackle is the best medicine!

          by ghost2 on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 07:51:39 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Edwards not Obama (27+ / 0-)

        I wanted an Edwards/Obama ticket.  Not any more.  

        It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change. Charles Darwin

        by pioneer111 on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 11:02:50 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  You're right (0+ / 0-)

        except for Edwards.

        "Unrestricted immigration is a dangerous thing -- look at what happened to the Iroquois." Garrison Keillor

        by SpiderStumbled22 on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 11:11:17 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Why Obama is wrong. (49+ / 0-)

      Many liberals would name Paul Krugman of The New York Times as perhaps the most consistent and courageous—and unapologetic—liberal partisan in American journalism. He has made his perspective on the Bush administration and the contemporary right, and on the need to see politics as a battle, manifestly clear in column after incendiary column. Indeed, of all the ways he could have concluded The Conscience of a Liberal, he chose to do so with a short essay that appears under the headline "On Being Partisan," which notes:

      The central fact of modern American political life is the control of the Republican Party by movement conservatives, whose vision of what America should be is completely antithetical to that of the progressive movement. Because of that control, the notion, beloved of political pundits, that we can make progress through bipartisan consensus is simply foolish....

      To be a progressive, then, means being a partisan—at least for now. The only way a progressive agenda can be enacted is if Democrats have both the presidency and a large enough majority in Congress to overcome Republican opposition.  

      Review by Michael Tomasky of The Conscience of a Liberal by Paul Krugman

      "They're going to give their power away when we take their power away." John Edwards

      by TomP on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 11:06:32 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Krugman vs Obama (10+ / 0-)

        The progressive cause has seen many internal debates on direction. From that tradition  we should learn to be respectful to each other, to not impugn the progressive credentials of anyone that has a history of being progressive, nor to forget that reality is not determined by a single position paper but by unintended consequence of collective actions of many.

        There is a legitimate discussion to be had on single-payer health or on whether campaign language should be overtly partisan or bi-partisan or whatever ..

        These discussions are not productively initiated with words such as "Obama slams Gore", or as "The only way a progressive agenda can be enacted is if  ....".

        •  Agreed (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          cosbo, SaneSoutherner, Mojo Jojo

          I think that the crux of what turns me off is that rather than address the debate in a mature manner and say, "hey I disagree with your position and here's why," it's denigrated into something that sounds similar to what the GOP has insinuated which is "progressives are unreasonable and their goals are unachievable."

        •  What does "progressive" mean? (11+ / 0-)

          It has become a word devoid of content, of meaning, around here.

          "Progressive' simply means to many that I agree.  If you agree, or your candidate says it, then it's progressive.

          Krugman has soemthing entirely else in mind.  This is what he is fighting for:

          "My generation grew up in a nation of strong democratic values and broadly shared prosperity. But both those values and that shared prosperity have been slipping away.

          "We can reverse that trend. Political and economic reform turned the oligarchic America of the Gilded Age, a place of vast inequality, bigotry, and corruption, into the imperfect but far better society of the postwar era. The challenge now is to do again what the New Deal did: to create institutions that will support and sustain a decent society."

          I agree with Krugman.  

          This fight is bigger than Barack Obama's ambitions.

          "They're going to give their power away when we take their power away." John Edwards

          by TomP on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 11:41:24 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I disagree again ... (0+ / 0-)

            All the candidates have a history of high ratings from NOW, ACLU, NAACP, and other progressive institutions.

            This is objective reality.

            Obama, Hillary, JRE, ... are progressives in fact not progressives because I say so.

            You can't tout your candidate as The Only Progressive -- like it is a brand and not a movement or a tradition.

            •  That is not "objective reality." (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              nasarius, spencerh, dreamghost, Olwyn

              NOW, ACLU, NAACP ratings do not trump the policies of candidates.

              It's not a brand.  You see it as a brand.

              I want real change.

              "They're going to give their power away when we take their power away." John Edwards

              by TomP on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 12:08:06 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Change ... (0+ / 0-)

                All of the Dem candidates will bring dramatic and welcome change compared to the clowns in office now.

                We can quibble over how one will be "real" change and another will be "progressive" change and so on. But using Krugman to bash Obama, or to claim that Obama has blasphemed the Church of Al, is a bit silly.

                I hope Obama or JRE or Clinton will nominate Krugman to the Council of Economic Advisors. It would be great to see Paul K. with power to follow up on his ideas.

        •  Obama began bashing Dem ideals (10+ / 0-)

          So please direct your words and concerns to...Barack Obama.

          He's throwing Univ. Health care under the bus, and refuses to acknowlegde that we must stand up to corporate domination.

          I'm beginning to fear an Obama presidency. Its going to be business as usual, with only tiny, incremental change as Obama tries to make everyone happy, including the exploitive, pro-capitalist, pro-free trade, pro-business, global big money interests.

          I'm sick of businesss as usual, and I think most Americans are, as well.

          I want more than a lump of coal-to-liquid for Christmas.

          •  Yup. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            stacystace, ZhenRen

            More of the same is also my fear.

            "Hope" will whittle away any crucially needed legislation.

            I believe Obama will govern in the manner of Carter.  A much better than Ford or Reagan could ever hope to be, but also an Administration many lost opportunities.

            And Obama still has to win the general election -- no easy task, IMO.

        •  Awesome Bronx (0+ / 0-)

          Thank you.

          truth, kindness, endurance

          by CupofTea on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 12:12:46 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Krugman's right: bipartisanship is bullshit (15+ / 0-)

        for the present. Bipartisanship requires two parties who are willing to work together for the common good. When have Republicans demonstrated this willingness in the last, oh, fifteen years or so? In fact ever since Reagan effectively declared war on the federal government itself, the Republican Party and its civil society allies have done their best to undermine it as a force to "promote the general Welfare."

        The Democratic version of bipartisanship in the same period has been to just roll over for practically every Republican initiative, no matter how counterfactual or antithetical to the public good or, if to protest, then to do so meekly, without conviction, without endurance.

        There are honorable exceptions to both these generalizations, of course. But overall, the exceptions do not amount to enough to warrant trusting trusting today's version of bipartisanship. I have contributed to Obama's campaign, but insofar as he insists on making his bipartisanship an important part of his appeal, I am off that primary bus.

        "A president who breaks the law is a threat to the very structure of our government....President Bush has repeatedly violated the law for six years." Al Gore

        by psnyder on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 11:55:45 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  thank you, thank you, THANK YOU TomP (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        cosbo, dreamghost

        We should all have to read that quote at least once per day indefinitely.

      •  Krugman, Krugman, Krugman (0+ / 0-)

        It's obvious that he doesn't like Obama.  But what about Obama's record?  It's one of the most progressive in Washington and with Republican support.  Who gives a crap about whether Republicans want to vote for him, as long as he votes progressive.

        I can't wait fo the day when you guys all realize what an opportunity we have to elect a real progressive here.  Just sayin.

        truth, kindness, endurance

        by CupofTea on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 12:12:00 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Some people are so obsessed ... (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          XOVER, dreamghost, Olwyn

          that they are unable to perceive nuance and subtlety or freakin' true progressive principles.  Read Krugman's columns in an intellectually-honest way and you might understand his point of "bipartisan surrender." (Expletive deleted)

          For people of deep faith like George W. Bush, beliefs are intoxicating, and facts are sobering. Sober up, America!

          by slip kid no more on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 05:08:48 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  well if the dems are dumb enough (0+ / 0-)

        or right wing enough it won't matter.

        I will make them have it. I will stuff their mouths with Gold!--Aneurin Bevan (on the NHS)

        by Salo on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 12:42:12 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Exactly. I am/was the "center". And I'm (0+ / 0-)

        here. There is no bipartisanship with thugs. There is no "listening to both sides" when one side wants to protect the American people and one side wants to turn them into serfs.

        Obama is 8 years too early on this reconciliation stuff. We need to perform the surgery before we get to the healing part.

        Dammit, the real center is scared and enraged in equal parts, and is looking for a hero, and one as big and tough as they can get. Not a healer or triangulator. And the fricking polls never ask voters if they're scared or pissed off, because the professional campaigners prefer to focus on the "issues".

        Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid.
        --Basil King, Canadian novelist, 1859-1928

        by dallasdave on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 10:17:36 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  I always have said (6+ / 0-)

      I will support the Democratic Candidate who ever it is!!!!

      I've NEVER stated one that I would 'vote' for in the primaries, that's between me and my secret ballot !

      I still intend to campaign for ANY Democrat the people decide to run!

      I like ALL of our candiates and I know that ANY of them will be better than ANY of the Grim Old Party Candidates!

      "People should not vote for any Republican, because they're dangerous, dishonest and self-serving"

      by Wary on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 11:07:37 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  No, you are (0+ / 0-)

      something else altogether.

      "I have very strong feelings about how you lead your life. You always look ahead, you never look back." ~ Ann Richards (Governor of Texas, 1990-94)

      by suswa on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 11:09:46 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't buy "little Duncan" writing all that, no. (0+ / 0-)

        Sorry.

        •  Call people a liar with no evidence (5+ / 0-)

          OK, so you didn't use the word liar, but it was implied.
          If you worked in education, you would know there are children that work well above (and below) grade level.
          There really is no excuse for Obama's behavior, and I say that as someone who has defended him, and written positive diaries about him.

          "I'm not anti-_____________, I'm pro-Edwards."-me

          by sd4david on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 11:19:20 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  I have taught teenagers (5+ / 0-)

          and I have known more articulate 13 year olds than some 50 year old.  

          Have you ever heard of Craig Kielburger

          When Craig Kielburger was 12 years old he was shocked to learn about the murder of Iqbal Masih, a child-labourer turned child-rights-activist. He established "Free The Children", a group eager to take action and determined to help free children from poverty, exploitation and powerlessness. The organization began as a small group of classmates in Thornhill, but now has a head office in Toronto and seven offices around the world.

          There are amazing young people around and your casting doubt without proof is trollish.

          It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change. Charles Darwin

          by pioneer111 on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 11:26:25 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  I just hope ... (15+ / 0-)

      That Obama is making an honest cynical political pander to indies, and doesn't really believe the bullshit he is saying.

      The best fortress is to be found in the love of the people - Niccolo Machiavelli

      by al Fubar on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 11:17:30 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I just hope you're honestly making a (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Mojo Jojo

        willful misinterpretation, and don't really believe the bullshit you're saying.

        Jumping on the politicalcompass.org bandwagon: (-3.63, -3.03) - Does that make me part of the right wing here?

        by someone else on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 11:26:39 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Krugman (6+ / 0-)

          So, do you deny his attacks on Krugman, that he had an ad hominem oppo research sheet out against him?

          do you deny that he used the GOP epithet "trial lawyer" against Edwards (corporate defense attorneys like me are also "trial lawyers," so in case you didn't know, it's GOP code for "ambulance chaser")

          Kos's diary would be a stretch if this wasn't part of a pattern by Obama.

          Oh, and Hillary killed Bhutto, too.

          •  I was talking about the current "'slam' on Gore" (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            zeke L

            And it's still a stretch, because there's a pattern of willful misinterpretation.

            Do you believe that he used "trial lawyer" in that context to establish his support for tort "reform"?  If not, GOP code doesn't mean anything at that point.

            I don't care about the rest; there are people from all three sides talking about how the other two sides hate America and this-and-that.  That doesn't mean I have to agree with them or answer for their assertions.

            Jumping on the politicalcompass.org bandwagon: (-3.63, -3.03) - Does that make me part of the right wing here?

            by someone else on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 11:54:22 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  and how are we to know that? (0+ / 0-)

        Do tell, how can we as outside observers determine that?

        •  We don't ... (9+ / 0-)

          We casts our votes and takes our chances, as people in kinda sorta democracies have been doing since about 471 BC.

          Obama's message leaves me cold - it's just David Broder pablum, set to jazz. If he blows away Iowa and goes on to win the nomination, I'll support him enthusiastically, because mostly I am in this to win, and even under my worst interpretation of Obama I'd obviously still infinitely have him than any Republican.

          But if he is our nominee, I really and truly hope that underneath all that soft focus crap he is just a black Chicago pol who has figured out how to spin whitey. I could feel pretty good about that.

          The best fortress is to be found in the love of the people - Niccolo Machiavelli

          by al Fubar on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 11:55:43 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I'll support him if he wins... (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            al Fubar, milton333, dreamghost

            ...but I am also left cold by his message.

            We won't know til it's over I guess. But I don't think I'm goign to vote for Obama in primaries.  I still haven't decided who I will support, but it's the first time among the top three I've decided who I will NOT chose for nomination.

          •  At least with this quote you didn't (0+ / 0-)

            I really and truly hope that underneath all that soft focus crap he is just a black Chicago pol who has figured out how to spin whitey.

            bother calling anyone else cynical.

            Jumping on the politicalcompass.org bandwagon: (-3.63, -3.03) - Does that make me part of the right wing here?

            by someone else on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 12:04:48 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  At least Hillary once fought the fight . . . (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            dallasdave

            for universal health care.

            My list has been Gore, Edwards, Dodd, Obama.

            Gore's gone.  Dodd's hopeless.  If Edwards falls, I'm seriously wondering if I should go Hillary and not Obama.

            At least Hillary's fought the fight in the past.

    •  Just go away already (0+ / 0-)

      You already trolled the last diary Kos did on Obama. Let's not make us suffer through more of your hijinks.

      My candidate has lasers..yours doesn't.

      by Brad007 on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 11:39:16 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Well, I'm a bit surprised (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Salo

      Hey, if there's such disdain for the alleged "frenzied" supporters of the candidates who also apparently haven't any critical judgment beyond black-and-white thinking, perhaps all those folks should just leave the site?

      I'm just saying, there are some people here who get out of hand but some of us who've simply made a choice at this point in the game aren't all wackjobs, you know.

      •  If you do NOT support Senator 'Hope' (0+ / 0-)

        ............you are by definition a whackjob!

        'I'm writing as Nestor since scoop in it's awesome wisdom won't let me use my real screen name: A.Citizen'

        by Nestor Makhnow on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 12:15:58 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  It's a shame that it's gone so far (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        milton333

        Essentially we have a situation where Obama is making a pitch to Republicans in a Dem caucus.

        He's either going to win  through or damage his brand the way McCain did among republicans after flailing at Bush wih Democratic cross overs making mischief.

        Obama will always have the TV though. He'll always have Timmeh.

        I will make them have it. I will stuff their mouths with Gold!--Aneurin Bevan (on the NHS)

        by Salo on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 12:38:02 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Come on Edwards! (5+ / 0-)

      I hope to god Edwards wins Iowa. I've grown from being undecided between Obama and Edwards to really disliking him, almost as much as Clinton. Mr. Uniter can't wait to stab fellow Democrats in the back, sounds eerily similar to another hero centrist, Lieberman.

      I don't buy the argument that we win no matter who the nominee is. There will be a huge difference in life in this country over the next 8 years depending on if Edwards or one of the other 2 wins. We really don't need candidates who repeat Republican talking points, and fall into their frame of debates.

    •  Shame on you kos (0+ / 0-)

      Buying into the Clinton/Krugman  talking points about Obama being to the right.    And also peddling the snake oil that mandates will get us to universal coverage.  Just look to Massachusetts and how well their mandate is working or to the auto insurers and how state mandates for auto insurance are working. 14-20% do not comply.

      But never mind.  I guess you want to spend our precious health care dollars on a huge new branch of the IRS to monitor coverage for all americans and penalize those who do not comply.

      Obama solves the problem Hillary is worried about (the 20-somethings) by extending the age at which adult children can be on their parent's policies.  This will work and it makes sense.

      So stop spinning this web of lies about Obama.  We can see right through you.

  •  Intellectually lazy (39+ / 0-)

    Amazingly enough, none of them walk on water, no matter what their frenzied supporters might think.

    It's easy not to address critisisms on the merits when you can hurl ad hominem attacks at the people doing the criticizing.  Pretty lame.

    •  Inappropriately harsh... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      phoenixdreamz, dreamghost

      ...pontificator.

      And, as Kos probably knows, this is not coming from someone afraid to give him a hard time (when I feel it's appropriate), too.

      Why do so many folks here have such a hard time understanding that there are many other folks here that:

      a.) willingly give the field the benefit of the doubt, and they're "allowed" to remain undecided, as far as they're voting preferences are concerned, for as long as they wish, too;

      b.) see through the all-too-transparent rants of frenzied supporters of this or that candidate, and refuse to get caught up in the emotion of the moment, electing to do a deeper dive until their own comfort level "meters" register with a result?

      I'm seeing supporters of one candidate attacking supporters of other candidates that, for the most part (all bullshit aside) actually share virtually the same views, across-the-board.

      And, now I'm seeing folks being admonished--like right here--for saying, 'I was probably going to vote for this candidate; but, now I'm undecided again?"

      What I'm seeing is people going over-the-top here in their comments and diaries; and, it's to the point where even the "respected" intelligentsia around the joint (yeah, I'm talkin' 'bout you, Ponti...) are getting downright absurd in your commentary, too.

      With, right here being a perfect case-in-point.

      Everyone's entitled to their own damn opinions. Choosing to take an academically invalid tack to criticize Kos is, IMHO, nothing more than a highbrow flavor of the same behavior.

      The feces ain't flushing...

      "I always thought if you worked hard enough and tried hard enough, things would work out. I was wrong." --Katharine Graham

      by bobswern on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 11:13:21 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Rather than address (6+ / 0-)

        the criticisms of his post on the merits, he called the people doing the criticism "frenzied", and refused to address the merits (all he did, in fact, is cite to others who also fail to address the merits).  That's an ad hominem attack, and a convenient way to sidestep the merits.

        •  B.S.! How can Kos be attacking someone, when... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          R Rhino from CT4

          ...he's saying the jury's out! Kos has NOT said he won't end up supporting Obama. He's saying he's disappointed...just like he's been with every other candidate...and, he also says he'd be comfortable voting for most of them as the Dem nominee, too!

          Sorry, Pontificator, but Kos is saying (tacitly) he might end up supporting the guy anyone.

          From where I'm sitting, you're beating the crap out of him when he might just end up supporting Obama, anyhow!

          And, to see you (moreso than most around here), getting caught up in this 11th-hour frenzy, is typical of what I've been ranting about for days!

          Get a grip! And, don't sell me  your academically-encrusted "woof tickets," 'specially when I see them having quite little difference than the rants of those less able to spin a paragraph or two 'round here.

          Same shit, different day.

          "I always thought if you worked hard enough and tried hard enough, things would work out. I was wrong." --Katharine Graham

          by bobswern on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 11:28:06 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  beyond lame (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      zeke L, theran, oscarfrye

      does Kos not realize he's being as anti-Dem as he's accusing Obama of being?

      Mother Earth is pregnant for the third time - for y'all have knocked her up. ~ maggot brain

      by itsbenj on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 11:14:00 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  The BO folk are adopting Fox descriptives of kos (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      phenry, nasarius, dreamghost

      Classic!

      Oprah? Nah, I'm voting however Jerry Springer tells me to.

      by Barry in MIA on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 11:41:53 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Theres a book called crashing the gate (7+ / 0-)

    oh yeah

    "In Japan, American occupation forces quickly became 50,000 friends. In Iraq, they would quickly become 50,000 terrorist targets. " James Webb, Sep 02

    by ParaHammer on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 10:54:24 AM PST

  •  I don't get to vote for another month either. (26+ / 0-)

    And I remain undecided.

