Skip to main content

[From the Frog Pond]

I feel like writing this now, before any caucus or primary results, while my feelings are uninfluenced by events that right now remain uncertain.  I don't think the mainstream media or the people that work inside the Beltway really understand the blogosphere at all.  We may not fully understand them either, but we have a better grasp of what makes them tick than they have of what makes us tick.  We're fighters.  Fighting is pretty much all we do.  

This whole movement was born of a vacuum.  The primary vacuum was in the media.  We discovered in the lead up to the invasion of Iraq that the media was not only shutting out our voices, but they were distorting the facts, and the facts were, therefore, going unrebutted.  And we discovered that we could publish our voices just as easily as the New York Times could publish the lies of William Safire, Judith Miller, or Dick Cheney.  We discovered that we could factcheck the articles appearing in the papers and the warmongers appearing on our television.

We found a truth deficit and set out to provide the truth that was lacking.  For those of us that have been doing this for years, we are steeped in this contrast between what is reported and what is  true.  We know who the liars are.  We know who the lazy reporters are.  And we know who has been battling with us (Russ Feingold, Chris Dodd) and who has not (Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford).  We now have comrades-in-arms...people that we have been standing with day after day after day.  And we have enemies that have undermined our mission at every opportunity.

I'm sitting here listening to a speech Barack Obama made yesterday in Coralville, Iowa.  He's saying all the right things.  Here's an example (paraphrased): 'If you have been steeped in the common wisdom of Washington DC that says it is a  good idea to invade Iraq, you can't be the best person going forward to question and change our foreign policy.'  And that is exactly right.  That explains so clearly what it means to have been in the fight on the side of the blogosphere versus what it means to have been on the sidelines within the consultancies of the Capitol.  But Obama hasn't really embraced us.  He's gone his own way. And that explains why, in the end, the blogosphere broke heavily for John Edwards.

No, I don't mean people turned their back on Obama because he didn't pay the proper respect to the blogosphere.  That isn't what happened.  Obama didn't embrace our way of doing things.  Worse, he began to use rhetoric we had spent energy to debunk.  He went even further.  He tossed aside one of our central insight won through hard experience:  we cannot compromise with the Republican Party...we must smash them.  

Perhaps because his wife is such an avid reader of blogs, Edwards' campaign tapped right into our zeitgeist.  He came out with our insight front and center.  You want Edwards' message?  Here it is: 'Fuck David Broder, fuck Joe Klein, fuck Chris Matthews, fuck FOX News, fuck Tim Russert, fuck Mitch McConnell, fuck Big Oil, Big Pharma, and Big Defense.  We don't need them.  They won't negotiate in good faith.  They're stacking the deck against us.  And we can beat them by telling the truth and getting organized.'  That's Edwards' message, and that is the message we have internalized both through our successes and our failures.  

What's funny is that Obama is saying many of the same things, in his own way.  The policy differences between Edwards and Obama are minimal. But Obama's tone deaf to the blogosphere.  And, as a result, the blogosphere didn't trust him.  Take Armando:

...we do not criticize Obama's political style on aesthetic grounds; we criticize his style because we think it will not work to actually EFFECT CHANGE. We believe that despite his being touted as the change candidate, his political style is the one LEAST likely to achieve progressive policy change.

His 'style' will be ineffective.  Why did so many of us conclude this?  It's because we have watched Tom Daschle, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi try to negotiate with the Republicans (in the minority, the majority, no matter) and it does not work.  We have watched the Dems talk tough and then back down time and time again.  We're done with conciliation and we don't believe bipartisanship is possible without first crushing the Republican Party down to a stump.  

Ironically, Obama might be the perfect candidate to provide the kind of crushing victories this November that will make true bipartisanship possible again.  I definitely think that is a possibility.  In fact, I feel his chances are strong enough that I can't endorse Edwards over Obama.  I do hope Edwards wins in Iowa, but not necessarily because I prefer him to Obama.  More than anything, I want Edwards' style to be vindicated.  I want partisanship and combativeness to be rewarded.  And I want Clinton/Lieberman/Ford/Carper/Carville/Begala/Penn to lose.  

In any case, this is the best I can do to express why the blogosphere went for Edwards.  None of the candidates were going far enough on policy, but at least Edwards was representing our fighting natures.  And that, in the end, was decisive.

Originally posted to on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 10:48 PM PST.