    Which is why I'm not big on seeing a headline here that says "Obama Slams Gore"...

    when there was no such slam.

    Doesn't help me make up my mind much.

    Shrug.

    For future reference: My name is not actually William.

    by wmtriallawyer on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 10:54:57 AM PST

    •  Of course it was a slam (13+ / 0-)

      the rationalizations Obama supporters are using to deny that are Bush-like in their substance.

      As we express our gratitude, we must never forget that the highest appreciation is not to utter words, but to live by them. ~John Fitzgerald Kennedy

      by dave1042 on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 10:58:29 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Let me try that one out: (33+ / 0-)

        there's a senator from Illinois using right-wing frames on everything from religion to social security to who is being divisive.

        But no one knows who I'm talking about because unless you use a proper name, it's really hard to figure out...

        •  The problem is that you seem to think (14+ / 0-)

          saying that 1. trial lawyers make more money than community organizers and 2. Dems have been running lousy swing state based campaigns = right wing framing.

          You are seeing things that aren't there and I cannot understand why. At least give Obama the benefit of the doubt, at least once.

          Criticism is fine, when balanced and fair.

          The history of the left is a history of purists betraying the progressive movement so that they can feel good about their righteous selves.

          by Joe B on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 11:14:55 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  he did (0+ / 0-)

            an early kos/Atrios/Digby endorsement could have stopped this rightward drift.  Kos gave the benefit, didn't read the books and now TOO late realizes that Obama is running to win in NH among Republican swing voters.

            I will make them have it. I will stuff their mouths with Gold!--Aneurin Bevan (on the NHS)

            by Salo on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 12:32:53 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  JoeB nailed it (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Bule Betawi

            Here's the essence of this hissy-fit-in-a-teapot:

            saying that 1. trial lawyers make more money than community organizers and 2. Dems have been running lousy swing state based [presidential] campaigns [does NOT] = right wing framing.

            Jeez, for some people you'd think that just uttering the two words "trial lawyer" is a slam on Edwards!  Even though Edwards and his campaign staff describe him(self) this way.  

            Obama pursued community service, to help the poor (like a real Christian), not a financially lucrative career.  More power to Obama!!!  That's who he is, it helps us get a sense of his values.  

            His approach to healing and winning a super-majority (rather than the failed 50%+1 strategy criticized by so many people, including Markos), is NOT to compromise on policy issues (like Hillary and Bill Clinton, DLC, Dick Morris, Will Marshall, Bruce Reed, Al From, etc., let alone Lie-berman). Instead, like the community-organizer he is, he knows how to bring people together WITHOUT compromising his principles. That's a beauty of the man. You think he doesn't know that you have to be tough?? laf  Gimme a break.  

            We could go through the pages of Crashing the Gate and quote all the times the authors criticize Gore's 2000 campaign.  Would that be productive?  

        •  Laughable (9+ / 0-)

          So raising social security taxes is a right-wing frame, religious tolerance is a right-wing frame and now criticizing poorly run Democratic campaigns (something you've done countless times) is a right-wing frame.

          Keep trying.

          •  By kos' logic (5+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            justmy2, dss, TMP, Sharon Wraight, oscarfrye

            When we criticized Reid and Pelosi for caving into Republicans, we were using right wing frames. Does this tell you how silly his position is?

            "How come I never land on a short, dull one?"

            by jhecht on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 02:16:21 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Can you name an issue (0+ / 0-)

              that we criticised Reid and Pelosi on from the right?

              Of course you can't.

              •  How is anything related to this statement (0+ / 0-)

                an attack from the right....

                there may be other issue you are referring to...but the statement from an unnamed source certainly doesn't qualify...

                First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you...then you win -- Mahatma Gandhi

                by justmy2 on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 02:49:55 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  It is manifestly a right wing argument (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Vico

                  to say that our recent polarization has been caused by Democrats. DUH.

                  •  I still don't get it... (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    zeke L

                    Here is the quote again..

                    "I don't want to go into the next election starting off with half the country already not wanting to vote for Democrats," said Obama, as reported by ABC. "We've done that in 2004 and 2000. 47 percent of the country on one side, 47 percent of the country on the other...We don't need another one of those elections."

                    Where is there any statement of the cause of polarization in quote?  The only place where a cause in inferred is in this diary.  How do you know he doesn't think this is because of Fox News, right wing radio, or aliens for that matter.

                    This statement is being inflated strictly for political purposes.  That is politics.  But it doesn't make it anymore of a fact.

                    First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you...then you win -- Mahatma Gandhi

                    by justmy2 on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 03:19:04 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I think the meaning of (0+ / 0-)

                      We don't need another one of those elections

                      Is quite straightforward. You can call it "inflation," if you like, but I'm going to 100% disagree.

                      •  I guess we will agree to disagree (0+ / 0-)

                        I simply can not construe any attack on Democrats in the statement you quote.  

                        BTW-For the record, I am not a supporter of any candidacy at this point...I am just trying to dissect what is at play in this discussion.

                        It seems more like a pure political ploy while people are at home for the holiday, but I have been wrong before and will be wrong again.  

                        It is an interesting attack though from a purely political perspective.  It seems like candidates have figured out how to push bloggers buttons.

                        First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you...then you win -- Mahatma Gandhi

                        by justmy2 on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 03:40:13 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  I actually don't have a candidate either (0+ / 0-)

                          Though I have been very much turned off by Obama for the reasons identified in this post and other similar previous behavior.

                          I wonder what you mean by

                          It seems like candidates have figured out how to push bloggers buttons.

                          Are you saying that Obama is trying to alienate bloggers?

                          •  Sorry about the confusion (0+ / 0-)

                            I was referring to this dustup...

                            I think this was dropped into the mix by the Clinton or Edwards campaign intentionally to create the blogswarm that it has created.  It is much more effective than a policy related question, or the experience/change meme.   It really got everyone fired up, even though it actually has zero policy or election impact in the long run.  Think haircuts, Dean Scream, etc, etc...  

                            If people are going to vote based on candidates critiques of previous elections and why they think they can overcome them, I think we are all in bigger trouble than we know.  Long story short - I think this is a mountain out of a molehill, a molehill that may not even be a hill at all.

                            First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you...then you win -- Mahatma Gandhi

                            by justmy2 on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 04:05:22 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Well, I think it's real (0+ / 0-)

                            and it doesn't matter where it came from. It not only fits a pattern of problems with Obama I already have, it's corroborated by multiple sources.

        •  I studied with Lakoff. (17+ / 0-)

          And that's a complete perversion of what he's trying to articulate with framing.

          It's not about dog-whistle politics, where we evaluate each of our politicians for affiliation cues and confirmation of a purity template.

          No, that's PC 3.0. It's neo-Maoist cultural correctness. It's like John Birch Society blues, where we find communists under the bed, in the mailbox and delivering our mail itself.

          I thought we were trying to get beyond the 51% strategy here? How is Obama's quote indicting personalities rather than campaign strategies and polarized political conditions that make it difficult to elect a Democrat in a general election scenario?

          If he wanted to attack personalities he would've mentioned them by name. Can't you, per Occam's Razor, accept the language at face value? It's more consistent with what Obama has been saying up until now, and frankly more consistent with what you have been preaching here in the past as well.

          Recognize that we lose electoral votes from places like New York and Ohio in 2010 as well, and Texas and Arizona gains them. It won't get any easier by relying on blue state strategies.

          And why am I telling you this? You of the "the western state Libertarian Democrat is the new winning model" argument? You of the 50-state strategy?

          Why are you falling back on superficial tests of political correctness and reading Obama's remarks in the most tendentious way possible?

          Couldn't it be that he is in fact saying what you said consistently throughout 2005-2006?

          That we need to break with past failing models and build a truly national progressive coalition that moves beyond a microtargeted 51% strategy?

          I want the old Markos back. This feels increasingly like a plant.

          'Fie upon the Congress' - Sen Bob Byrd

          by Maxwell on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 11:19:02 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  asdf (0+ / 0-)

            Can't you, per Occam's Razor, accept the language at face value?

            "NO!" - Ted Stevens

            Jumping on the politicalcompass.org bandwagon: (-3.63, -3.03) - Does that make me part of the right wing here?

            by someone else on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 11:22:32 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Damn, that was well said! I hope Kos relies. n/t (0+ / 0-)
          •  Your comment is completely right . . . as long as (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Vico, milton333, Unduna, R Rhino from CT4

            one assumes that right-wing blue-state memes are some kind of truth from on high.

            They are not. They've been constructed by very smart people on the other side.

            Why is it that Democrats should accept these constructions? Because they're there? Because it's the only way to move beyond "past failing models"? Because it's some Maoist purity trollishness to think that arguing by right-wing frames is automatically ceding them the high ground?

            Well, here's a newsflash: arguing by right-wing frames is automatically ceding them the high ground. Arguing by right-wing frames automatically gives them a relevance they simply haven't earned. They're working as propaganda, and the first thing to do against propaganda is expose it's artifice.  

            The LAST thing we need to do as a party is be cowed into NOT owning our own arguments for policy positions. The SECOND to last thing we need to do is to believe that fighting for our positions doesn't get "beyond the 51% strategy."

            No political party has been successful in the long term playing defense. It's utter folly to think that we're going to become a majority party through the voice of the Republicans, which is a defensive position. We have to have our own voice, and we have to call out those who are too afraid to do so.

            •  Sorry, I meant "red state" memes. (0+ / 0-)
            •  So Dean's 50 State Strategy is wrong (0+ / 0-)

              I thought it worked well in 2006, but what do I know.

              Show me a right wing frame in the unsourced statement  referred to in the discussion referred to in the diary, and this may make sense.

               

              First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you...then you win -- Mahatma Gandhi

              by justmy2 on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 02:53:49 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  What's your definition of the 50 State Strategy? (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Vico

                Dean's idea was to put candidates up in every contest, get Democrats organized in every single voting precinct, and work on growing future party candidates.

                Where do you get the idea it meant moving the party---and how it talks to the country---to the Republican side? It doesn't. The idea is to grow the brand and win elections in the long term. You can't do that if you're talking like your opposition.

                Don't be obtuse about "unsourced statements." Obama's been using conservative terms to talk during his entire campaign. That's the content of the thread here.

                •  There is nothing obtuse by this quote (0+ / 0-)

                  Here is how this was originally reported....

                  No one has reported on this yet. I got this from a reader who heard this went down in Iowa, then confirmed it and emailed me the quote:

                  That is what i was referring to when I said unnamed sources.

                  Regarding the 50 state strategy, I made no statement about moving the country to a more conservative or Republican stance.  My comment is based on your response to the earlier post's comments on how Barack's comments were consistent with Dean's 50 state strategy.  It comes down to a different interpretation of Obama's comments.  I see no attack on Democrats or a right wing frame in the statement that large portions of the electorate had a strong predisposition against the two general election candidates in the earlier elections prior to the beginning of the campaign.

                  As a matter of fact, I think the line of attack regarding these comments are closer to a right wing type of attack than the comments themselves by creating faux outrage where there is no real issue in dispute.

                  I guess we can agree to disagree.

                  First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you...then you win -- Mahatma Gandhi

                  by justmy2 on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 03:56:49 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

          •  The party needs to stop listening to Lakoff (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            milton333

            Lakoff is academic personification of the strange boomer narcissism that has ruined the country. It's not about framing something so some 60's father would sound just like you. It's about confidence in your own views, but more importantly the confidence to allow--and even seek out--dissent. See Talking Right by Geoffrey Nunberg.

          •  Please diary this (0+ / 0-)

            It needs to be read by more people.

            "How come I never land on a short, dull one?"

            by jhecht on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 02:20:03 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  So the right-wing position on Social Security (0+ / 0-)

          is to remove the cap on deductions and have the rich contribute more?

          Maybe some of us are republicans and just don't realize it.

      •  The rationalizations remind me of (0+ / 0-)

        how the more ardent Obama supporters tried in every way possible to justify his insults to gay Americans, and as it became clearer that Obama had intended to do just what he did, continued to try to find excuses for him. Perhaps Obama is as clever as he thinks he is: His thinly veiled slams seem to be working well on his supporters. The insult hangs out there while hid more frenzied supporters argue that it wasn't what it patently was.

        "I could not move to warn all the younger soldiers/ That they had been deserted from above. . . ." -- Leonard Cohen

        by Vico on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 08:56:44 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Youre so tone deaf Kos its amazing. (10+ / 0-)

    But youve got the Top Bloggers on yer side so you must be right.

    I mean really another post about your mischaracterization of an unsourced quote?

    I think saying anything different is a Republican Talking Point from Fox News.

    by Unseen majority on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 10:54:59 AM PST

      •  ABC is always right of course! (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        El Yoss

        Sorry, I´m for JRE, AND could not resist this!

      •  ABC blog (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        farleftcoast

        is what you mean. Your link from your update in "Obama Slams Gore":
        http://blogs.abcnews.com/...
        And Political Punch was simply questioning the meaning of the quote.

      •  Your post said it was unsuorced and rushed. (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        justmy2, Sam I Am, Potus2020, El Yoss

        Its in your blockquote. Even if it was a verbatim quote, that goes a looong way from slamming Gore.

        I dont think i need to have your hallowed interpretations form the basis of my oppinions. Ill just let you and your Top Blogger friends enjopy the fake outrage over every Obama utterance.

        Until you can use more of Obama's actual words and deeds in your critiques, instead of creating false interpretations of those as the basis for your arguements, i think ill leave your diaries alone for awhile.

        Personnally, i think you just want to remind Obama and others just how powerful and how much sway you have. To puff up your importance.

        I think saying anything different is a Republican Talking Point from Fox News.

        by Unseen majority on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 11:16:00 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  It hardly matters that it's unsourced. (5+ / 0-)

        (Though the less reliable the source, the less clear the context or the remarks.)

        What's at stake here, and what you should be addressing, is whether the substance of Obama's comment is correct.

        Not the aura around the words, which may be spin, or may be spun rather.

        No dog whistles. The statement itself.

        Is it valuable to create conditions where independents and moderates are more receptive to a progressive Democratic message?

        Were the strategies of 2000 and 2004 lacking or failed strategies?

        Do we need to reach out to 50 states, on terms the locals respond to, and move beyond the 51% solution?

        You've argued as much in your book and on this blog, so I don't get why you are focusing on the personalities rather than this argument itself.

        You say that none of our candidates are perfect. That's correct. So why appeal to emotion by propping up a hero myth about Gore circa 2000 or Kerry circa 2004?

        You're telling us to stop worshiping idols while erecting idols. I do think when you slow down, take a breath, and evaluate this from other angles, you'll see that's true.

        It's not about the personalities. It's not about the politics of perception and dog-whistle PC language enforcement.

        It's about the policies and the process.

        Didn't you used to teach that? Once? Not to long ago?

        'Fie upon the Congress' - Sen Bob Byrd

        by Maxwell on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 11:32:02 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  And provided at least some context to it (0+ / 0-)

        At worst, this is a gaffe, not any worse than several you defended Dean for 4 years ago.

        Instead we get Drudge-like headlines in your posts.

      •  Here... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        zeke L

        "I don't want to go into the next election starting off with half the country already not wanting to vote for Democrats. We've done that in 2004 and 2000. 47 percent of the country on one side, 47 percent of the country on the other . . . We don't need another one of those elections."

        So here's what he actually said, the full thing.  Explain to me how this is an attack on Gore?  On Kerry?  If anything, he's attacking Hillary here.

        •  The attack is.... (0+ / 0-)

          when he mentioned Democrats. If he had worded it something like: " I don't want to go into the next election with half the country ready to vote for Republicans" It would have seemed like he was on our side, but by mentioning Democrats it sounds like something Tom Delay would say, like there is something wrong with the Democ"rats" thats why half the country has already decided not to vote for us. Besides if you look at the national polls he is going into this election with over half the country decided not to vote for him so by picking him we are not solving the problem of half the country not wanting to vote for Democrats, we are making it more than half the country not wanting to for Democrats.

          All I know is what I read in the newspapers. Will Rogers

          by Tulsonian on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 01:00:39 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Are you guys looking in the Fox thesaurus for kos (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      nasarius, entlord1

      descriptives?  Amazin'!

      Oprah? Nah, I'm voting however Jerry Springer tells me to.

      by Barry in MIA on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 11:42:59 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  The quote is consistent with Obama's positioning (4+ / 0-)

      Obama's shtick is all about transformative, post-partisan politics -- the quote seems completely in line with the pitch.

      And -- hey! -- it was a winning pitch two or three times in a row starting back in 1992.  Clinton was overtly a "new politics" kind of guy.  Bush translated it into being a "uniter, not a divider."

      It's road-tested.  It works to win elections.

      Its only the aftermath of the elections that is problematic...

      Open the pod bay doors, HAL.

      by Minerva on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 11:43:58 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Great now there will be more (17+ / 0-)

    "Kos Please Stop Sharing Your F&%king Opinion" diaries in the rec list.

    lol

    Crybabies.

  •  STOP using Obama's words against him! (25+ / 0-)

    It's uncalled for.

    snark

    "I'm not anti-_____________, I'm pro-Edwards."-me

    by sd4david on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 10:55:15 AM PST

  •  the real news this morning... (6+ / 0-)

    ...is the Des Moines Register poll. As one commentor at the top of that thread notes, this is the headline that millions of Iowans are going to see this morning.

    Obama's going to win it. Kos, you might not like everything the guy says or does during this campaign, but he's your next president.

    "Sorry this is such a long letter, but I didn't have time to write a short one." -- Rudyard Kipling

    by Reviser on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 10:55:16 AM PST

  •  Wait for the howl of protest (20+ / 0-)

    from the Children's Crusade, and five diaries on the rec list attacking your right to put this on the front page, kos, but I'm with you.

    "There are no happy endings in the Bush Administration". - Randall L. Tobias

    by MadRuth on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 10:55:28 AM PST

  •  Lets have a 47/47 election and loose again! (11+ / 0-)

    Yeah!!!  I keep looking for what is wrong in what he said and not finding it.  

    •  lose, not loose (0+ / 0-)

      the problem is that implicit in the statement is a criticism of an international hero:  al gore.

      gore and kerry didn't cause the split.

      obama must think that because he is for faith-based groups and is against the constitution that he will appeal to repukes.  maybe obama can spell out exactly how he will overcome the partisan divide rather than attacking democratic heroes.

    •  Good idea - - let's compromise on core principles (0+ / 0-)

      and elect a Rockefeller republican - Great idea!  (snark)

      Oprah? Nah, I'm voting however Jerry Springer tells me to.

      by Barry in MIA on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 11:44:53 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  And the thing is he doesn't do that (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        zebra001

        If you want to compromise on principles vote for the "in it to win it," candidate. Obama's candidacy is essentially about one thing, articulating liberal positions with confidence, listening to and respecting other points of view as a means a building support, and ending the framing of the past 20 years--the divisive "you're either with us or against us politics." If you want to see real progress on those core principles, then you're going to have to realize that the red meat, divisive, treating political opponents like they're a combat enemy style of partisanship has got to go. Other wise, it's 20 more years of grid lock and failure.