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

  •  Also (293+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    arlam, DCFD Rudi, Ed in Montana, Angie in WA State, mbw, maryb2004, renska, Alfred E Newman, chuck utzman, Erin in Flagstaff, vicki, SteveLCo, pb, filkertom, hester, wystler, sheba, gogol, Windowdog, areucrazy, yerioy, Philosopher, human, misscee, kiwing, abarefootboy, MarkC, cosbo, Gooserock, pHunbalanced, melvynny, mattman, PeterHug, chadlupkes, Robespierrette, annalivia, Shockwave, byteb, Heimyankel, LynChi, Wintermute, billlaurelMD, LionelEHutz, Lipstick Liberal, Jim in Chicago, fugitive, tamens, ThirstyGator, dsb, devtob, marjo, Luam, RFK Lives, Matilda, Plays in Traffic, musicsleuth, Birdman, Heart of the Rockies, Dumbo, queen, RubDMC, rasbobbo, labradog, Boston Boomer, joynow, Hatu, bronte17, m00nchild, carolinadreamer, mentaldebris, Cassandra77, megs, grrtigger, srkp23, ask, Mlle Orignalmale, chuckvw, Scoopster, vmibran, roses, LeftofArizona, bobinson, Ignacio Magaloni, House, Miss Blue, BruinKid, durham furnace, ClickerMel, VA Gal, edie haskell, Ohiocrat, rioduran, naperken, bewert, Boorad, Janet Strange, IM, hhex65, psnyder, Dallasdoc, Urizen, Chicago Lulu, brainwave, grannyhelen, votermom, Kidspeak, grayslady, churchylafemme, NYFM, joan reports, Oy the Billybumbler, Sychotic1, ourprez08, MmeVoltaire, Tillie630, hells kitchen, papercut, elizm, lcrp, Brian82, inclusiveheart, Chun Yang, bwintx, shadowplayer, Wife of Bath, Deward Hastings, Steven D, boran2, iliketodrum, Arcparser, sawgrass727, weelzup, rapala, joanneleon, humphrey, sd4david, bloomer 101, historys mysteries, Bluesee, marina, 3goldens, titotitotito, JanetT in MD, ek hornbeck, ignorant bystander, chuckles1, andgarden, ejmw, kuvasz, Webster, bitter fruit, stitchmd, Ranting Roland, Turkana, Lepanto, eru, flubber, Chaoslillith, bleeding blue, Viceroy, majcmb1, Pam from Calif, truebeliever, jimreyn, GreyHawk, Burned, sueNaustin, mozlover, lasky57, FunkyEntropy, WisePiper, FightTheFuture, LithiumCola, empathy, hedgey, surferal, dhfsfc, Coherent Viewpoint, Topaz7, trashablanca, Icy, Keone Michaels, jsamuel, vigilant meerkat, sherlyle, BlueInARedState, Yellow Canary, watch out for snakes, rhetoricus, Naniboujou, isis2, kck, Defeat Doolittle, merrinc, MJ via Chicago, Ashaman, Rachel in Vista, nilocjin, Native Light, NC Dem, real world chick, NearlyNormal, totallynext, doinaheckuvanutjob, MBNYC, buckinfuzzard, oakroyd, land of the free, scoff0165, Johnathan Ivan, kidneystones, Temmoku, a a, sea note, Nulwee, robbk, J Royce, RagingGurrl, dov12348, grayday101, lostandconfused, lobo charlie, bvljac, Mom to Miss M, FWIW, godislove, ricsec7, maxalb, yoduuuh do or do not, Outrider, left coast lad, yowsta, ronlib, malharden, redhaze, brentmack, ubertar, Newzie, beemerr, Bridge Master, madgranny, KJC MD, MichiganGirl, Terra Mystica, bluesweatergirl, lordradish, AJ WI, MKinTN, slade7, kafkananda, nom de paix, fayeforcure, coachster, Spoonfulofsugar, Blue Town, TheFatLadySings, Phil N DeBlanc, dragoneyes, cruz, I, spencerh, jamess, LucyMO, Cassandra Waites, Wek, demwords, Tam in CA, PJ Jefferson, JedReport, TL Eclipse, valsagem, LaEscapee, echatwa, ShainZona, MalachiConstant, rickyscorpio, BYw, tsunami, lenzy1000, PeckingOrder, ksvoboda, CIndyCasella, Redstateresident, dreamghost, artmartin, leisure, gdwtch52, DynamicUno, bmozaffari, Libertaria, Sullen Idealist, QuakerOats, lothar779
    •  very good diary! Rec'd (16+ / 0-)

      Personally, i choose someone who has the convictions to effect change without dirtying the dialogue, someone who will rise above.  I do think Obama will be a great president, however I would think Edwards would do it as well...