        •  That's right - "social security crisis", hurt yer (0+ / 0-)

          most reliable supporters (gays), insult yer most reliable financiers (trial lawyers) - - good strategy!
          btw - we don't "have to realize" anything - - there are other folks to vote for - - on the other hand, youre gonna have to lighten up if you want to stop pissing off your fellow democrats - just sayin'.

          Oprah? Nah, I'm voting however Jerry Springer tells me to.

          by Barry in MIA on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 12:39:44 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Will you give it up with the McClurklin thing (0+ / 0-)

            I am so sick of hearing about that. So the guy is an ex-gay, and you don't like him. Fine with me. I don't particularly like either. But I really am sick of hearing about that. So Obama has a nefarious supporter. Clinton has a supporter that raised big cash for her and is in jail. Mr. anti-Corporate Edwards has millions of his own money in hedge funds and is being supported by the hedge fund industry. They all have nefarious supporters...

            •  "I am so sick of hearing about that." (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              R Rhino from CT4

              Awesome way to reassure waivering support in the gay community !!!!
              I'm not gay, but gays are about 10 to 15% of democratic support in the general, up to 20% in the primaries, and self identified gays have 85+% turnout rates!
              But fuck 'em!  They should just shut the hell up already!

              Oprah? Nah, I'm voting however Jerry Springer tells me to.

              by Barry in MIA on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 01:03:58 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  No, but for God's sake (0+ / 0-)

                The fact that a nefarious character supports is campaign is not a reason to stay home. Outside of the blog community, which has repeated this ad naseum for months, I've heard zero gay people complain about this. Nobody actually cares who he shared a stage with. McClurklin is not a mass murderer...A jerk perhaps, but nobody cares. Enough.

                •  You really don't get it. (0+ / 0-)

                  If a candidate accepted the support of - - and campaigned with - - David Duke, would you say to the black community "the fact that a nefarious character supports a campaign is not a reason to stay home" or "I've heard zero [black] people complain about this" or "Nobody actually cares who he shared a stage with" or David Duke "is not a mass murderer...A jerk perhaps, but nobody cares. Enough."
                  Sure you'd say that!!!!
                  But we aint gonna convince each other, so good luck and happy new year.

                  Oprah? Nah, I'm voting however Jerry Springer tells me to.

                  by Barry in MIA on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 02:06:01 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Donnie McCluklin is not David Duke n/t (0+ / 0-)
                    •  He's worse - - does Duke want to (0+ / 0-)

                      criminalize being black? or arrest all black people?
                      They both are awful evil people, and as far as I'm concerned, sharing a stage with either disqualifies you from progressive support.

                      Oprah? Nah, I'm voting however Jerry Springer tells me to.

                      by Barry in MIA on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 02:30:48 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Sorry, he's not (0+ / 0-)

                        David Duke was the head of the KKK. The KKK goes around burning crosses on people's lawns, and used to (still does actually) lynch people. Johnathan Byrd, etc. McClurklin has a wacko view that will never be enacted and that Obama doesn't agree with, and you equate him to the head of an organization that MURDERS people. Talk about deranged opponent system, to borrow a phrase that has been floating around this diary...

                        •  Again, sharing a stage with either disqualifies (0+ / 0-)

                          you from progressive support.  And cynically sharing a stage with McClurkin (when you disagree with him but want to suck up to his bigoted followers) makes it even worse.  Sorry, just my opinion.

                          Oprah? Nah, I'm voting however Jerry Springer tells me to.

                          by Barry in MIA on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 03:02:21 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  But here's the problem (0+ / 0-)

                            You assume that African Americans are automatically progressive. Not so. A very substantial block of the African American vote is actually quite conservative (the leading black churches are the Southern Baptists and the Pentecostals...what would be Mike Huckabee's support in the other party). People like Donnie McClurklin ARE part of the Democratic coalition. So if you really want every vote from our coalition, then you're going to have to realize that this is a pretty big tent that houses people that disagree vehemently on some issues, and that some candidates are going to have to share stages with people that you disagree with in order to win. Otherwise, you might as well just write your own name in every election...  

                          •  Good rationalization - - (0+ / 0-)

                            but in the 70's, we pretty much threw out the southern redneck wing of the party because we had core principals we wouldn't compromise.  But you're saying we should reach accomodation with the gay bashers?  Nice.

                            Oprah? Nah, I'm voting however Jerry Springer tells me to.

                            by Barry in MIA on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 03:44:01 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

        •  and btw - - we can break gridlock by electing (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          skohayes

          more democrats - - why aint that the strategy?

          Oprah? Nah, I'm voting however Jerry Springer tells me to.

          by Barry in MIA on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 12:41:10 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yes, and that isn't going to happen (0+ / 0-)

            By being rabid, angry, and scaring people in places like where I live. Sorry, not going to work. The only way we're going to elect more Democrats is if we have a nominee that people can say, "I don't agree with him on everything, but I like him and I think he respects my view point." That is what Obama was saying. And he's right. The real world is not the blogsphere. They are not as pissed out there; they are worried about their job, the fact that they haven't seen their wages keep pace with inflation, their health and their kids. That is who we need to win over to elect more Democrats. Being an angry mob just isn't going to get that done...

            •  "rabid, angry, and scaring people " (0+ / 0-)

              love you, too!
              those adjectives convinced me to join yer team - LOL

              Oprah? Nah, I'm voting however Jerry Springer tells me to.

              by Barry in MIA on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 01:00:42 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Go ahead and go down in flames (0+ / 0-)

                Fine with me. Some people, namely the baby boom generation, never learn. Let's keep driving over the cliff. It's just so much fun!

                •  Again, you're so freakin' dismissive !!! (0+ / 0-)

                  Don't you want every vote?
                  Would you ever say "Some people, namely the Jews, never learn" or "Some people, namely the blacks, never learn" or "Some people, namely the latinos, never learn" or "Some people, namely the unions, never learn" or "Some people, namely women, never learn"?  I think not.
                  But "Some people, namely the baby boom generation, never learn" is ok ???
                  Why do you consciously dismiss any element of our coalition?  You are your own worst enemies!

                  Oprah? Nah, I'm voting however Jerry Springer tells me to.

                  by Barry in MIA on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 02:10:54 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  You're naive (0+ / 0-)

                    You can't get every vote. Which is why God created purists like yourself.

                    Some people referred to the people that have posted this Donnie McClurklin BS ad nasuem for 5 months. It was a person on a stage. Get over it. Obama didn't say anything that you infer he said. He didn't consciously dismiss the gay vote, and he didn't go,  "Donnie speaks for me on these issues." No, sorry that didn't happen. But for some people that already had an ax to grind with him, it became a convenient ax to throw, and they haven't stopped throw.

                    And yes, blaming the narcissistic, irresponsible, me first baby boom generation is completely appropriate on my part. Do you even know how high my taxes will have to be just to pay the interest on the national debt in 30 years when I'm at my peak earnings capacity? All because the baby boom generation elected a guy (twice) that said they could have a war and a tax cut too. George W. Bush is a personification of the baby boom generation. Says it all.

                    (And by the way, why don't you talk about don't ask don't tell and the defense of marriage act? After all it was Bill Clinton that was behind them. It was also Bill Clinton that tried to get Kerry to support gay marriage amendments in 2004...and yet you attack Obama for months over a guy that was on the stage with him...as 1,000 other people have been during the course of the campaign. Repeat after me: Donnie McClurklin is not running for President).  

                    •  On the stage with him at his invitation (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      devil

                      and as a part of his strategy. He wasn't just some guy standing there. The rationalization that we must play to people's prejudices to get their votes just doesn't wash, though Obama apparently thinks it does. You get their votes despite their prejudices.

                      "I could not move to warn all the younger soldiers/ That they had been deserted from above. . . ." -- Leonard Cohen

                      by Vico on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 09:14:53 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

  •  Obama is a pump and dump candidate (8+ / 0-)

    His true colors are now showing as he lashes out.

  •  Nobody worships Obama, for Christ's sake. (24+ / 0-)

    And you can stop saying that anytime, it would be really helpful.  We simply see Obama as an alternative to the politics of hate and division to which we've been subjected these many years.

  •  Quoting a freind (0+ / 0-)

    We ain't broke no more and we ain't shuffling no more!

  •  Guess what... when he wins (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    itsbenj, xyz, aaraujo, greenearth

    you can complain about being ignored by the White House.

    I'm looking forward to it in fact.

    "So, until the day we expire and turn to vapors, me and my capers, will be somewhere stackin plenty papers." - AZ

    by brooklynbadboy on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 10:58:39 AM PST

    •  If he wins and does do that, that would confirm (0+ / 0-)

      many people´s worst fears. Another GW, but with an "opposite" party designation. I don´t think Obama would do that.

      •  Sorry that's Clinton (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        malharden

        Obama is much smarter than Bush. Clinton, the one who has run shady campaign statements by operatives, the one who looked the other way as a fugitive raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for her, Clinton the one that pressured the Des Moines Register to remove a very unfavorable quote from her Agriculture Chair in the paper (see DU for that one), Clinton the one that voted for Iraq and Kyl-Lieberman.

  •  Telling the truth... (8+ / 0-)

    has now become a right wing talking point...  My how the times have changed.  I remember when the opposite was true.

  •  Edwards is Campaigning..... (9+ / 0-)

    .....by being more like himself, only edgier, and Obama campaigns in these closing days by being less. Only edgier.

    And Clinton wins by having a split opposition.

  •  I am starting to agree with you, Kos (8+ / 0-)

    I was ready to vote for Obama, and am having 2d thoughts.  I'm not ready to pull the lever for Clinton or Edwards, yet, unless one of them becomes the Dem candidate, then I will be an all-out supporter of any of them.

  •  Obama is not ... (14+ / 0-)

    trying to run to the right of the other candidates.  He has the most progressive record of anybody running.  He just doesn't try to rub the republicans' nose in it (I know, it is fun - I like to do it, too).  It is about trying to win while maintaining your core principles.  He has remained remarkably consistent throughout.

  •  You're acting like a petty hack (11+ / 0-)

    The country was deeply divided in 2000 and 2004.  It's a fact - and I thought this was supposed to be a reality based community.  Of course Gore got a few more votes in 2000.  I campaigned hard for him and love the guy.  But he still was on the knife's edge - there's no denying it.  Obama is the most progressive candidate in the top three, but you somehow see a need to disparage him for seeking a large majority that could, you know, actually govern progressively.

    •  George Bush was a uniter, too (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Salo

      All I ask for Obama is some clear plans, steps, methods that will garner him well over 50% of the vote, and what his legislation is that will garner Rep votes so that it will pass.
      If he says he can get over 50% of the vote, lets see some (relative) proof.

      "I'm not anti-_____________, I'm pro-Edwards."-me

      by sd4david on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 11:29:55 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  He said he was a uniter, that didn't make him one (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Sam I Am, Unseen majority

        So are you saying we shouldn't take anything anyone says at face value?  We should just interpret whatever anyone says however we feel like, with no corroborating evidence other than our own opinions?

        Jumping on the politicalcompass.org bandwagon: (-3.63, -3.03) - Does that make me part of the right wing here?

        by someone else on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 11:32:32 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  No. I'm saying how will Obama ACCOMPLISH (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Unduna, devil

          his goal of uniting people. Will he move to the right to do it? What will we give up by moving to the right. How will he get the GOP senators give him a legislative victory. Remember, Republicans were run against as a do nothing congress in 2006. It is likely the Dems will be run against as a do nothing congress in 2008. Republicans don't really gain much by giving a Dem president crediblility (or "capital") by passing an opposing parties legislation.
          So I want specifics, not empty words.

          "I'm not anti-_____________, I'm pro-Edwards."-me

          by sd4david on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 11:39:45 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Going based on past (specific) evidence, and (0+ / 0-)

            just offhand, the Coburn-Obama bill made a little (too little, but it's a start) disinfecting light shine in on where our money is going.  This is done by getting your side to hold, and getting the people from the other side who agree with you on that specific issue to cross over. (If the "other side" is really some monolithic evil, why do we deal with them online and in the voting booth?)  You won't get the same people crossing over every time, or they'd just be Democrats anyway.

            Jumping on the politicalcompass.org bandwagon: (-3.63, -3.03) - Does that make me part of the right wing here?

            by someone else on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 11:45:51 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  well, he united US, anyway (0+ / 0-)

          Until our own candidates began to divide us again, temporarily at least.

    •  "Petty hack"? Yup, kos deserves that abuse. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      phenry, nasarius

      What the fucks he ever done for the progressive movement?  Right. (snark)

      Oprah? Nah, I'm voting however Jerry Springer tells me to.

      by Barry in MIA on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 11:46:49 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I was referencing this specific post (0+ / 0-)

        His comment was divorced from the facts.

        •  A lil' restraint, gratitude, respect is in order (0+ / 0-)

          hasn't kos earned the right to express an opinion on his own fuckin' site and have it at least considered  calmly for 5 seconds before the attack commences?

          Oprah? Nah, I'm voting however Jerry Springer tells me to.

          by Barry in MIA on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 12:02:04 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I waited 10 seconds (0+ / 0-)

            Seriously, I think Kos will survive.  I don't think he wants a bunch of sycophants around here.  His posting was way over the top and he took his deserved lumps.  Why should it be any different?

            •  I think if you look at the responses, the hate, (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              XOVER, nasarius

              the hyperbole, youll see the BO folk earned the "frenzied" adjective.
              BTW - its politics - - you're supposed to convince and/or seduce people into voting for you, not permanently piss 'em off.  Just sayin'.

              Oprah? Nah, I'm voting however Jerry Springer tells me to.

              by Barry in MIA on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 12:18:11 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Tell it to Kos (0+ / 0-)

                He's the one who launched the smear out of left field.  People were reacting to that.  Then when people made the substantive point that Obama was in fact correct in his observation - Kos mischaracterized that argument.  He set up a straw man that Obama supporters' main argument was a claim of a misquote.  Then he condescended about "partisans" in a way that would make Broder proud.  He invited heated rhetoric, and that's what he got.

                •  Again, if something upsets someone in politics (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  nasarius, devil

                  you need to calm them down and get them back on your side, not tell them to screw off.  Do you want to "win" a spat with a wavering supporter (and lose their support), or do you want to get them on your side and win the election?
                  Seriously, you guys need to tone it down and cut out the bully tactics.  
                  But thanks - - youre gonna drive kos to MY candidate - LOL!

                  Oprah? Nah, I'm voting however Jerry Springer tells me to.

                  by Barry in MIA on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 12:35:17 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

  •  Extrapolate = (0+ / 0-)

    To project into an area not known or experienced so as to arrive at a usually conjectural knowledge of the unknown area.

  •  Kos, you don't like Obama right now. (11+ / 0-)

    We get it.

    I'm not sure we need multiple diaries within the span of a couple hours to make that clear.

    But we get it.

  •  Is Glenn Thrush a (0+ / 0-)

    Clinton staffer?

    Hello, Ms. Clinton. What do you think of the turnout?"

    "I'm sorry I don't talk to the press." (still smiling)

    "Really? But you are out campaigning--"

    "I'm sorry but I have a policy of not talking to the press." (smile slipping away)

    "I'm really surprised, I thought--"

    "I don't talk to the press." (Smile gone, staring at apple crates in corner of store)

    At this point a staffer ...

    Glenn Thrush

    politely interceded and whisked us away.

    Secretary, Connecticut for Lieberman Party

    by Sprinkles on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 10:59:35 AM PST

  •  Kos's most important issue in this election is... (12+ / 0-)

    Kos's ego.

    Barack Obama. Because we can do better.

    by poblano on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 10:59:53 AM PST

  •  Why doesn't anyone bother noting the real (20+ / 0-)

    problems with Obama? It's not that he was mean to past candidates (many of them had it coming) or fudged policy positions (all of them do that) it's that he is unprepared to be a President. He hasn't bothered to chair his committee, his biggest accomplishment as a State Senator was avoiding votes, he thinks his best experience is travel as a toddler (even though he barely left the US as an adult) and his foreign policy statements recently have been straight up bizarre.

    Hillary Clinton's Liberal Ranking http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/8/10/122232/619

    by tigercourse on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 11:00:00 AM PST

    •  While I don't agree with your assertions (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      emilymv, Drewid

      (I am an Obama supporter) your criticisms of Obama as your reasons for opposing him as a candidate make a helluva more sense than opposing him because he dared to bring up the fact that Democrats didn't get to see their party in power after the presidential elecitons in 2000 and 2004 and that inexplicably being determined by some thinskinned folks as a SLAM of Gore and Kerry.

      At least there is some logic behind the "experience" argument even if I'm on another side of it. This zomg! concern trolling over Obama in that he used the phrase "social security crisis" (which Edwards has too) or called Edwards a "trial lawyer" (which he was... and which I would imagine he calls himself when describing his past profession) or now dared to bring up the missed opportunities of 2000 and 2004 are just foolish.

    •  I can't believe it (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      modemocrat, greenearth

      I'm gonna rec tigercourse. All of your arguments are a much more valid critisizms then "He said trial lawyer, and "He said he doesn't want half of this country to oppose our Dem Prez candidate this election."
      Not that I agree but
      Happy New Year.

      Congress is increasingly complicit in the Bush administration crimes.

      by Drewid on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 11:13:03 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Wow, sensativities seem to be running high... (10+ / 0-)

    What I take away from what Markos wrote was, Obama is running to the right of Edwards and Clinton. That happens to be how it seems to be to me also. The title could be softened up maybe, but the substance would be the same I think.

    "My way is not very sportsmanlike." -Fezzik/ Andre the Giant (No, not Dick "Cockeye" Cheney... and not Mike "Quailbane" Huckabee either)

    by The House on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 11:00:13 AM PST

    •  It makes you wonder, doesn't it? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      The House

      The latest poll shows Obama ahead in Iowa.  Why are they screaming so loud when the rest of us take a look at what their candidate is saying?

      "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." -- Bertrand Russell

      by Boston Boomer on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 11:08:01 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  but what does it say (0+ / 0-)

      that so much dishonesty and exaggeration are required to make the point?

      Mother Earth is pregnant for the third time - for y'all have knocked her up. ~ maggot brain

      by itsbenj on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 11:25:44 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Probably that we all are not perfect thinkers nor (0+ / 0-)

        writers of our thoughts, Markos included.

        "My way is not very sportsmanlike." -Fezzik/ Andre the Giant (No, not Dick "Cockeye" Cheney... and not Mike "Quailbane" Huckabee either)

        by The House on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 11:27:58 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Though I don't see the title as dishonest, just (0+ / 0-)

        exaggerated a bit, perhaps.

        "My way is not very sportsmanlike." -Fezzik/ Andre the Giant (No, not Dick "Cockeye" Cheney... and not Mike "Quailbane" Huckabee either)

        by The House on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 11:29:03 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  I walk on water (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ShaunMcDonnell, Unseen majority

    and thus I am pleased to announce my candidacy for . . . the world's stupidest bottom burp.

    "While there is a lower class, I am in it. While there is a criminal element, I am of it. While there is a soul in prison, I am not free." - Eugene Debs

    by matthewc on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 11:00:25 AM PST

  •  I thought that this (4+ / 0-)

    was a fact based site. Is half a fact a fact?

  •  The DMR's poll could set Obama up for a fall. (8+ / 0-)

    Given the unprecedented turnout model the Register's poll relies upon, it's quite likely that Obama will underperform the expectations. And the Iowa Caucus is all about expectations -- exceeding them or falling short of them.