      My i direct you to another fabulous discussion on this topic: over at MyDD

      At the end of the Day, you can't deny that Obama has the Biggest Upside Potential Obama/Richardson '08

      by kubla000 on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 10:52:02 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  The blogsphere supported Edwards? (43+ / 0-)

      The rank and file blogsphere did.

      I have to say, though, that many of the A-list bloggers sat on the fence for much of this cycle.  

      The best way to influence the outcome of a Presidential Primary fight is to get involved early.

      I can't think of a prominent blogger who endorsed Edwards early.  

      •  But that's not the point (61+ / 0-)

        The blogosphere isn't a top-down political machine. It's the exact opposite, in fact. We're not supposed to blindly follow what they say. They make their arguments and we make up our own minds. All in all, we've done a good job collectively of defining a message for the '08 cycle while still disagreeing about who is best to carry that message.

        •  The blogsphere leadership didn't (14+ / 0-)

          make any argument - they acted above it all.

          Look, I can damn well make up my own mind.  It is a sign of strength that the rank and file made the decision that they did with the leadership AWOL.

          •  "Blogosphere leadership" (34+ / 0-)

            there is no such thing.  There are influential bloggers, but no blogosphere "leaders".  The rank and file drive the blogosphere - from the ground up.  It's the pyramid, only turned on its head.  In a truly democratic media (small d) what is said matters more than who said it.

            "The Power to change this party, and the power to change this country is in your hands, not mine." - Gov. Howard Dean, MD

            by deaniac83 on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 12:33:10 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  How it is said also is important (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              Be for Edwards.  Say it loud, proud and often but don't play us in the peanut gallery for your fools by making stuff up about other candidates.  

              All that BS is still rather surprising for me.  With notoriety comes responsibility.  The same attention to credible detail and thoughtful analysis that got you noticed in the first place, should not be thrown out the window because they no longer quite work with a coordinated agenda.  Why damage your own credibility in such an unnecessary way?  I just can't get over that.

              A few years back a friend of mine had a sketch show on TV.  For fun we would write in lame "catch phrases" just to see if we could manipulate the audience, and US pop culture.  What can I say; we have a twisted sense of humor.  We thought it would be hilarious if we would hear one of our lame, on purpose, catch phrases being used across the country.  We didn't even try to be subtle about it either.

              Pretty sick some may say, right?

              Now think of the same thing, only the catch phrase I am repeating on purpose is now a lie about what a candidate running for president.  This candidate is in my own political Party.  This candidate never did say what I am charging, but I don't care because I am for someone else and have thousands of visitors each day.  People will listen and repeat it.  

              I will coordinate with other like minded site owners and keep this kind of less than subtle attack going for a few weeks.  We known progressive bloggers are all for the same guy so who cares if we have no valid source or are more than "reaching" in our "analysis" on a given day and end up eating the other candiate alive.  We will keep up the attacks. We will fight with the ethics of Republicans.  We rule, man.

              Pretty frickin sick, isn't it?  

              Too bad it’s just a TV show, oh, no wait, it’s about the next President of the US after a 7 plus year rule of terror.

              Way to go fellas.

              I got tased in The Great Markos Candidate Meltdown Cranky Pants Sting of Ought 7

              by MadAsHellMaddie on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 08:54:36 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Markos may have achieved a bit of sheepherding... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Mother of Zeus

              ...if not leadership. Imo (or, imagination, I suppose) he put the kibosh on dkos' massive and rising pressure against the initial round of war funding, as well as calls for impeachment, at the only time there could have been influence - right after the election.

              When the Democrats initially floated their spelunking  strategy - explore the caves on war funding and impeachments - the rousing response in rec'd diaries was quashed. Intentional or not, that was a sign to the pols that the netroots can be influenced. When the caves happened, there was no hell fire backlash...sorry, no links, but I remember the gentle push, the curt messages, the ban, and the change in mo...

              Partisans give their parties a chance...would the netroots be a sustained loyal opposition or give the Dems a chance? Would the netroots operate like partisans or relentless activists?

              Leadership is all about finding balance in competing tensions - many tensions, not two, and many balance points, not just one - with a sense of timing and amplification that gets results. And, leadership requires the ability to punish. Most leadership happens quietly, behind the scenes.