    That poll could end up being the worst thing that happened to Obama.

    •  Or it could be a self-fulfilling prophecy (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sam I Am

      We don't know and won't until Thursday.

    •  quite true (0+ / 0-)

      All other evidence points to the last DMR poll as an outlier, with the reality much closer to 30/30/30. If Obama wins the caucuses -- and I don't think he will -- he'll have to do it by a significant margin, because the expectations game is now working against him.

      Live Free Or Do Whatever It Takes So I Don't Die

      by nasarius on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 12:46:58 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I think he's been expected to win the caucuses (0+ / 0-)

        for a long time, at least since it was clear that all of Edwards' work in Iowa wasn't likely to put him over the top. For Clinton, Iowa was secondary until she started doing well without investing much money or time there. My hope is that her getting in will help Edwards pull out an unexpected victory.

        "I could not move to warn all the younger soldiers/ That they had been deserted from above. . . ." -- Leonard Cohen

        by Vico on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 09:38:40 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  I have not weighed in on any of these primary (21+ / 0-)

    Dkos wars but Obama closing like this is pathetic. We all know who has divided out country. This bs is exactly what we spend all our time fighting against. We are here to elect more progressives so we can go over the top and get our country back on track and now one of our Brightest and best voices, someone who seemed to be the person to lead us into the next generation goes and pulls a move worthy of Lieberman or any number of those turncoat Senators who we are constantly calling out. Next.

    "Embarrassing, embarrassing. No Wonder why we're going down the tubes." Larry Craig's arresting officer.

    by Chamonix on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 11:00:36 AM PST

  •  You said it. None of them walks (6+ / 0-)

    on water, but all of them are better than Willard, Hucklebee, Uncle fred, and Rudy.

  •  keeping it real is a trait I admire in Kos, (5+ / 0-)

    except when it happened to my candidate not so long ago....

    Hillary Clinton, ready to go on day one!

    by Rumarhazzit on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 11:01:41 AM PST

  •  One of the Front Pagers last (9+ / 0-)

    night asked a diarist if she could refrain from posting diaries that attack other candidates.  She insisted it was better to keep things positive.  

    Here I had taken her advice to heart.  Now this.

    Hillary Clinton: America's First Woman President!

    by DCDemocrat on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 11:01:42 AM PST

  •  "Frenzied supporters". (14+ / 0-)

    No.
    Enthusiastic,yes.
    Your take on the quote is very odd.

    "I don't want to go into the next election starting off with half the country already not wanting to vote for Democrats. We've done that in 2004 and 2000. 47 percent of the country on one side, 47 percent of the country on the other . . . We don't need another one of those elections."

    Kos reads this as "Obama slams Gore" without bothering to make as case for that reading.

  •  Very wise for those of us that can to take our (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MadRuth, ShaunMcDonnell

    time, read and listen carefully.  We have an excellent roster to choose from, but we need to pick the very best of the group.  America needs a long run of Democratic leadership to clean up the (constitutional, economic, foreign policy, etc)mess made in the last 7 years.  More than ever before, I feel my vote counts.  

    Health care for people, not for profit.

    by bloomer 101 on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 11:02:03 AM PST

  •  Its indisputable Obama is going rightward. (21+ / 0-)

    It's no fun when Kos slams your candidate, especially when he titles the story so harshly, but even Obama supporters must admit his plan is to be to the right of Edwards and Clinton.  

    The best news Obama fans can point to right now is the DMR poll, which shows him in the lead not among Democrats, but only among non-Democrats.  He has crafted his message to appeal to non-Democrats, and that is because that is where his heart is.

    It's not neccesarily an evil plot by Obama to run this strategy, but don't tell me that isn't what's going on.

    •  Precisely! If one can even believe this poll (0+ / 0-)
    •  missing the point (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Mojo Jojo

      What I love about Obama is that he appeals to non-Democrats without "going right."  I think the only policy where his position is even arguably right of Edwards or Clinton is that he doesn't have mandates in his health care plan.  Otherwise, all the complaints are about "framing." His positions still end up being just as liberal as the other candidates (and much more liberal than Hillary on foreign policy).  So if we can win an election by a substantial margin and have a mandate for some real liberal policies, I'm all for it.

    •  The poll shows he's got right wingers (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Unduna

      voting in a Dem Caucus.

      nummy.

      I will make them have it. I will stuff their mouths with Gold!--Aneurin Bevan (on the NHS)

      by Salo on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 12:24:02 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  thanks for the Broderite attitude (10+ / 0-)
    1. Advance misleading frame courtesy of MSM.
    1. Denounce all who point out the BS logic as "frenzied" partisans.
    1. Pretend to be above the fray.

    "When you stare into the abyss too long, the abyss stares back into you." - F.N.

    "Being in the center just means you're closer to wrong."

    by Stroszek on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 11:02:19 AM PST

  •  You seem to have been suckered (5+ / 0-)

    into spouting right wing points against your own party.

    How pathetic is that.

  •  Obama's strength is in his novel perspective, (0+ / 0-)

    not his progressivism.

    That's what makes him so great. We've had plenty of progressive candidates that are either watered down by D.C. politics or are exposed as nothing more than centrist fakes once they're elected.

    "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." - G.B. Shaw

    by otheruser on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 11:03:01 AM PST

  •  You sound like Broder (8+ / 0-)

    Your condescension for "partisans", and people with passion for their candidates (mocked as "candidate worship") is really beneath you.  Like we're a bunch of sheep or something, or have been hypnotized into supporting our candidates right or wrong. The responses on your blog should show you how willing people here are to blindly accept anyone's authority.  Get a grip.

  •  So there. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    The House

    Still undecided myself. Edwards?  Obama?  Obama? Edwards?  Edwards?  Obama?

    Who stole the kishka? Someone bring it back!

    by rhubarb on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 11:03:19 AM PST

  •  Barack Obama's winning and Daily Kos implodes (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Mojo Jojo

    We know who are friends are, don't we

  •  I have to wonder about Obama's intellegence. (6+ / 0-)

    He doesn't seem to know the difference between special interests who work for corporations at the expense of the citizens, and special interests who work for citizens at the expense of corporations.

    HEY OBAMA - I'll help you. We are Democrats. We work for special interests who work for the citizens of this country.

    If you want to champion corporations, WHY DON"T YOU CHANGE PARTIES? You sound like a Republican anyway spewing their talking points.

  •  How is Obama "running against candidates"? (13+ / 0-)

    He mentions no names whatsoever. He speaks only to the state of division in 2000 and 2004, and how we need to try something new to get beyond that state.

    How is this attacking Gore and Kerry? Could it rather be addressing:

    (1) The unreliability of the 51% strategy.
    (2) The viability of the 50 state strategy.
    (3) The necessity to reach out to "purple" as well as "red" and "blue".

    Could it also be addressing the safe, micro-targeted campaign strategies of the past which have been rather unsuccessful of late?

    The spurious interpretations of Obama's quote are counter to the mission of this website as expressed by its founder when he once had his wits about him.

    'Fie upon the Congress' - Sen Bob Byrd

    by Maxwell on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 11:04:39 AM PST

  •  Likewise (14+ / 0-)

    I don't vote for a month either and it does become revealing as they each try to close. I'm glad I'm not in Iowa because I honestly don't know what I'd do. Like many of the folks there, I can still be persuaded. My biggest problem with Obama is not that he is running right or left, it's that I don't think he can hold up against the Rethug attacks that will eviscerate him. I think Clinton and Edwards can, and for that reason, I'm not inclined to vote Obama.

    "It's the Supreme Court, Stupid!"

    by Kestrel on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 11:04:45 AM PST

    •  at this stage in the game even the most (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Kestrel, Rolfyboy6

      sensible and idealistic candidate cannot afford but be swayed by his/her 'advisors'.  I am sure for Hillary that is Bill, and for Edwards it is Elizabeth, for Obama, i am not sure, i am sure he listens to his wife Michelle, if he doesn't he bloody well should, but i am nervous about what I have read about his relationship with his chief advisor David Axelrod. I may be wrong here, and i not making any attempt to 'smear' Obama, I believe these details are important because it goes to judgement and who the candidates rely on in the crunch.

      I am referring to what I have read that Axelrod is actually on some kind of commission, in other words gets paid a percentage of the money he raises? If this is true i find it a little off putting and naive. Sort of commercializes the purity of the race at this stage (don't laugh, I try to temper my cynicism with a little reality, especially when it comes to the one candidate who is selling himself as being above the fray and the change agent.

      If this is change, the more things stay the same.

      So, supporters please spare me the barbs and arrows and tell me whether it is true? and if so, why you don't think it matters.

      •  I don't know (0+ / 0-)

        If Axelrod is on commission, I haven't heard. Maybe someone more informed will comment. But your point about judgment is well taken.

        "It's the Supreme Court, Stupid!"

        by Kestrel on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 11:26:22 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I googled David Axelrod,on commission for Obama (0+ / 0-)

          and the search threw up Huffington Post but i couldn't locate the article stating he was on some kind of commission basis, so i can't take it further. None of his supporters have deigned to refute or confirm or say why it matters or does not matter.  Personally i think all the details about the judgements the candidates make are important.

        •  Capped Commission (0+ / 0-)

          Axelrod and his firm get a certain percentage of ad buys up to a certain cap (undisclosed, thought to be 3-6 million; Kerry paid Shrum $9 million in 2004) after that, they receive no compensation. When the cap is hit, then they work for free...This is more in-line with how the Republicans pay their consultants, and frees up more money to be spent on the campaign. They're still making a nice living, but it takes away the incentive to push unneeded ads for cash and the internal turf wars. It also gives them some incentive to win the primary...

    •  Obama has not closed the deal here either (11+ / 0-)

      Obama worries me because his campaigning as been uneven at best.  

      His main theme has been that his WH would be utterly different than Edward's or Clinton's.  But he is not showing me anything new or different other than a young, charasmatic demeanor.  But then his words slam trial lawyers, defend Big Coal, and decry SS.  WTF?

      Dogs have so many friends because they wag their tails instead of their tongues. -Anonymous

      by gloryous1 on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 11:16:56 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I agree (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        XOVER, Rolfyboy6, Picot verde, gloryous1

        Uneven and to me, full of lots of platitudes. It's nice to hear, but show me something. On substance, I think Clinton prevails, then Edwards. Obama, not so much. I think people are enamored of the idea of him rather than the man himself. I love charm as much as the next person, but charisma isn't substance.

        "It's the Supreme Court, Stupid!"

        by Kestrel on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 11:29:23 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  No one walks on water, Kos (5+ / 0-)

    I'm a lot older than you are, and I haven't voted for a winning President yet. (No, I never missed an election.)

    We have to go with our hearts and souls. Ultimately, we vote for a human being and a system. The human  being must be intelligent, honest, and must care about something other than his/her ego. The system WILL be controlled by interest groups. I'm a Democrat because I am resigned to that fact, and because I'd rather the system be controlled by environmental action coalitions and unions than big business and back-room cartels.

    When we vote, we balance idealism and electability. Don Quixote didn't do much for wind energy, you know. Voting for Ralph Nader killed a million Iraqis.

    With age come wrinkles, aches and pains, and perhaps a little wisdom. I look at the candidates and try to see into their souls. In a pinch, will Obama over-think and wonk out? Will Senator Clinton be as tough as I think she is? Will John Edwards opt for idealism over pragmatism? I'm debating those points.

    But in the end, I'm praying that Justices Stephens and Guinsberg have good health and stay in their jobs for another year. We can't let the petty bickering on this site affect that ultimate priority. We must have a Democratic president and a convincing Democratic majority in Congress. (P.S. I'll take a Green voting block to keep them honest, if that's an option.)

  •  People, people, can we please all (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mainer, soccergrandmom, The House

    get along and stop knifing each other and the candidates.  We have a long way to go before a nominee is chosen and when that happens, we are, as Democrats, obligated to at least, support, that nominee with a vote, if nothing more.
    Keep this in mind, "there's many a slip 'twixt the cup and the lip".  Who'd ever thunk Kerry would win IA in '04.
    Cool your jets, kids.

    The ignorance of one voter in a democracy impairs the security of all - JFK- 5/18/63-Vanderbilt Univ.

    by oibme on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 11:05:39 AM PST

  •  if TV ads rule - the system is broke (0+ / 0-)

    If money, not princple, is fueling your candidate... don't be suprised if things get fucked up.

  •  Check out Orcinus, Dave Neiwert's blog (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    itsbenj

    for an interesting rundown on how Obama is viewed by the racist right and its various incarnations.

    Radio show today had a short discussion on Obama, wondering if elected, if he could survive his first term. There was a similar discussion when Jesse Jackson made his run some years ago and if a nonwhite could ever be president, given the sentiments of a fairly significant portion of the population.  

  •  Well....I'm now leaning even more to Dodd (4+ / 0-)

    What a fascinating turn this morning's stories and diaries have held. lol! I knew the primaries would be ugly I just didn't think that Obama would be one of the uglies.

    Oh well...we'll see how it looks on Feb 5th.

    Memo to Congress: Put up or shut up ~ all talk and no action pisses me off.

    by SallyCat on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 11:06:25 AM PST

  •  LUV IT KOS - Stir it UP Baby! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Rolfyboy6, The House

    Hey there KOS - dig the way you are calling it like it is.

    STIR IT UP MAN!

    PLeeeeeeeeeez Keep it UP.

    I have remained "UNDECIDED in 2008" since late 2006. A record here I believe. Very excited to see that California might really mean something this time. I like you am waiting for four more weeks of contests to decide my vote - though I'm ABH (Anytbody But HILL) like most here.

    Keep up the Great Blogging!

    And now back to the 2008 DailyKOS DEMOCRATIC Nominee Blogger War! May the best Candidate Beat HILL.

    ABH ABH ABH ABH ABH ABH ABH ABH ABH ABH ABH ABH ABH ABH ABH ABH ABH ABH ABH ABH ABH ABH ABH ABH ABH ABH ABH ABH ABH ABH ABH ABH ABH ABH ABH ABH ABH ABH ABH ABH ABH ABH ABH ABH ABH ABH ABH ABH ABH ABH ABH ABH ABH ABH ABH ABH ABH ABH ABH ABH ABH ABH ABH ABH ABH ABH ABH ABH ABH ABH ABH ABH ABH ABH ABH ABH ABH ABH ABH ABH ABH ABH ABH ABH ABH ABH ABH ABH ABH ABH ABH ABH ABH ABH ABH ABH ABH ABH ABH ABH ABH ABH ABH ABH ABH ABH ABH ABH ABH ABH ABH ABH ABH ABH ABH ABH ABH ABH ABH ABH ABH ABH ABH ABH ABH ABH ABH ABH ABH ABH ABH ABH ABH

    Progressives - stay UNDECIDED on 2008 -4.63 -7.54

    by AustinSF on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 11:06:43 AM PST

  •  Obama: "Let's not drive over the cliff" (7+ / 0-)

    "We've done that twice before, and we shouldn't do it again. Let's try the bridge this time."

    Outraged partisans: "But the last two people who drove over the cliff were heroes! How dare you criticize them! This time we'll make it to the other side! We promise!"

  •  Well, you woke up feisty, didn't you? n/t (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mjd in florida, The House
  •  If bloggers were the majority of the party (7+ / 0-)

    Dean would have been nominated in 2004, Paul Hackett would be in the Senate and Edwards would have a double digit national lead in the primary polls.

  •  unions as special interests (12+ / 0-)

    I sure don't like Obama calling unions special interests.  

    Sen. Barack Obama’s campaign manager has spent the final days of the Iowa campaign railing against "big interests" that have poured a "flood of Washington money" into the state in "underhanded" efforts to support his rivals.

    But more than three-quarters of that money has come from a pillar of the Democratic Party: labor unions.

    And I agree with the AFT's president:

    "I’m taken aback that somebody like Obama would think that Oprah Winfrey has a greater right to participate in the political process than the 4 million people I represent," Edward J. McElroy, the president of the American Federation of Teachers, which has spent $799,619 on New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s behalf, said, referring to the television host’s high-profile support for Obama. "It’s sour grapes. It sounds just like the charges the Republicans make."

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0108/7652.html

    •  527 groups = Unlimited soft money (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mjd in florida, Mojo Jojo

      Who gives out the most soft money?

      •  and what's wrong with that? (0+ / 0-)

        If unions could not spend money on behalf of workers, who would?  Individuals who can give the maximum contribution? .... I think not.

        •  It's cool as long as my guys do it (0+ / 0-)

          Is basically what you are saying.  Unlimited soft money is bad for democracy no matter who spends it.

          •  don't agree (0+ / 0-)

            What is wrong with unions pooling money from members and giving it to candidates?  How is that bad for democracy?

            Make an argument, not an assertion.

            •  Money = Free Speech (0+ / 0-)

              SCOTUS saids money = speech. Why should Oprah get her free speech everyday at 2pm, but when a 527 speaks out for me thats bad? Obama is a hypocrite. I'm just as much a citizen as Oprah. Besides talk about the rich and powerful supporting a campaign. I just hate Oprah she is such a fake just like Obama. Oprah is like Martha Stewart her whole career is built around selling people stuff. Oprah = Snake Oil peddler.

              All I know is what I read in the newspapers. Will Rogers

              by Tulsonian on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 12:32:22 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

    •  Unions are special interests (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jxg, jethropalerobber

      Just like any other.  They are groups of citizens banding together for a common cause.  Just because they are working class folks doesn't dispute that they are an interest group.

      •  working for the common good (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        chrississippi, Salo, R Rhino from CT4

        I totally disagree with your rhetoric.  There's a huge difference between an interest group for oil companies and a union.  Unions work for the common good, oil companies for a small group of people.  Everyone benefits from what unions fight for.

        •  Irrelevant relativism. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          jethropalerobber

          Just because a special interest fights for "good" doesn't remove the fact that they are still an interest group.  That they have different kinds of members also does not.  They are a group of people who are pushing for a particular point of view.  That is the definition of what an interest group is.  Would you say the AARP is not an interest group?  How about Amnesty International?  They fight for "good", too.

          Basically what this argument about union 527s boils down to is: "Special interests are bad!*"

          *-Unless I agree with them.

  •  But I am confused... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    XOVER, Rolfyboy6, mollyd, frandor55

    The Obama campaign was above all this. He was different from the others. Opps!. that was last year.......

  •  How is a 50 state strategy "running right"???? (10+ / 0-)

    I still don't get it. You criticized Gore and Kerry yourself in your book. I thought that book was a leftist critique but perhaps I am wrong?

    The history of the left is a history of purists betraying the progressive movement so that they can feel good about their righteous selves.

    by Joe B on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 11:09:28 AM PST

  •  And amazingly, you still read a slam... (7+ / 0-)

    ...where none exists.

    I don't know whom I'm voting for when it's Virginia's turn, but I'm certainly not going to dismiss anyone on the basis of an accurate statement about the electorate's predispositions in 2000 and 2004.

    But hey, it's about time we got to start a negative narrative about someone instead of the media, huh?

    The American people are competent. Why shouldn't the government be competent? The people tell the truth. Why should our government lie? -Jimmy Carter

    by JR on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 11:09:31 AM PST

  •  yes, ok (12+ / 0-)

    you and ezra and digby and the whole new bunch of 'kewl kidz' get to inform the unwashed masses that they can't think straight because they "worship" a candidate, are going to tell us who's a good democrat and who's not.  gee, thanks.  fact is, you're all only semi-honest, and unfortunately semi-duplicitous when you do it - just like the older 'kewl kidz'.  Obama "attacks unions!"  oh my god!!  only, when you go back and look at the original statements in context, he doesn't.  Obama "attacks trial lawyers!" oh my god!!!  only, when you go back and read the original quote in context - he doesn't at all.  gee, what a surprise.  etc etc and on and on.  

    sorry, Kos and Atrios and all of the 'big boys/girls' who've decided that Obama is a republican simply because, well, that's how you've decided to see him, but I have my own opinions and am, for whatever reason, simply not hung up on this narrative you're all patting yourselves on the back for helping to create.  never mind that it requires twisting words and intentionally obviously and blatantly beyond their initial intention, y'all have decided what the truth is, and that you all know better, even better than Obama himself, what he means by what he says, no matter how much of a stretch it is.

    y'all are FAR too impressed by easy rhetoric.  rhetoric doesn't sway my views, I go by track recrod.  and that's why I mildly support Obama compared to Edwards and Clinton.  he's not my overall fave. candidate, but I'll be happy to vote for him if he's nominated, and will do so knowing that he has a strong track record to base the vote on, unlike Clinton and Edwards.  I will happilly vote for Clinton or Edwards if they are nominated as well, but I'll be less excited about it.  again, to me rhetoric counts for almost nothing.  actions count.  giving speeches during a campaign is rhetoric, not action.

    Mother Earth is pregnant for the third time - for y'all have knocked her up. ~ maggot brain

    by itsbenj on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 11:10:47 AM PST

  •  Criticism of your Obama Slaps Gore headline (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    askew, mjd in florida, Drewid, Mojo Jojo

    is not just from frenzied supporters as you imply. It is a general reaction to your partisan dishonesty and misuse of the public trust you've been granted by virtue of your site having a certain transparency. If you want to right op-ed smears, do it in the Washington Post or the New York Times where we've already figured out and discounted their biases often with disgust (ie Bill Kristol hired to write a column in the NYTimes.)  Maybe you're trying to generate traffic on the site by being controversial but it's a risky business. If you want to completely use up the qualities that placed dailykos above the MSM in the past, then keep it up.

    Who controls the past, controls the future. Who controls the present, controls the past. George Orwell

    by moon in the house of moe on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 11:10:59 AM PST

  •  This is fucking Kafkaesque (11+ / 0-)

    Slamming Obama because he supposedly slammed someone, that he didn't mention by name.  And on top of that, the only implication of the alleged (but unsourced) comment was that Gore and Kerry lost elections that they should have won.  Okay...raise your hand if you've never thought that.  Fucking preposterous.

    "Unrestricted immigration is a dangerous thing -- look at what happened to the Iroquois." Garrison Keillor

    by SpiderStumbled22 on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 11:11:00 AM PST

  •  Amen, Amen and one more Amen (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Rolfyboy6, Luetta, The House, gloryous1

    I have problems with all of them -- some more than others.

    But I have waited this one out to see where they actually end up.

    I started with leaning Obama, Then Hillary, now Edwards -- tomorrow -- who knows.

    Proud to be a Bleeding Heart Liberal

    by sara seattle on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 11:11:01 AM PST

  •  Obama's Right; Klein is Wrong (7+ / 0-)

    I have to disagree with Ezra Klein's attack on Obama.  What he said is exactly right...the individual mandate, mandating people purchase health insurance, is a terrible idea.

    It's the same idea being pushed by Mitt Romney (circa 2006) and Arnold Schwarzenegger.

    It will give unprecedented new power to the insurers like CIGNA and move us further away from single-payer.

    Kudos to Obama for standing up to it.

    •  ah found you. (5+ / 0-)

      If you look at the history of the NHS, the socialist gold standard of healthcare, you will find that the negotiations that Nye Bevan fought for required coersion and a mandate--one that was unpopular among liertarian Britishers.

      It's all there in the historical record. Clinton Edwards have it correct.

      THe NHS required in addition to coersion a massive pay off to the insurance industry in the so that they would walk away from their businesses.

      If YOU continue to ingnore history by backing Obama you will find he gets no reforms accomplished.

      He offers the Republicans no incentive to allow a public programme to be set up.  He's got nothing to placate the short term interests of the insurance lobby so that they accep reforms that will eventually put them out of business.

      I hate it when "left wingers" ignore history.

      I will make them have it. I will stuff their mouths with Gold!--Aneurin Bevan (on the NHS)

      by Salo on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 11:19:43 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  My fear is that the health insurance industry.. (0+ / 0-)

        will subvert or weaken all reforms meant to bring the industry under control, while embracing mandates full-force. The result will be forcing people into a broken system that will rip them off and provide horrible coverage. So long as private insurance is part of the equation, and not just providing services above and beyond that of the government plan, I am very uncomfortable with mandates. I see little benefit, and a huge potential for abuse.

        If we can get the reforms passed, make everything affordable and guarantee quality coverage, great, mandates would be acceptable.

        •  mandates are the honey (0+ / 0-)

          that will allow the public programme to be set up. If they are not dangled in front of the Republicans, there won't even be TALKS or bartering.

          I will make them have it. I will stuff their mouths with Gold!--Aneurin Bevan (on the NHS)

          by Salo on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 12:14:50 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Good points Bob (0+ / 0-)

          For the record, the CA Nurses Association does not support any candidate, including Sen. Obama.  We do however oppose the mandate purchase of private health insurance with everything we've got.  There's a reason that insurance companies are licking their chops at that proposal.

    •  I agree (0+ / 0-)

      The mandate in Clinton's plan is nothing more than a big check to the health insurance industry. Tell me how somebody who has worked 25 years in the same job, makes $10 an hour, and doesn't get benefits is going to be able to afford health insurance when they're paying $550 a month in rent. What are we going to do, garnish wages when they can't pay? Make them go hungry?

      Big corporate health insurance has fallen in line behind Hillary. They're the ones that'll get the dough if her plan gets enacted. Doctors, nurses, and patients will once again be screwed over by Mrs. Clinton. No thanks...

  •  this is getting very (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    oibme, R Rhino from CT4, RenMin

    interesting
    this candidate war has now didvided dkos.

    I really don't know what to make of the New Years fight in the comments of all these diaries.

    I look forward to Valintines Day

    Maybe it will heal the these diary wars  here

    Peace

  •  I don't mind that Obama isn't as progressive... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    oldpro, Vico, RenMin

    ...as Edwards.  My candidate, Clinton, isn't as progressive as Edwards.  I'm not as progressive as Edwards.  As Democratic Luntz's vote-by-vote parsing a few months ago illustrated, there's no clear winner in the who's-more-progressive head-to-head between Clinton and Obama.  Kos has identified what I think is the problem with Obama: it's fine to be less progressive, but denying the reality of the partisan divide, and offering to transcend it rather than putting our side back into power with our policies and priorities, is both offensive and reactionary.  Between Clinton, who triangulates because she makes an essentially political decision to get what she can get on an issue, and Obama, who triangulates because he genuinely prefers the middle ground to the historically Democratic position, I'll go with Clinton every time.  Edwards is my second choice at this point,  and if Obama keeps running as Bloomberg's alter ego I'll drop him past Richardson, Dodd, and Biden.

    "What you're saying is so understandable. And really, your only crime was violating U.S. law." Marge Simpson.

    by Rich in PA on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 11:11:48 AM PST

    •  Clinton and Obama (0+ / 0-)

      are both strong candidates with proven records.  I respect them both, and I don't think either is less progressive than Edwards.  It's a question of who has a record of success.  Both Obama and Hillary do.

      I like Obama's foreign policy approach better.  And I like his ability to inspire a broad demographic.  I feel that Hillary's negatives are too high.

      To demonize either of these two fine Democrats is ridiculous.

      "We are in a defining moment in our history. Our nation is at war. The planet is in peril." Barack Obama, Nov.10, 2007

      by keeplaughing on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 12:53:38 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  So which way is it Kos (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    modemocrat, ratador, Mojo Jojo

    Yes do hit diaries or not?  

    "A man does what he must - in spite of personal consequences, in spite of obstacles and dangers and pressures - and that is the basis of all human morality" JFK

    by in2mixin on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 11:11:48 AM PST

  •  Earlier poll done by Kos (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Rolfyboy6

    asked us "which campaign will blow up first".  The vote I believe was about 70% thinking that Obama's would blow first.

    Too bad.

    sign the petition at http://www.impeachbush.org

    by DrKate on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 11:12:06 AM PST

  •  asdf (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Rolfyboy6

    You know, I was going to vote for Obama and even announced that a week or so ago. But this is a great example of why it's best to wait and see how things shake out, because one quote is always a better indication of performance than policy positions or past performance. Not being blinded by candidate worship, it's easier to find bullshit when you feel like it. And you have to have your head stuck deep in the sand to claim that Obama is trying to close the deal by running to the Right of Hillary. And call me crazy, but having your head stuck in the sand is a trait I generally appreciate in Democrats, no matter how much it forces me to claim my detractors are the punditocracy.

    I don't get to vote for another month, so we'll see how the next four weeks go. I will certainly pretend none of these guys have earned my vote yet.

    Amazingly enough, none of them walk on water, no matter what kind of straw man I feel like setting up to deflect criticism way more valid than my own.

    Jumping on the politicalcompass.org bandwagon: (-3.63, -3.03) - Does that make me part of the right wing here?

    by someone else on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 11:12:27 AM PST

  •  But the quotes are intellectually dishonest. (11+ / 0-)

    Digby claiming that Obama blames US polarizing on Gore...that's complete rubbish.

    Klein...claiming Obama touting his admirable record on civil rights work, on community organizing, on teaching Constitutional law are "attacks"...that's right out of Fox News.

    Yglesia...that Edwards is "running left"...come on...Edwards has the most conservative record while Obama (and Clinton) are the clear work horses for liberal and progressive policy.

    Add in the fact of Obama's opposition to the Iraq war and he is clearly THE most progressive, liberal and effective candidate running.

    Many "progressives" suffer from "Gingrich poisoining", they think the only way to win is to imitate the scorched earth, divide and conquer tactics of the Republicans right wing.

    That is not only wrong but a losing proposition both in getting elected and, more importantly, in moving the country forward.

  •  Al Gore is not running (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    internationaljock

    You can stop holding out.

  •  it's shame this wasn't realized in the summer (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Rolfyboy6, Minerva, Sportin Life

    or spring. All you had to do was read his book to know exactly what he was going to say and do on the campaign.

    Sadly even leftists don't read books.

    I will make them have it. I will stuff their mouths with Gold!--Aneurin Bevan (on the NHS)

    by Salo on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 11:14:18 AM PST

  •  You needn't be frenzied supporter (5+ / 0-)

    (and I'm not) to object to this morning's frenzied criticism.

    Embarrassing departure from reason.

    Let the great world spin for ever down the ringing grooves of change. - Tennyson

    by bumblebums on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 11:14:19 AM PST

  •  Obama is not criticizing candidates (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    joejoejoe, Pithy Cherub

    He's criticizing the Democratic cat psychology. (Ever try to herd them?"

    I guess there's nothing wrong with running against former Democratic candidates

    He's saying that the Dems shouldn't choose a candidate that already has a ~50% negative rating in the polls. That can be debated. But let's be clear. It's not Hillary Clinton's fault aht 15 years of big money efforts have created negative impressions about her in the polls. Her husband grabbed the middle, and that really pissed off the Republicans. She's the "devil incarnate" to people not because she's evil, ignorant, or wrong-headed. They hate her because she has the capability of tromping on their territory and winning the hearts and minds of small town Chamber of Commerce folks--the middle. That's not her fault.

    When Obama suggests that the Democrats should choose a fresh face in the primaries, to say that he is attacking Clinton or Edwards is just plain stupid. He's suggesting that the Democrats should choose a fresh face. That's his Schtich!

    Is it correct? I'm pondering that. But to suggest (as Kos did) that it's a slam against Clinton herself is dishonest. It's a position on a tactic to win an election, plain and simple.

  •  Edwards is my choice for 2008 (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    frandor55, lpeacock

    he has been leading, and has been fair.

    HE is the candidate for change - I am tired of the middle of the road - I want Edwards who has laid out the plans that are best for Middle and lower income families.

    And, I believe he has the steel will power to push the congress in the correct direction.

    I can't say it enough - join me in voting for Edwards, we need the white house back.

    John Edwards is the candidate of HOPE, I will vote for JRE 2008! Join me for real change, not money or media hype, but real change for America.

    by America08 on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 11:15:59 AM PST

    •  How in Hell could anyone be "tired of the (0+ / 0-)

      middle of the road?"  You haven't even seen it since 1999.

      And...

      I believe he has the steel will power to push the congress in the correct direction.

       The operative words in this sentence are "I believe."  Believe whatever you want but there is no evidence what.so.ever that JE pushed anybody or anything when he was IN the congress.  If you think Presidents can bend a Democratic congress to their will, you might want to ask Bill Clinton about that....

      Tell me how you spend your time and how you spend your money -- I'll tell you what your values are.

      by oldpro on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 12:50:44 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  What has been so disappointing is the complete (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Spit, frandor55, Salo, Sportin Life

    lack of discussing with other Dem activists in my area ( near Boston) who support Obama and all the stuff that has exposed troubling anti progressive rhetoric and behavior  by him as a candidate. And as a senator.

    The visual image that is called to mind is that of a bunch of people walking around with their fingers stuck in their ears humming "I can't hear you" relentlessly.

    It seems that there have been a series of "sister souljah" moments and that it is perfectly okay with them. And I am talking about people who I have worked with on progressive campaigns locally.

    •  Because only a few Edwards supporters (0+ / 0-)

      see what isn't there. Regular people are less blinded.

      The history of the left is a history of purists betraying the progressive movement so that they can feel good about their righteous selves.

      by Joe B on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 11:20:15 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Itemized moments that disturb me as a progressive (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Salo, R Rhino from CT4

        voter:
        McClurkin saga and for progressives from MA this was or should ahve been a no-brainer - but will they discuss it? No

        Can't have mandates in health care coverage AND says everyone is covered - again, for MA progressives or those that I know it's a HUH?? moment

        I can bash the recent Dem consultants with the best of them but Obama is just a bad historian - revsionist historian

        I question the missed votes and the present votes - those were opportunities to display progressive beliefs and he passed on them

        going after Krugman - WTF???

        There is plenty I don't like about Clinton her votes and the way she has run her campaign and Edwards past votes do bother me as well but if I have to base my vote on the past 12 months which come with apologies and accepting responsibility and rhetoric NOW then I go with Edwards.

        Gore would have been my first choice hands down

      •  If it's only a few Edwards supporters (0+ / 0-)

        who see something that isn't there, then why not relax?  They'll be proven wrong when Obama wins Iowa and NH and goes on to win the nomination.  Why all the outrage at a little criticism?  Wait a couple of days and you can gloat.

        "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." -- Bertrand Russell

        by Boston Boomer on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 11:59:19 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  does regular people (0+ / 0-)

        mean Edwards supporters need more fiber in their diet? No idea they were so monolithic.

    •  You would think the Patrick experience... (0+ / 0-)

      ... would teach them something.

      Deval Patrick is another humble, smart, charismatic, "new-politics", "tap disaffected voters" kind of guy (who helped write the Obama playbook, or wrote his own based on Obama's books).

      I signed up.  So now am I the only one who expected Patrick to focus on something other than huge subsidies for pharmacos and enabling casino-gambling as his top priorities?

      Open the pod bay doors, HAL.

      by Minerva on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 12:18:03 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Ain't love grand..... (0+ / 0-)

      it's not just blind...it's also deaf.

      Just so ya know...

      Tell me how you spend your time and how you spend your money -- I'll tell you what your values are.

      by oldpro on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 12:52:19 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Agree With You 100% Kos (N/T) (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    HarveyMilk, Luetta
  •  Totally agreed (10+ / 0-)

    people who are rejecting the concerns that this sort of quote brings for some of us -- and it's not Obama's only move that direction -- are utterly missing the point IMO.

    Obama can criticize whomever he'd like, including Gore and Kerry. But to do it from this weird "they weren't bipartisan enough" framework is damaging to our efforts as progressives and is frankly such a flat-out incorrect interpretation of why Gore and Kerry lost their elections that it makes me wonder about Obama's political instincts.

    We're a divided country because the stakes are high. There's nothing particularly wrong with that. This post-partisan crap is really bugging me, and the fact that I see Obama so consistently going that direction with his rhetoric gives me very, very serious pause about his candidacy.

  •  KOS, I call you out and I DEMAND.... (0+ / 0-)

    ...that you go have a cup of coffee on me.

    Let's have a nice calm year everybody.  It's only January 1st and we have a looooong way to go.

    "I am my brother's keeper. I am a Democrat." -- That's your slogan, Democrats.

    by Bensdad on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 11:17:26 AM PST

  •  I've been watching. (11+ / 0-)

    Not just watching the blogs nad news, but watching Obama's appearances and speeches on CSpan etc.  

    He is constantly talking about divisive partisanship, and almost immediately linking to something a DEMOCRAT has said or done.  You can just about bank on it that the few concrete examples he gives about this sadly harmful partisanship will be Democratic ones.

    He rarely says "Boo" about the Republicans.  He is remarkably silent on them, and their part in this.

    Like her or not, Clinton goes after the way the Republicans have trashed this country in her speeches, and goes after them hard.   I heard Dodd today slamming Bush's reign of terror, and I've heard Biden doing it.  

    Obama seems to be running against the (failed, ideological, divisive, etc) Democratic party as a whole, more than he runs against the Republicans.  That makes me VERY uneasy about him.

    This is his spiel:  Yes, you'll be happy when Bush is out of office because he sucks.  But you know who REALLY sucks, just as bad if not worse than Bush?  Those sucking-at-the-teat-of-special-interests,  hyper-partisan, argumentative, anti-religious, fuzzy-headed Liberal Democrats!  That's who!

    So vote for me, because I'm not Bush, but more importantly, I'm not really one of those (nasty divisive) Democrats, either!

    That's it.  That's the message.  He is running as the nominally Democratic version of McCain.  

    Hillary Clinton 2008 - Less sizzle, more steak.

    by SaneSoutherner on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 11:17:51 AM PST

  •  Markos..... (0+ / 0-)

    I am surprised by your front page diary here.  You of all people, stooping to the level of someone like John Aravosis, citing half-truths and innuendos, and lies.

    Why?

    If the people lead, the leaders will follow.

    by Mz Kleen on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 11:18:15 AM PST

  •  I Wake Up From A Late Night..... (7+ / 0-)

    .....Only to find the front page & the recommended diaries in the middle of a flame war. Another typical day at DKos. :)

  •  Negative campaigning (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Drewid

    Let me see, I seem to remember a little rough and tumble between Howard Dean and Dick Gephardt. In 2000 Gore and Bradley really went at it in New York. In 1992 Paul Tsongas, Jerry Brown really went at it. Compared to those years, this has been very tame.

    Well except for maybe this little tag team:

    Mark Penn: COCAINE
    Joe Trippi: Stop mentioning COCAINE. You promised you would stop bringing up COCAINE. But you said COCAINE again.