              And so the foundation for bipartisanship over people-powered was put in place.

          •  As a lurker/commenter in the blogosphere (39+ / 0-)

            I do not look at prominent bloggers as my "leaders."  They are often good writers and have interesting things to say, but I make my own decisions based on extensive reading.

            Bloggers are also not required to get behind a specific candidate and push for him or her. Not doing so does not make them AWOL (they don't need to ask me for leave anyway). Especially with DailyKOS: a blog designed to get members of the Democratic party elected -- progressive members, if possible, but Democratic most of all.

            In the context of the purpose of DailyKOS, primaries are not the time to push for a particular candidate. The time for that is the general election.

            "Do not do what you hate" - Tom Fox
            ps. MD=Maryland.

            by KJC MD on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 12:37:35 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Your view (8+ / 0-)

              represents a 180 degree change from what took place here in 2004 where advocacy for Dean was the order of the day.  

              If this site is about advancing progressive politics, the place to do that is in the primaries where the direction of the party is decided.

              To sit out the primaries is to hand the direction of the party to the establishment.  

              •  Hence - "crashing the gates" (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                Hence - the new statement by Kos that we have to primary them to make change.

                It is in the primary - that they can restructure the platform and goals for the next cycle.

                That being said - I am glad they did not weigh in to early - to let the process settle itself out.  so many people are followers that - it was good to be able to put it all out there - the good, the bad and the ugly.

                Just look at what Kos had to do - even when he said I am leaning towards Obama, then some questionable positions came to light about how Obama - is speaking to the General not the primary voters and Kos had to back pedal a little bit, saying whoa I may have spoken to quickly.

                "America Rising" - John Edwards we are with you.

                by totallynext on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 07:31:42 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  "If this site is about advancing progressive.. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                politics, the place to do that is in the primaries where the direction of the party is decided"

                Excatly, which is what doesn't make sense about all this.

                If they took a stand would they have lost add revenue from the other candidates? I doubt it. I just don't get this.

              •  The diaries are where the action is for this (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                primary. And they've been overtaken by candidate advocates advancing their agenda but not always necessarily "progressive politics."

                Unfortunately, we only have one recommend list and not a separate one for "action" items or such.  We've gone past the saturation level for tolerance of primary wars  on our recommend list.

                That will be the remembrance from this primary season.  

                <div style="color: #a00000;"> Our... constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men's minds. Thurgood Marshal

                by bronte17 on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 09:26:15 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

          •  Who dat? (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            qwerty, wystler

            What "blogosphere leadership"?  I really like Markos, and I'm influenced by what he says due to his experience and research.  But if he's wrong I'll damned well say it and go my own way.

            There is no b-sphere leadership.  Does not compute.

            If Democrats have a pre-911 view of the world, Republicans have a pre-July 4th view of the world.

            by chadlupkes on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 06:13:05 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Sad thing (6+ / 0-)

            Is if Obama wins Iowa the MSM will spin it as a victory for the politics of Broder et all over the politics of the netroots.  Even though those with the biggest platforms have acted 'above it all.'  If Obama wins Iowa it will make them, and us, look powerless.

            •  If Obama wins, the netroots will spin it as (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              jennybravo, mcfly, Mother of Zeus

              a victory for Broder, et al over the politics (and power) of the netroots.

              and how has the biggest nestroots platforms acted 'above it all'? They may not have explicitly endorsed a candidate per se but they sure as hell explicitly given the finger to Obama.

              You are a child of the universe; no less than the trees and the stars... Desiderata

              by byteb on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 07:30:59 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Maybe (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              wystler, red moon dog, Mother of Zeus

     should have thought of that before adopting an "all fight, all the time" strategy (or as the diarist put it, a "fuck X" strategy).  That self-indulgence is generally not very persuasive of those who do not already share your opinion, even if it may fire you up.

            •  And who would have set the table for that? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Mother of Zeus

              The blogosphere itself.  By idiotically throwing in their lot with an undistinguished ex-neocon-DLC-Senator who talked tough in the campaign, they threw away more than they ever gained by this suicide pact that Edwards lured them into.

              Ugh, I never understood why people around here, who should know better, could not recognize the Mitt Romney among us.

              I watched in dismay as people with as stellar good-sense credentials as Keith Olbermann constantly carp, snipe and otherwise ridicule Senator Obama.