  •  Irrational diary. This is not about worship (7+ / 0-)

    it's about fairness.

    The history of the left is a history of purists betraying the progressive movement so that they can feel good about their righteous selves.

    by Joe B on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 11:19:13 AM PST

  •  Kos (0+ / 0-)

    the blessing of being undecided. I learned my lesson in 2004. It's best to stay unattached. Besides, in 2004, there were only 2 candidates to vote for by the time the primary reached GA.

    I'm too disgusted right now to think of a sig.

    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 11:19:28 AM PST

  •  Apropos Harold Ford (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RenMin

    People who might be likely to vote for Republican-lite will not do so in the general election when they can vote for classic, full-bodied Republican.  Especially when the skin color of Republican-lite is darker than their own.

    Why hasn't anybody figured this out?
    Of course, there's always the Joementum crowd, but I don't think they'll go for the darker-skinned variety either.

    Easiest Jobs--O'Reilly's Ombudsman, Limbaugh's Fact Checker, Bush Admin Ethics Czar, Inhofe's Environmental Advisor, Coburn's Psychiatrist...

    by soonergrunt on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 11:20:28 AM PST

    •  The darker skin (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      soonergrunt

      variety?

      •  I'm saying, and pardon if I offended, (0+ / 0-)

        that Joementum could only have gotten so many votes from republicans because he was white.  Had he been an African-American or Hispanic-American or anything other than whiter than Irish, he would now be 'former-Senator Lieberman,' no matter how hard he ran to the right.

        I'll try to be a little more conscious of my phrasing in the future.  Please accept my apologies if I offended.

        Easiest Jobs--O'Reilly's Ombudsman, Limbaugh's Fact Checker, Bush Admin Ethics Czar, Inhofe's Environmental Advisor, Coburn's Psychiatrist...

        by soonergrunt on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 06:07:31 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Exactly. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mjd in florida, Tuscany

      Even with the hindsight of six years, could it be said any better?

      •  And who was wrong? And who was right? (0+ / 0-)

        It didn't matter in the thick of the fight.

        Which Democrats supported this war from the start?
        Clinton, Edwards, Biden, Richardson, and Dodd.

        Who opposed this war from the start?
        Obama and Kucinich.

        Since Kucinich's administration would consist mostly of other Santa Claus elves, and his opposition to the war was based on blind pacifism, that really leaves Obama as the ONLY candidate who opposed Iraq from the start.

        His opponents are definitely "attacking from the right(wrong)" on Iraq, Iran, and foreign affairs... especially HRC, when she defends her UMF vote and refuses to accept responsibility for unintended consequences.

  •  I'll say this for you, Markos (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Luetta, flumptytail, R Rhino from CT4

    you're never one to duck a fight. Even today.

    As an undecided who's also got a month to wait before voting, I'm getting out of here.

    Happy New Year to you, Mrs M. and the little M's.

    The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.

    by sidnora on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 11:21:11 AM PST

  •  You said that ------> (0+ / 0-)

    Amazingly enough, none of them walk on water, no matter what their frenzied supporters might think.

    LIFE * I have lived enough of it to know that I am still a pupil.

    by Luetta on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 11:24:13 AM PST

  •  Obama (5+ / 0-)

    He doesn't walk on water, but neither did Gore or Kerry and neither does Edwards or Clinton.  And it's such a stretch to say he "slammed" Gore and Kerry - his argument is that he's not a polarizing candidate.  This is a strategy for winning the election, but it hardly suggests that he's a conservative.  And on foreign policy he's been much more "liberal" than Clinton or Edwards.  Honestly, Clinton's foreign policy team scares me a hell of a lot more than Obama's rhetoric.

  •  Whew. (6+ / 0-)

    Frenzied supporters? This is a new kind of attack. I have seen it mostly on this site. You see it strung out in every anti Obama diary now...Hubris, overzealous, walks on water.....what the Hell?

    Enthusiastic? Me? Guilty. Well, I'm as enthusiastic as an sixty-eight year old yellow dog democrat can be. White, southern, female, retired. Not Obama's
    demographic. Maybe not. But there are more of us than people think.

    We know very little of rock stars, but I would think there is no public figure less like a rock star  than the infinitely calm, soft spoken Senator from Illinois.

    Frenzied? Not likely. The closest I get to frenzied is a walk down a country lane.

    Hubris? No, I'm a pessimist. I've watched good dems lose for a long time.

    Overzealous? Well, no by bloss pressure doesn't allow for that.

    The walks on water thing was funny. When the opposition goes far enough it becomes a joke, even for us.

    Enthusiastic. Well, sure. That's the whole point of supporting a candidate.

  •  GOP Hyperpartisanship and Politics as Theater (0+ / 0-)

    One of the emerging storylines of Campaign '08 is so-called hyperpartisanship, the bitter and increasingly divisive conflict between Democrats and Republicans that is said to be fueling cynicism - and apathy - among voters. In Iowa, Barack Obama proclaims that he will transcend partisan cleavages, while John Edwards vows to fight. Meanwhile, thw Washington Post reports that New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg will meet next week with prominent figures from both parties to encourage the 2008 candidates to form a "government of national unity." But lost in the cries of hyperpartisanship is the undeniable fact the Republican Party is almost exclusively responsible for it, aided and abetted by an "infotainment" media that has transformed politics into theater.

    For the details, see:
    "That's Entertainment: Hyperpartisanship and Politics as Theater."

  •  YOUR Obama close (and HillaryWorld's) (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    askew, dss, Mojo Jojo

    Let's see: wake up, read about the DMR poll, then blunder into posting Clinton Camp talking points with a grossly misleading, screaming headline. What next? "The Obama Close". So you dig yourself into a hole and keep on digging. A real working man.

  •  Senator Obama the Uniter (0+ / 0-)
    1. Privatize social security
    1. Unions should not spend money on any candidate
    1. Clinton responsible for Bhutto ``assassination''
    1. Skips the Iran vote
    1. Consults the ``Repub'' mayor and Iraq war

      cheerleader Bloomberg-rumored considering him
      for VP job

    1. Will not go to Jena for civil rights march

    Maybe he will consider nomination of the Repub Party-that is the party which nominates Uniters-in-Chief.

     

  •  candidate diaries (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    joejoejoe

    Maybe kos's candidate diaries should be limited to the right side of the page. I try to avoid them, but when they are fp'd it's difficult.

  •  Thanks! :-) (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Rolfyboy6, The House

    Amazingly enough, none of them walk on water, no matter what their frenzied supporters might think.

    That is a necessary reminder!

    (¯`*._(¯`*._(-IMPEACH-)_.*´¯)_.*´¯)

    by NonnyO on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 11:26:22 AM PST

  •  So, (5+ / 0-)

    Markos, Digby, Ezra Klein, and Atrios (among others) are all dishonest hacks who have willfully misinterpreted Barack Obama?  Every single of them?  Is that right?  

    Flinging shit at Gore, Kerry, trial lawyers, and organized labor?  All big misunderstandings.

    I think I do understand....

  •  Wow... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Rolfyboy6

    Not being blinded by candidate worship, it's easier to sniff out the bullshit. And you have to have your head stuck deep in the sand to deny that Obama is trying to close the deal by running to the Right of his opponents. And call me crazy, but that's not a trait I generally appreciate in Democrats, no matter how much it might set the punditocracy's hearts a flutter.

    Wow.

    Just...wow.

    "The revolution's just an ethical haircut away..." Billy Bragg

    by grannyhelen on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 11:27:28 AM PST

  •  I just sent a letter to the Boston Globe... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    R Rhino from CT4

    While I think Obama is a fine person, as is Hillary, we need a new paradigm in this country, and it doesn't include playing footsie with the corporations who are destroying it.that's why I'm supporting Edwards. And the diary on the rec list yesterday finally gave proof to the Edwards media blackout. Imagine how well he'd do with fair coverage? Anyway, the letter:

    Imagine my surprise when I found an article on John Edwards in today's Boston Globe. Edwards has always been in the top tier but garnered scant attention from the media, including the Globe. Voluminous column inches devoted to Clinton and Obama, with scant mention of Edwards. Even the top four Republican candidates are given more equal time. Why the virtual media black out on Edwards?
    From the article it is plain to see Edwards is rustling some feathers. It all but dismisses his candidacy as being "too populist," with little substance. The negative tone of the article can only bring this reader to one conclusion – Edwards is the candidate the corporate powers are most afraid of. He is the candidate who will end their gluttony.
    His message of corporate greed resonates because the average American can see and feel what he's talking about. Many Americans are one paycheck away from disaster, and home foreclosures are at record highs (your local locksmith - is doing booming business locking up all those foreclosed homes).
    From medical care to the media to the military/industrial complex, corporations have America in a death grip. Edwards knows it’s time to return power to The People.

    They already published a letter from me on Sunday, so this probably will never see the light of day. But I've been ticked that my so-called liberal Boston Globe has been so blatantly unfair to Edwards in its coverage.

    "The truth shall set you free, but first it will piss you off!" - Gloria Steinem

    by MA Liberal on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 11:27:40 AM PST

  •  Meta-comment on candidate wars (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    oldpro, joejoejoe

    If you set up a blog whose premise is that every problem can be solved by electing more democrats -- and then you amend that to electing "more and better democrats" -- then people will tend to treat nominations as a matter of life and death.

    Which candidate is the "real" democrat?  Which candidate will have the longest coattails?  Which candidate would be able to herd the Democratic cats on Capitol Hill most effectively?

    These, in some sense, become the only questions that matter.

    You can tinker with the polarization at the margins, but in the context of a blog with dKos's premises, you can't do much to limit it.

    "Run, comrade, the old world is behind you!" -- Situationist graffito, 1968

    by Pesto on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 11:27:45 AM PST

  •  Obama in a nutshell: (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mainer, xndem

    A philosophic liberal

    who

    uses moderate rhetoric

    to

    attract independents and fed-up GOPers

    to form

    a large enough governing majority

    to enact

    liberal reforms such as National Health Insurance, carbon tax, pregressive taxation etc.

    eom

    We need to shrink the power of the Health Insurance lobby until it's weak enough to drown in a bathtub

    by Sam I Am on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 11:28:44 AM PST

  •  Nobody in Iowa gives a bleep about this (4+ / 0-)

    right now, which is the funny part.  I mean the actual constituents, not the bloggers.

    Crap I hope you don't write a suck up piece to HClinton next or I'm going to have to ban myself for 48 hours lest I reply.

  •  I'm Still Undecided (0+ / 0-)

    I've been disappointed by too many politicians too many times to take them at face value, or to put much faith in any campaign rhetoric.  I seem to remember a lot of politicians promising before 2006 that they'd do whatever necessary to get the troops out of Iraq.  

  •  Obama will become President (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    xndem

    And you'll all have to deal with it.  I can't wait until he wins Iowa and NH so I can tell all you Obama haters to shut up and support him.

    Of course the haters will find some reason to hate him because that's what haters do.

  •  Credibility suicide. (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    askew, arielle, dss, Drewid, Mojo Jojo

    This is the second diary where Kos is trying to shove bullshit down our throats.

    Markos, you're being intellectually dishonest and you know it.  Your readers are smarter than this.  You're hacking to members of your own team, and they're not liking it.

    Please stop while you can and take these two misleading diaries down.  If this was done to HRC or Edwards, we'd call you out just the same.  

  •  I guess Rupert Murdoch bought Daily Kos - - (0+ / 0-)

    no other possible explanation - LOL (snark)!

    Oprah? Nah, I'm voting however Jerry Springer tells me to.

    by Barry in MIA on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 11:33:45 AM PST

  •  May I really call you crazy? (0+ / 0-)

    I wouldn't go that far...but I think some front page Obama diaries have jumped to condemn Obama without having the full context of a quote.

    I realize that saves time but generally it's a bad idea. It's happened to all of the candidates, even to Elizabeth Edwards and Michelle Obama, but usually in the traditional media, not here. The words of the quote are true but taken out of context sound like a vicious statement. When the full context is there it completely changes it.

    Even if I don't like the candidate I wait, look for the fuller picture.

    In real life I am sometimes accused of being too willing to see things in a positive light. I don't think it's a problem not to jump to assume the worst though.

    I remain troubled by the "and that's why I'm not a trial lawyer" hysteria. Even if the full context turns out to be "Trial lawyers are greedy vultures and that's why...." I am still troubled by the mass bashing because nobody knew it was that context.

    I don't doubt the quote but those words themselves tell us nothing. Do we think he was stupid enough to just add them on after a spiel of how good he is?

  •  The day is still young yet. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Pithy Cherub, Drewid

    It's possible for a few more blazing front page I'm Against Obama type stories before the New Year Day ends...

    You are a child of the universe; no less than the trees and the stars... Desiderata

    by byteb on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 11:34:39 AM PST

  •  Who WIll Edwards Pick as his VP? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jethropalerobber

    It ain't gonna be Obama. Maybe Jean Sibelius or Janet Napolitano?

    Don't Mormons believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers? -Mike Huckabee, 12/07

    by easong on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 11:35:12 AM PST

  •  the Democrats we elected last time (0+ / 1-)
    Recommended by:
    Hidden by:
    shpilk

    shows you can't believe anything they say.

    supporting Barack is progressive.

    Supporting Clinton or Edwards is not.

  •  But what if I play bass, lose 100 pounds (0+ / 0-)

    AND run 'several' marathons?

    Our field kicks the (R) field's butt no matter what.

    ;)

    ::::::

    ...Operation Rota is Closed... New Blog Coming Soon With Pictures!...

    by nowheredesign on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 11:37:13 AM PST

  •  I am a progressive. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Rolfyboy6, internationaljock, Unduna

    I want a progressive candidate.  I want health insurance that I can afford.  I want my children to receive great educations without bankrupting me.  I have been a democrat since I turned 18 in 1977.  I have compromised way too many times and so has my party.  I want a party that shares my beliefs and has the balls to stand up for them without continually pandering. I want, but it is obvious it will never happen.  We can't  even discuss candidates amongst ourselves without dissolving into a puddle of unruly 8th graders.  It is primary season.  Now is the time to vet the candidates, and choose what are the most important issues for each of us before we vote. None of the candidates is perfect.  All have made mistakes.  I am so tired of all the cheerleading  and counter-cheering. I just want a democrat who isn't ashamed of being a democrat!

    Not all who wander are lost. J.R.R. Tolkien

    by temptxan on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 11:38:45 AM PST

  •  Come on, Barack is nothing like Holy Joe (0+ / 0-)

    or Diane Feinstein or Hillary when a war is up for a vote.

    He knows that all you need to do is blow the dog whistle and Republicans come running. How has he run to the right? He said Social Security was a crisis, health insurance mandates won't work, and he implied trial lawyers are greedy.

    That is a lot better than most Democrats in Congress who vote with Republicans over and over.  

    •  He just skips the war vote (0+ / 0-)

      Yep, that is exactly what he did for the Iran vote.
      And yes, he is not as right-wing as Joe, Hillary and Diane; but he is still right-of-center on all major issues. The only thing he is left-of-center is his healthcare plan. And about his opposition to Iraq war, who kows how he might have voted when it came before the senate.

  •  The difference (0+ / 0-)

    The reason I am an Obama supporter is that he is the only one who is not taking money from special interests.  Edwards is allowing unions to 527 for him and refuses to ask them directly to stop - he says he wishes they wouldn't but $1 million is $1 million and he refuses.  Hillary has been bought and paid for by the same people who got us into Iraq and want the war to continue because they are making lots of money on it.  
    We need a new start with someone who has personal integrity.  You old line progressives who litmus test for your piece of the pie are destroying the U.S. just like the war mongers.  
    We are spending $10 billion a month in Iraq and the money interests are lining up for Dems just like they line up for Reps.  

    •  Asking them directly? (0+ / 0-)

      Edwards is allowing unions to 527 for him and refuses to ask them directly to stop

      He has communicated repeatedly that he wants them to stop.  Asking them directly is illegal.

      The pro-HRC mailers from AFSCME attacking Obama's healthcare plan using Edwards' quotes is another tool of the triangulator.

      Democracy isn't something you have, it's something you do! "Granny D"

      by chuck in NH on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 12:24:42 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Huh? How is this possibly a true statement? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      oldpro, R Rhino from CT4

      The reason I am an Obama supporter is that he is the only one who is not taking money from special interests

      Have you read his list of supporters and their contributions? His PAC's?  

      What does "not taking" mean to you?  He doesn't physically grub up a handful of coins from some particular special interest representatives but a check to a PAC or something he never physically touched "doesn't count"?

      Because he most certainly has taken lots and lots of lobbyists' checks in dollars. Just look at the FEC filing reports.

      You looking for some respect from me? What have you done to make life around here for others a little better and earn your privileges?

      by Pete Rock on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 12:25:01 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Mmmm, litmus pie. (0+ / 0-)

      I want a slice of that!

  •  Esra Klein (0+ / 0-)

    "On the down side, some of [Obama's] closing-weeks attacks are a bit, err, worrisome."

    If this has been going on for few weeks, why are we hearing about it now in the final two days?

    I smeall a rat and it ain't Obama.

    truth, kindness, endurance

    by CupofTea on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 11:40:06 AM PST

  •  This is BS now (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Mojo Jojo

    I haven't thrown my lot in, but it seems there's an adoption of Right-wing talking points on the front page:

    Reagan's 11th Commandment: Speak no ill of [Democrats]

    if you want to fight the Power, you have to be the power - Chuck D, Revolverlution elections matter

    by decitect on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 11:41:02 AM PST

  •  Kos the former Republican (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    joejoejoe, dss, Mojo Jojo

    For someone "who loves all our candidates", I really don't see that much love coming from Kos lately.  Maybe he has become as cynical as the rest of us.  

    Certainly none of these guys have earned my vote yet.

     Then quit feeding us this line of bs about how great our candidates our.  You are certainly being a downer to those of us who are supporting one of our candidates.

    "The Only Thing We Have to Fear Is Fear Itself" - Franklin Delano Roosevelt

    by djbender on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 11:41:09 AM PST

  •  The Cult of Obama (6+ / 0-)

    Yet another avalanche of posts which demonstrate that Obama attracts not supporters, or even fans, but worshippers.

    To them, he is not the new flavor, but the new savior, the eloquent secular preacher who will wash away our sins and bind our wounds.

    After all, is he not charming, is he not handsome (and mutiracial,too), is he not educated (at Harvard, no less), is he not buffed?

    And hasn't he repented his past mistakes, and generated a beautiful and loving family?  And has he not promised to bring us together?  Indeed, he has, and he has, and he has.

    True, his resume is a little thin; and true, his most recent stirring victory was over a certifiable proto-fascist lunatic; and true, his ideas are not only a bit slippery but more than a bit conventional;
    and true, he is just as  willing to play the race card as Ms. Clinton is play gender card; and true, he appears to think that the Republican Party--a party that since 1994 has redefined greed, bigotry and hatred as virtues--can be seduced into helping him govern; and true, he is content--happy?--to echo that party's talking points.  So what, says his worshippers, he speaks the truth.  Every day, every word. And woe to those who doubt him.

    And we believe, they cry. Right on!

    In case anyone's forgotten, another herd of worshippers who believed elected George W.
    Bush--handsome, charming, educated (at Yale, no less), buffed, who repented his past mistakes, generated a loving family, and promised
    to bring us together.

    Yeah, right on.  

  •  I am not supporting Obama (0+ / 0-)

    While I am still undecided between Edwards and Hillary, although leaning toward Hillary, I will not vote for Obama. I have not been impressed with his campaign.

  •  Lemme see if I've got this right (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MoDem, baskil

    When Obama takes the high road it's a sign of weakness, indicating that he'd sell us back to the UK for a proper cup of tea.  When decides to play rough it's "pleeeasseee don't hurt me!"

  •  I'm a big Digby fan, (4+ / 0-)

    but her comment is absurd.  No where in that excerpted quote (from an unnamed event source) does Obama claim polarization was because of Gore or Kerry.  It's a really, really, really, big stretch to put those words into Obama's mouth.

    "If you are the big tree, we are the small axe"

    by peaceandprogress on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 11:43:44 AM PST

    •  It's a huge, ugly stretch. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      djbender, Mojo Jojo

      The blogosphere will believe any negative spin about Obama.  There's absolutely no evidence that Obama even said this, and if he did, there is no evidence of an attack.  The words are about campaign strategy.

      I challenge all the Obama supporters here to give the same level of scrutiny to Edwards' and Hillary's words and all the rumors surrounding their campaigns that kos is giving to Obama's, and then to pressure Kos to front page every word that can be spun as a transgression against another Democrat.  

      There is something else going on here.

      "We are in a defining moment in our history. Our nation is at war. The planet is in peril." Barack Obama, Nov.10, 2007

      by keeplaughing on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 12:09:27 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  So I'm supposed to be convinced (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Mojo Jojo

    because several bloggers from the bullshit Townhouse email list are willfully misinterpreting a comment and writing bullshit posts about it?  If you're going to coordinate your attacks should be a little less obvious about it.  

    We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them. - A. Einstein

    by clonecone on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 11:44:04 AM PST

  •  It's a generational gap thing (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mainer, Bob Roberts, Mojo Jojo
    There is a general feeling among those younger than 35 that this kind of ultra-partisanship, trench warfare--the politics that has dominated the past twenty years and the politics that has decimated the Democratic Party has got to go. Obama represents that. That's all he's saying, and good for him for saying it.

    Further, we shouldn't confuse being able to agreeably disagree with caving to Republicans. We shouldn't confuse allowing, seeking out, and occasionally listening to opposing view points with capitulation.

    If we go down the road of, "You're either with us, or against us," this country is doomed to another twenty years of bickering where nothing substantive gets done. There is a unique power in arguing from a liberal point of view in a way that frames the issue as bi-partisan. Since the Republican party has pretty much entirely surrendered its ability to do that, Democrats would be right to do the same. (Example: SCHIP).

    Further, Obama appeals really well to moderate independents and liberal Republicans. Both Iowa and New Hampshire essentially have open caucuses/primaries (same day registration in Iowa/truly open in New Hampshire). Those voters aren't going to be attracted to the polls by partisan red meat. The time for that has passed. Obama's building a coalition and strengthening the Democratic Party. If we nominate the candidate (Clinton) that 52% of the country says they won't vote for, we're doomed to another failure. 2008 is not 2004 is not 2000. In your face, divisive politics isn't going to work this time around. Our best shot is Obama and what he's saying.  

    •  This may be about the independents in NH (0+ / 0-)

      more than anything. Obama may be able to get away with a loss in Iowa, but he really needs to beat HC in NH. The independents may do it for him. In the best of all worlds, he wins both Iowa and NH, and then it's just a straight HC vs BO battle.

      The minutiae of the political struggle of the day threatens to overwhelm something important about Obama. Every now and then the country gets a President who enlarges the Office of the Presidency, who transcends the Office and becomes an important agent because of his or her moral, intellectual and personal stature. I have no doubt that Clinton is a tremendously capable professional who easily has all the skills to be a good President. And the same goes, to a lesser extent in my view, for Edwards. But some people hear a music in the world that others, however accomplished they may be, just don't. Such rarities are borne to great heights because they hear that music, and they sing a new song as a result. Obama just has that music in him. So, whatever he is saying about any one issue, it cannot obscure his enormous potential as a truly transcendent President.

      I am thinking about the first campaign of Abraham Lincoln. If you went through his positions and statements on the issues of the day, you might be very surprised that he ever reached the White House, let alone became the greatest President ever. The central issue of the election, as always, is character. Does this person have the stature to lead a very big, very diverse country? I am beginning to think that an answer is emerging to our question.

      •  Heard that before (0+ / 0-)

        I'm not convinced enough to say he's the second coming of Lincoln. But I will say, at this point, we really should take a chance. The "safe" people have run this country into the ground.

        •  I was not attempting to put (0+ / 0-)

          Obama on a pedestal with Lincoln, but it's fair to say that things said in a campaign for tactical reasons are often not indicative of the character of a Presidency. A better example may be George Bush who made many conciliatory and apparently intelligent comments about uniting the country and international humility. But it was Bush's character that really told the tale ultimately, and you can see it in his whole life, a narcissistic, coddled, loser. And that was what ultimately determined the course of his tenure in the WH.

    •  Only half of this is factual. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      dallasdave

      Obama's building a coalition and strengthening the Democratic Party.

      He is building a coalition ,all right but strengthening the Democratic Party isn't part of what he is doing.  Offering any and all issues as subject to compromise and change to what the Repubs supposedly want means the Dems don't have anything left to stand on.

      That sounds like ...Unity 08. Oh,wait, Joe Lieberman is campaigning with McCain.  Bloomberg's operatives and friends helped Joe L in the Senate race against the Dems own candidate Lamont.

      Putting up policies,personnel, projects aginst the Dems seems to be a unifying strategy?

      Maybe, just maybe it is all about what gets "me" advanced, what gets "me" a cushier job,whatever gets me a favored position with the bipartisan crew. maybe Unity 08 is the winning way. No need for the democrats anymore.Otherwise  please, explain that this is totally wrong and really the Democrats are left with a winning position on all the key issues the Repubs have OBSTRUCTED like 64 filibusters and numerous vetoes since Nov 2006.

      You looking for some respect from me? What have you done to make life around here for others a little better and earn your privileges?

      by Pete Rock on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 12:15:18 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  It's bringing people into our party (0+ / 0-)

        How is building a bigger party not strengthening it?

        •  We're already here. And we're here because (0+ / 0-)

          we want today's Republicans shut down, not negotiated with. We need to take drastic action to undo the damage these thugs and plutocrats have done to this country, and making nice ain't the way to do it--they'll fight us every step of the way regardless of how "statesmanlike" (or naive and weak as they see it) we are.

          The modern Republican party is a cancer. You don't negotiate with a malignancy--you cut it out.

          I voted for fricking Reagan and 41, but I'm here, I'm pissed, I'm scared, and I want these f***er's asses kicked back to the boardrooms, thinktanks, cults and doublewides they came from.

          Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid.
          --Basil King, Canadian novelist, 1859-1928

          by dallasdave on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 10:31:43 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  DELETE (6+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Detlef, Rolfyboy6, dss, Salo, flumptytail, rigso

    DELETE THIS WEBSITE OMG ...  Heh.

    No, Obama is not perfect.  He is obviously miles better than any of the Republicans running and would be a pretty good president, if elected.

    But by running to the right of the Democratic Party base on economic and social issues -- and by purposefully pushing buttons designed to excite Republican voters about his candidacy -- he is naturally going to raise a lot of hackles, both in the  blogosphere and among traditional party activists.

    You are supposed to run left for the primaries and caucuses, because you are playing to your base.  Then, you bring the campaign back to the center for the general election, when you are trying to skim off whatever small number of swing voters you need to win.

    I'm totally confused as to why Obama is tacking right now, instead of later.

    And the issues he is choosing to dip right on have me shaking my head.

    I am a retired candidate diarist.

    by bink on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 11:45:18 AM PST

  •  Damn! (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Rolfyboy6, djbender, flumptytail

    What an amazing statement!

    Amazingly enough, none of them walk on water, no matter what their frenzied supporters might think.

    Such a blanket attack on all Democrats could lead to a troll rating.  

    I am convinced my candidate walks on water, help the blind to walk and the lame to see!

    The wise are driven by reason; ordinary minds, by experience; the stupid, by necessity, and brutes by instinct. Cicero

    by MoDem on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 11:48:47 AM PST

  •  I thought the point of the blogs was to NOT (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    joejoejoe, dss, SCharb, Mojo Jojo

    be as fucking blatantly stupid as the "MSM" pundits??

    At this point, none of you are doing a very good job of it.

    Honestly? I can't tell if you guys are all willingly pawns of Clinton's campaign at this point, or if you're just THAT FUCKING idiotic that you can't see the strategy that you're playing a part in.

    See - Clinton is down in Iowa. She's been down in Iowa because she had written Iowa off because she thought she was Mrs. Inevitability. She didn't "need" to win Iowa because she was going to beat everyone else so handily everywhere else.

    Well, oops - bad strategy on the part of the Clinton campaign. They should really stop making so many goddamned mistakes if they want to win.

    So...what does she do? She props up everyone BUT Obama here. Let's see...her best option is Edwards. If Edwards wins Iowa he won't win anywhere else and then Clinton has at least a 50/50 shot of picking up NH and SC and NV and then picking up the nomination from there.

    So you play directly into her campaign strategy. Now - is that because Jerome told you to? Or is it because Jerome is spreading these "stories" by email to groups of you? I don't know. I really don't. But whatever the reason is - if Clinton wins...as far as I'm concerned you have lost EVERY bit of ability to complain about a goddamned thing she does because you have enabled it.

    Once again you're upset that Obama doesn't pander to you. Once again you are too blind to see the candidate that offers real change standing in front of your face.

    This place has really gone to shit lately. There are racist asshole trolls left to roam. People who made DISGUSTING gang bang comments several months ago and should have been banned then are making them again! And they're STILL fucking here to do it. I don't have a lot of time on my hands these days...and I'm wondering why I bother to spend a fucking speck of it at this place when all this is is an amateur re-hashing of pundit smears. If I wanted pundit smears, I'd read them in the goddamned WaPo or the NYT. There's a reason I don't read that shit anymore. And there's a reason I haven't read your shit in a long time.

    I think it's time for a fucking break.

    I'm a hopemonger.

    by Elise on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 11:54:17 AM PST

    •  It saddens me to see this (0+ / 0-)

      What has happened Elise?  The level of disillusionment expressed in your post should serve as a grave warning that things are not going well at Daily Kos.

      Out of respect for all your contributions to this blog I hope that everyone here, including Markos, will take note of your tone and see the toll that the cancerous negativity (stoked by the front page far too often) is having on the members.

      •  The thing is - this isn't the first time I've (0+ / 0-)

        said something like this.

        This summer I expressed the SAME point. Things were getting out of hand - trolls were getting out of control and people were uprating absolutely appalling comments over candidate partisanship. And sure - there were a few Obama people doing it...but for the most part WE put a stop to them. We either told them to quit or they ended up auto-banned (because we didn't uprate crap just because they were fellow Obama supporters).

        Things haven't been going well at Daily Kos for over 6 months. I've come close to leaving several times. The blackface diary by harveymilk and his protection from being banned was just about the last straw for me. I've cut back on my time here since then and I've pretty much decided that I just don't give a fuck about community moderation - because it's so obvious to me that the admins certainly don't.

        They banned and took away ratings from "every" group of candidate supporters - not because it was necessary, but because they wanted to appear "fair". They took ratings away from people who had never abused them because they don't pay enough attention to what actually goes on. They banned people who were threatened and allowed people to stay who were doing the threatening.

        There are users here who have made absolutely repulsive comments about gang rape - and who did the admins ban? The person who was the victim of the gang rape comment. Who is still here? The gang rape comment-maker.

        This place is a fucking JOKE these days. The admins claim to know that candidate supporters are using email to communicate. Well, duh. Someone should point out to them that it's blatantly obvious that THEY are using email to communicate with campaigns and with other blogs - and it's clear what "they" decide will be the message of the day. Clearly the message this week is "defeat Obama". They've done everything in their power to attempt it...including lying and writing hack crap that's on par with the same people they've been complaining about for 5 years.

        If this is where blogs are going...I think it's safe to say that the days of their influencing anything won't be extended much longer.

        Yeah. I'm pissed.

        I'm a hopemonger.

        by Elise on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 10:35:30 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Ugh, Obama was my second choice for (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dallasdave, Christopher Liberal

    a long time, but now i'm a ABB (Anyone but Barack)voter. I don't think he'd be a good nominee at all, I just don't, i think this uniter frame will come crashing around him when we get into the real issues, and guess what? The repugs will still not back you on anything despite the rhetoric.

    •  God, I know (0+ / 0-)

      If Markos says it, well, then it must be true.

      Obama is obviously a GOP-pandering shill who only passed health care reform, legislation requiring video-taped confessions, and government transparency requirements in order to fake-out the progressives. His anti-war speech in Oct 2002? All part of the grand plan. What he REALLY wants is to privatize social security, eliminate employer-covered health insurance, keep our troops in Iraq until 2050, and bomb Iran. Anyone can see it, it's plain as day.

      And anyone who says you can even speak to a non-Democrat -- to say nothing of WORKING with them -- is obviously a mole for the Republicans.

  •  The crash cart is really out for Hillary today. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    modemocrat

    It's not Obama's fault Hillary has high negatives.

    Obama is also under no obligation to pretend that Hillary does not have high negatives.  

    But the blogosphere's lining up to save Hillary, 'cause that's what's most important.

  •  WOW (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dss, Mojo Jojo

    Two Obama smear diaries by the site proprietor in one day.

    No wonder he tool away TU status from so many Obama supporters.

    PEACE, through SUPERIOR DIPLOMACY!

    by Walt starr on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 12:02:46 PM PST

  •  I wonder if Obama will recant now. (0+ / 0-)

    Maybe he'll issue a statement to indirectly rebut this argument.

    Maybe he'll have his writers soften the tone a little.

    Or maybe he'll do the right thing and ignore fickle, self-important nouveaux pundits testing the range of their influence.

    Excuse me while I get some fresh air.

    I am endlessly vindicated by the unfolding of history.

    by Rob Cole on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 12:06:45 PM PST

    •  Total BS (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Mojo Jojo

      Kerry announced early on in his campaign that he was effectively writing off the entire South.  In other words, a strict adherence to the red state -- blue state dichotomy.  No 50 state strategy for him.

      Suddenly, those that have been in the forefront of criticism of this strategy have done a 180 when their least favorite candidate chimes in that the strategy is a loser.

      Do I hear the sounds of panic in light of the DMR poll?

      Every four years, there is one candidate who runs in the primary who seeks to appeal to others beyond just the traditional Democratic interests groups -- Gary Hart did this pretty effectively in 1984, and Bill Bradley looked pretty strong doing this in 2000 -- until enough Democratic big wigs decide to go all out and defeat this candidate out of a belief that the nominee can only be someone who buys into the traditional pitch to the Democratic interest groups.

      Looks like the same thing is happening here to Obama. Maybe this time it won't work.

      •  By the way, (0+ / 0-)

        I'm an Edwards guy myself, though far less attached to any in the field right at this point in history.

        The above is a petulant sucker punch, not a nuanced late-hour disavowal of a candidate.

        Some fucking balls. Or maybe just ego.

        I am endlessly vindicated by the unfolding of history.

        by Rob Cole on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 12:33:47 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  kos, son, my oh my. (7+ / 0-)

    you are getting your ass handed to you on your own platter.

    instead of being brave and backing your horse, the blogosphere decided to sit it out after being disatrously shown wrong about dean.

    you have revealed yourself.  you never were going to back this horse.  you or your mainstream.

    luckily, ppl on this site have brains, thoughts and can think.  when it smells foul, it is foul.

    this is straight up foul.

    you are as we call in our community.  "sometimey".  and that means listen or trust with a long handled spoon.

    you are showing no principle here son, and you and everyone else know that obama is not talking on gop talking points.  sorry, that your candidate may not be a winner in iowa.  he/she just did not do enough.

    this country is tired of fighting the same old shit.  i thought you were better than this!!!  the old politics and partisanship, bitter as it is, history.  we need to move forward in this country with forward thinking.

    you are better than this.  and it shows that you have to put up a second diary to pump up your sadly first.

    lastly, this site is looked at by the MSM all the time for media narrative.  this won't be it.  who do you think is laughing at this now?

  •  Whatever. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    easong, Pithy Cherub, dss, Rob Cole

    I'll get you, my pretty.....and your little dog too.

    by chicago minx on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 12:13:13 PM PST

  •  strange how that works (3+ / 0-)

    let me first say, I am not a supporter of any candidate yet although I am not a Clinton supporter.

    but...

    and you have to have your head stuck deep in the sand to deny that Obama is trying to close the deal by running to the Right of his opponents.

    Hmm...interesting...

    Help me understand who is more likely to run to the right in the general...Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama?

    If Obama is espousing RW talking points, I am definitely disappointed. That being said, I will take talking points over RW votes in an effort to obtain the Connecticut for Lieberman/Bloomberg/Villager approval.  Somehow voting for Kyl/Lieberman and other such votes seems more like a run to the right that these statements.  

    Actions speak louder than words, and if people are going to make their decision based on the these types of statements, Democrats deserve what they get.  These posts sound more like typical talk radio attacks than a real discussion of qualifications.  

    This is your last chance people.  It is time to be serious, to coin a term.

    First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you...then you win -- Mahatma Gandhi

    by justmy2 on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 12:17:43 PM PST

  •  Now Raw Story picks up Obama Slams Gore (6+ / 0-)

    story developing. Drudge techniques are at work here, blowing up nothing into a story and spreading it.

    Who controls the past, controls the future. Who controls the present, controls the past. George Orwell

    by moon in the house of moe on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 12:18:20 PM PST

  •  Hey, it's kos' site (3+ / 0-)

    and he can say whatever he wants...and he can belittle the most progressive candidate in the top three...that is his right.
    I look for a breaking story from Kos soon that obama farted and therefore is coming from the right on gashouse emissions.

    Obama supporters...do not take this guy seriously anymore..he is with taylor marsh,armstrong and stoller now.. they decided their guy walked on water and now will try to sink the leader..nothing to see here.

    •  Most progressive candidate .... (0+ / 0-)

      ... adopts right wing talking points, sweeps to victory in Iowa caucuses as low information voters swamp actual Democrats.

      Apparently, Hawkjt, you're fine with this.

      [x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

      by lambertstrether on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 12:22:35 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  low info voters? (0+ / 0-)

        collectively, Iowa voters are the highest info voting block you will ever see. Hell, they have each not only seen the candidates multiple times in person but asked their questions right to their face. You do not get higher info voters.

        By every measure Obama has voted more progressivel than anyone other than dennis.
        I want a progressive that votes his convictions..unlike edwards who voted like a repub in the senate and now purports to be a holy progressive...how low info do you have to be to swallow his ''new '' look ,hook line and sinker?

        Action counts... words are easy.
        Obama voted progressive..edwards talks progressive..I will take the guy that votes.
        And is anti-war also..not sponsoring invasions into iraq like edwards.

        •  Being against Iraq as a state assemblyman (0+ / 0-)

          or whatever is a pretty low risk maneuver, so give me a man who admits his wrong and learns from it, rather than a man who tries to parley a low-risk speech into an earth-shattering event. Kudos to Obama for getting it right, but it's one factor among many.

          A far as Obama's legislative record, all I've heard brought forward is:

          1. The Transparency in government act, which is a rather weak basis for the whole "bring everyone to the table" rhetoric, and:
          1. His vote against the trial lawyers on CAFA -- where he went with the AEI's position against virtually every other Democrat.

          As far as not being a progressive -- Edwards got a little girl who got her guts sucked out by a defective product the life time care she needed by suing the corporation that sold the product. That's not "progessive"? It also makes me feel pretty good about trial lawyers, by the way.

          [x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

          by lambertstrether on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 02:53:00 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  You appear sporadically, (0+ / 0-)

    yell a pox on all their houses, and then disappear again.  

    IMO, the reason you won't come out and play is because you know Obama is all talk and no walk, and it is pissing you off.  You want to support him, but your gut keeps telling you that you're betting on the wrong guy.  

    Obama hasn't changed one bit since he supported Lieberman against Lamont and came through here lecturing us parent to child on the Roberts appointment to the Supreme Court.

    And then there was this follow up him. The comments in parentheses are obviously mine.  

    I also agree that it is the job of Democratic elected officials to help shape public opinion, and not just respond passively to opinion (that would be our opinions and not his opinion -  in his opinion) thats been aggressively shaped by the Republicans PR machinery (because we - not he -  are too stupid).  I am simply suggesting, based on my experience (SFU you politically ignorant constituent), that people will respond (here's the hope part again) to a powerfully progressive agenda when its couched (sugar coated, manipulated, lied about) in optimism (kumbayah), pragmatism (here the attack the Democrats from the right part) and our shared American ideals (ta-da!).

    I am so surprised that you are surpized.  He told you who he was, and that he ultimately didn't care what we thought and that we need to just SFU and leave it to the adults.  

    I'm telling you.  Edwards is the only one who is reaching out to us.  We're pissed.  He's pissed.  America's pissed.  Look at the job approval ratings. :')

  •  Today's attacks on Obama ... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    africa, citizenx, little liberal

    ... have been demoralizing to read. I haven't decided on a candidate.  I like Obama.  I like Edwards. I'm "meh" about Hilary.  But I care deeply about politics and electing Democrats.  

    But this shit really turns me off.  It's petty and it's stupid.

  •  I agree with Kos (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    R Rhino from CT4

    Please don't hero worship any candidate.  They are all just basically politicians who will say anything and everything to get elected.  And they all know what games to play in order to get elected.  Be informed and pick your favorite choice knowing that we are electing a politician not a god.

  •  Hillary is Looking Better (0+ / 0-)

    Once Obama and Edwards supporters develop sufficient antipathy to one another, Hillary will get some fresh recruits from the losing camp. If seeding this antipathy was within her capability she would be doing it. And why not? If these three can't play hardball now they sure can't beat the Repuglican Lie Cheat and Steal Machine™ come this November. Play ball.

    Don't Mormons believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers? -Mike Huckabee, 12/07

    by easong on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 12:28:21 PM PST

  •  I think Obama's heart is in the right place (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Vico

    Not "right" politically, "right" as in the place where most of us would like to see it.

    But he is making a lot of rookie mistakes. He just doesn't know how to campaign in this kind of environment when the stakes are this high and the immediate endgame is so imminent. He is saying stuff that he almost certainly regrets (at least I hope so) because he is trying to get votes.

    He needs to learn that that isn't how you do it. He is unseasoned at this level and frankly, if this is how he campaigns, he is just not ready to be the nominee, because the Republican lie factory will grind him up into sausage if we put him out there.

    •  I think it's calculated (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      R Rhino from CT4

      Using Hillary hatred and right wing talking points is a way to draw low information independents and Republicans in, so they end up deciding the Democrats own caucus for them.

      [x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

      by lambertstrether on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 01:00:45 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  For me this is unacceptable, and I like Obama (0+ / 0-)

    And I'm speaking strictly for myself, but going right and attacking someone like Al Gore who won the popular vote and who had the electin stolen from us through the courts, is utterly disappointing and demoralizing to me.

    But that said since I'm neutral, and have little expectations at this point anyway.  I will voting for the nominee regarless.  And I'm not going to hold a microscope on anyone.  But I'll be watching Obama a bit more closely now.

    •  I guess Gore asked for it (0+ / 0-)

      by going too populist or something.

      I will make them have it. I will stuff their mouths with Gold!--Aneurin Bevan (on the NHS)

      by Salo on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 12:44:29 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I can't understand (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Bob Roberts

      how this rumor got started. I checked around and Obama's statement hasn't been confirmed by anyone to be relating to Gore or Kerry. Obama was talking about partisanship (Right vs Left) segregating the country in 2000 and 2004. He wasn't blaming Gore or Kerry for this. From what I've gathered, he was basically saying Democratic presidential candidates would be at an extreme disadvantage going into the general elections without extinguishing partisan flames fanned by the press (who want excitement), Republicans (the only way they think they'll win is through fear and hate), and liberals-who-are-looking-for-a-fight/revenge-instead-of winning.

      •  I'll give him the benefit of the doubt (0+ / 0-)

        but it's more than looking for a fight or revenge.  So many things I love in this country are gone.  I spent my life compromising with people, meeting people half-way, and trying to understand and respect and tolerate others.  They don't care, they will steam-roll over you.  It's just not working anymore.  I'm just really despondent.

        I will give Obama a chance, because I have no choice really.

  •  These lines from Bye, Bye Miss American Pie (0+ / 0-)

    came to mind after reading the two angry almost back-to-back frontpage attacks against Obama:
             
             And we sang dirges in the dark
             The day the music died.

    If feels like we all lost something special today...perahps, the final nail in the idea of an internet community that we aspired to as progressives here at Dkos.

    I hope I'm wrong. I hope we can heal.

    You are a child of the universe; no less than the trees and the stars... Desiderata

    by byteb on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 12:51:19 PM PST

    •  Don't go all dramatic on us (0+ / 0-)

      This is just the usual "smear the carrier" deal, where every kid in town wants to make a name for him/her self by trying to gun-down the frontrunner.  It's happening to Huckabee lately in Iowa, too. We won't remember what the fuss is about on inagauration day, about a year from now.

  •  Sniffing out bullshit? (0+ / 0-)

    Ummm... You're smelling it alright, but if you're buying these ridiculously small attacks against Obama and accusing me of having my head buried in the sand, you need to double check the source of that odor.  

  •  Republican talking points are for bad people (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dianna

    Why doesn't Obama realize that, and stop using them?

    [x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

    by lambertstrether on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 12:58:57 PM PST

  •  Kos, if Obama is running to the right of others, (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jethropalerobber, diplomatic

    why would Kucinich urge his supporters to second-choice him?
    http://www.politico.com/...

    DES MOINES, IA - Democratic Presidential candidate and Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich opened the New Year by publicly asking his Iowa supporters to vote for him in the caucuses this Thursday, and suggesting that if he did not make the 15% threshold, their second ballot should be for Senator Barack Obama. "This is obviously an 'Iowa-only' recommendation, as Sen. Obama and I are competing in the New Hampshire primary next Tuesday where I want to be the first choice of New Hampshire voters.

    "I hope Iowans will caucus for me as their first choice this Thursday, because of my singular positions on the war, on health care, and trade. This is an opportunity for people to stand up for themselves. But in those caucus locations where my support doesn't reach the necessary threshold, I strongly encourage all of my supporters to make Barack Obama their second choice. Sen. Obama and I have one thing in common: Change."

    Clearly if there is one person in the race that does not embrace right-wing positions, it's Kucinich.

    •  In 2004 Kucinich told his supporters to (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Salo, Tropical Depression

      caucus for Edwards over Dean, even though Dean was (perceived as) the more progressive candidate. I wouldn't bother trying to divine Dennis Kucinich's motives. Kucinich supporting Obama doesn't necessarily "prove" that Obama's the most progressive any more than Nader endorsing Edwards "proves" that Edwards is the most progressive.

      Regime change begins at home: Vote Democratic. (Economic: -7.88 Social: -6.31)

      by R Rhino from CT4 on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 01:42:07 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I've stopped believing the polls (0+ / 0-)

    You simply cannot have so many polls in such a short period of time with so many different outcomes within the margin of error without saying "too close to call."  Remember that JRE was ahead yesterday - or was it the day before?   As an homage to New Years Day football, "its time to play the game and live with the final score."

  •  LA has smog, (0+ / 0-)

    new york has smack and Markos has smug.

  •  If Obama 's for real (0+ / 0-)

    If Obama weren't for real, Chris Rock's BS detector would've sniffed him out by now.

  •  Fiscally conservative, Personal Freedoms (0+ / 0-)

    This San Franciscan wants someone who recognizes the need to collaborate in order to get things done. There are too many big issues approaching us with the pending retirements of the baby boom generation, the ridiculous national debt, and the pending bankruptcies of many government entities to be stuck in partisan gridlock.

    Obama all the way.

    Jamie Whitaker Obama for President, 2008

    by zennedjim on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 01:56:51 PM PST

  •  Obama's dogwhistles (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lapis, smijer

    How come the only people hearing these dogwhistles are hard core supporters of other candidates? If that's his MO, the wrong people are picking up the signals. Meanwhile, big opportunity missed with that huge group of Democrats who hate Kerry and Gore. He needs to signal more clearly that he's one of them.  

    Oh well, another reason why he's too inexperienced, right? He can't even dogwhistle properly.

    Or maybe it's people trying desperately to derail Obama with the only weapon they have. Words they can twist. Unflattering shades of meanings they can pull out of thin air. Outrage at implications.

    Nothing of substance though. I notice that.

  •  Obama Shares Ancient Symbol With GW Bush (0+ / 0-)

    I'm a fairly arcane kinda guy, and I suspect there are all manner of arcana strewn throughout tke Kos Kingdom...and I mean that literally, because in the same system, Markos is a king of clubs, or knowledge.
    This is one reason he is so damn smart. Many of my smartest friends are Kings of Clubs. Arianna Huffington, Queen Elizabeth and John Lennon are kings of clubs. 9/11 was a king of clubs day...administered by a king of diamonds (Osama) on a jack of diamonds (USA). You'd figure it would be centered around money or diamonds.

    The candidates are also diamonds. John edwards is the 7 if diamonds, Obama is the 9 of diamonds, and Mitt is the jack of diamonds. (Hillary is a 9 of hearts)
    One might think that the jack beats the nine who beats the seven...but that is not the case. Here's why:

    The jack of diamonds (USA, Mitt Romney) has a fatal flaw, and that is that a jack will always be a jack, and in this case it involves money and corruption.
    What we need is a new, more spiritual attitude toward wealth, money, riches. In other words, we need a 7 of diamonds, and not just more jack of diamonds misbehavior.
    But Obama is a nice of diamonds. Well, so is George W. Bush...and I find this troubling, at least to the extent that this is all entertainment, and nothing means anything anyway.

    So consider yourself forewarned. Obama and Bush are the same card. Not a bad card, really, but not a particularly good one either. The 7 is much better than the 9. Both of them. However, it is said that the 7 of diamonds and the 9 of hearts are a marriage made in heaven. So I am forced to consider the possibility that it might actually come down to an Edwards/Clinton ticket where once I thought it would be Edwards/Obama. If Obama keeps going right, I will think even more along these lines.

    And then there is that 5 of clubs, Al Gore, who could step back into the Vice Presidency and forge a team the likes of which would cause waves of joy around America and the world, as these would be the best fits for thos particular time in our history and future. And Lord knows we need a future with much, much better feng shui.

    Vote John Edwards
    He represents the spiritualization of wealth
    and better feng shui

    John Edwards '08 Carpe Millennium!

    by anonyMoses on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 02:56:40 PM PST

  •  There isn't a right wing attack here! (0+ / 0-)

    I don't think these two quotes from Obama are parroting right wing attacks.  The one about the trial lawyers seems to be more about the distinction between the legal careers of Obama and Edwards.  Edwards went into law to make big money (at least partially; there's nothing wrong with that) and Obama was a civil rights lawyer after Harvard, a job that isn't compensated with millions of dollars.  I think that was Obama's point and I don't see it as an attack on liberal trial lawyers in general.

    The second quote about Kerry and Gore doesn't look like an attack on those two people or on their policies.  To me, it is saying that they didn't have a very wide appeal in those two elections.  I think he is bringing this up to contrast himself with Hillary Clinton, who has negatives in the high 40s.  Yes, Gore won in 2000, but based on how the country was going back then it should have been a blowout.  (My opinion only.)  I do remember stories about how many voters didn't like either Bush or Gore, and after the VP debates, wished that the main candidates were Lieberman and Cheney (scary, huh?).  

    Anyway, I don't think what Obama said is the same as a right wing attack.  

    I also don't know the point of typing this all out since there are already over 600 responses, but I guess I am bored.  If you read this, yay!

  •  MARKOS & CROOKS & LIARS SLAM OBAMA!!! (0+ / 0-)

    The Clinton/Glenn Thrush slime machine is at it again as Obama's popularity rises in the polls. Dupes in the blogosphere are lapping up Hilary's Kool Aid. It is obvious that just as the Clinton machine was caught planting people in her live audiences they are planting compliant operatives on the internet to spew totally misleading headlines to alarm undecided voters.

  •  Conservative arguments uttered by a progressive (0+ / 0-)

    Hey folks, if a candidate keeps offering conservative arguments and criticizes Democratic candidates for being divisive, HE'S NOT A PROGRESSIVE!  

  •  Well said Kos (0+ / 0-)

    How they act under pressure is revealing -- on both sides of the aisle.

    big gulps huh? welp... see ya later!

    by ShaunMcDonnell on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 03:30:06 PM PST

  •  Stop attacking Obama's supporters, please. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Miles in WesternWA, malharden

    I don't think anyone walks on water - not Obama, not Markos, not Edwards - give it a rest.  I really like Obama, I am excited by his campaign.  I went to see Obama speak last month and I was amazed at how many young people were there and how many colors of people were there.  I was inspired the audience and by Obama's message.  I really don't understand the hypersensitivity that Markos is displaying here about Obama, but I'm beginning to believe the snide attacks are based on some desire Kos has to be a kingmaker and annoint Edwards.  He seems really annoyed with people who disagree with him - this week - last week he liked Obama.

  •  What a crappy slate of candidates we have (0+ / 0-)

    We have such shit on our side even the almighty, all-knowing Markos can't figure out the lesser of the evils. No one -- not a single one -- of these worthless candidates has earned the esteemed vote of the founder of this eponymous site, and if they've earned your vote, then you've outed yourself as an idiot. Any of the lemmings here who would actually CHOOSE a candidate a mere two days before the first vote -- to say nothing of ACTIVELY WORKING for one of those crappy candidates... well, it just means that you are quite ill-informed and naive. You obviously believe your candidate walks on water.

    Instead, model yourselves after the way Markos handled the primary in 2003. Do not support your candidate (e.g., Dean) early on, do not travel to Iowa to support his caucus efforts, and criticize him incessantly whenever you have the opportunity.

    Crash the gates, baby. Crash the gates.

     

  •  Just have to say this. (0+ / 0-)

    Takes a long time for a bunch of clued-in, informed guys to realize Obama does lot of right-wing rhetorics, and the blinders to fall off some eyes.

    Meanwhile, Hillary could cure cancer and it would  not be enough.

    Sorry, I feel pretty cranky.  

    Sometimes, a cackle is the best medicine!

    by ghost2 on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 07:23:11 PM PST

  •  The Obama Close (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kmbo

    All you did was change the title from Obama Attacks Gore to The Obama Close.  It's still the same garbage.  Obama did not attack Gore and Kerry.  Why do you continue to attack Obama?  This is a Joe Trippi lie. He started this and you played right into it.  

  •  Why so quick to buy the propaganda (0+ / 0-)

    This whole claim by Krugman, Hillary and Kos that Obama is talking from the right is just ridiculous!

    Obama is as if not more progressive in his voting record in the senate.  Dennis Kucinich, the most liberal candidate in the race, has just thrown his support behind Obama.

    And if anyone wants proof that mandates will not achieve universal coverage and will have to be abandoned because millions won't be able to afford it just turn your eyes over to BlueMassGroup and hear the people of Massachusetts tell you that mandates don't work!

    Obama is the only one who has it right.  

  •  Kinda Shrill (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kmbo, ArmyWife

    I loved your post Kos on "your endorsement."  Really  wonderful.  Can that Kos come back now?  This Obama-bashing is perpetuating the negative dialog or "part of the problem" as you say.  I have my preferences but I'll support whomever gets the nod. I volunteered for Kerry for krisakes.  

    Get on under the big tent and heal thyself.

  •  I watched Obama's speech (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jethropalerobber, kmbo

    and didn't reach the conclusions Kos did.

    Obama was explaining his strategy of running in all states.  He wasn't going to write any off.  He pointed out this was a mistake in the 2000 & 2004 elections because in two states considered strong Republican,  Democratic Governors won.

    In regard to Trial Lawyer comment, he was pointing out that he obviously could have gone anywhere and made big bucks, having been President of Harvard Law Review but, he choose to help the underprivileged with civil rights advocacy.  It is a major life choice he made and does show a lot about his character and his sincere interest in helping others.

    That this can some how be spun into some right wing talking points is just amazing.  

  •  Centrist fallacy. (0+ / 0-)

    I don't get why the centrist wing of the party doesn't seem to get it doesn't work to run in the center. The years we started losing seats weren't because people were tired of a progressive message they were because most people were OK with their economic situation in life and wanted it to stay that way. The republicans managed to convince everyone they would represent the middle class in helping them keep their money instead of giving it to causes like saving the whales and everyone bought into the bullshit hook line and sunk and gave them the ability to do just the opposite and loot and plunder the middle class. Given that most people didn't realize what was going on... running to the center couldn't and wouldn't save the party.

    -9.12, -6.97 (Yes. It is that black and white.)

    by daeros on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 03:21:09 AM PST

  •  whatabout last year's st.ofUNION address... (0+ / 0-)

    I knew Barack didn't mind spewing like a repuke last year after the state of the union...while giving his comments he sounded like a damn republican.  He said the Iraqis need to step up to the plate....GMAFB...he seriously sees THAT as the problem in Iraq?  Yeah, way to go Barack, give the shrub a pass and pin the blame of this mess on the poor victims themselves.

    Seriously, Obama did not wait until the last week to sound like a shit head willing to play republican stooge.

    I hate all the candidates.  I only know I'll vote for a democrat even though they are all assholes.  At least they aren't republican assholes.

  •  Edward and Dobbs (0+ / 0-)

    as I have been an edwards supporter from the start I have to say I still with open mind and empty cup listened. I found no leadership with the "front runners" no one that doesn't dance around issue, not clinton not obama, even Bidin loses his way, Dobb is the only senator that has stood up for anything that wasn't hot air. Edwards is speaking as much truth to power as possible. I feel that those should be one and two in all votes I would be happy with either in the lead and second, but Obama is all flash and no bang, and Clinton is all center and no left, and that is they the blues in a red state sees it

  •  well, this is on the front page of HuffPo now (0+ / 0-)

    linked to the subheadline "Daily Kos' Markos recants Obama support"

    Politics is like driving. To go backward, put it in R. To go forward, put it in D.
    IMPEACH CHENEY FIRST.

    by TrueBlueMajority on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 12:16:24 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site