              It made even less sense since he was both unique in modern politics on so many levels and he jumped into the race this time around for all the right reasons -- the groundswell of support for him in the 2006 election cycle was there for all to see, if you just looked.  He saw that people saw in him a man who could bring people together, all else being equal and all else is not even equal.

              I just ache to think that the people and places I so loved in the last few years could have been sitting oh so pretty if they had gotten past their visceral attitude towards Obama and paid attention to what he was saying, doing and achieving...

              Obama stood up in 2002 and called the Iraq war idea "stupid, dumb and unnecessary". Clinton and Edwards stood with the war-monger-in-chief.

              by DraftChickenHawks on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 09:58:23 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  If you don't think leadership matters ... (10+ / 0-)

          ... ask yourself whether the Dodd boomlet online would have happened but for all the FP posts here and FDL attention to FISA.

        •  There is a lot of shaping of debate, though (6+ / 0-)

          All you need to do is look at the main diaries on this site and you can readily see how there are really two factors at work.  Yes, the upswellings from the unwashed bloggers, but equally the main diaries that reflect the views of a far smaller group.

          And that's not bad.  A lot of those positions are worth paying attention to and each site has by definition to have a particular style and focus in order to first attract and then to engage a given group of individuals.

          I would not say that the leadership of the various sites has fallen all over themselves to embrace Edwards.  What is it about this Public Financing stuff, anyhow?  Sounds...  radical, desperate, foolhardy, may hamstring him, want very badly to win this time, so just not sure...   sounds risky.  That's what I heard, maybe others heard it differently.  I think it is fair to say that any support Edwards has gotten he has had to earn, which is the way it should be.  He's worked harder than any other candidate in the race, on either side.  

      •  They didn't always "endorse" (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Native Light

        a candidate, but it was pretty obvious.

        I'll spell it out for you:

        Kos: Edwards

        Atrios: Hillary (but grudgingly)

        Thinkprogress: VERY Hillary.

        HuffingtonPost: VERY Obama.

        Digby: Hillary (but grudging)

        OpenLeft: Most openminded, but definitely not pro-Obama.  They gave good press to Edwards, Richardson and Dodd.

        Andrew Sullivan (not a lefty blog): VERY Obama, slightly Ron Paul.

        So there might not have been explicit endorsements, but if you were a regular customer, there was no disputing where they were leaning towards and who they leaned against.

        More importantly than who they leaned to, perhaps, is who they leaned against, and this has been more consistently Anti-Hillary.  Atrios and Digby seemed to have made their minds up early on that they had to resign themselves to the Hillary-Train or be run over, but years of prior posts on either blog amply demonstrate that neither of them had a good opinion of her.  

        The sudden collapse of Hillary in December seems to have caught a lot of people by surprise.  she may still win Iowa and New Hampshire so betting against her is not safe, but the remarkable turn-around in her fortunes has made many who were formerly obeisant to her less so.  If she loses Iowa and New Hampshire, we can expect to see some rather dramatic changes, even nasty changes, in the nature of her limited on-line support.

      •  That's wrong. Rank and file supported (5+ / 0-)

        all of the candidates.  Edwards may have polled #1 but I resent this concept that "the blogosphere went for Edwards".  I certainly didn't, and I consider myself part of the blogosphere.  The blogosphere is not a voting booth; we are activists, writers, and alternative media, and our numbers alone will not elect a Democrat.  Therefore, simply doing well on the blogosphere is good enough.  Obama has repeatedly come in 2nd place here which is actually the perfect place to be.  Showing you have support here is important; being #1 is not.

        •  He's losing out to Hillary where It Counts... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Eric Blair

          which is the money game.

          But the interesting thing is WHY
          Because he is the New Politics Man.
          Because he will be more willing to deal with people who didn't align with him during primary season.
          Wall Street's got their chips on Clinton (and with good reason)

          The only people supporting Obama are anti-clintonites, and it will cost him.

          Expect serious trouble from the Hillary Camp if Edwards wins IOWA. (if hillary gets her sub-15% supporters to toss for someone else, odds are it will be edwards)

 Sorry, is my sense of humor showing?

          by RisingTide on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 08:26:09 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  A-List bloggers are the new media talking heads.. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Many of them have become so full of themselves, they actually think their opinions rule "the blogs", and while it may start the threads, it is the "rank and file" bloggers who determine how that thread evolves, and pose countless gems of reason that coalesce into our new and powerful multimedia message.

        And therefore, it is the rank and file bloggers who determine how opinion gets remolded into new and different perspectives, not the blog hosts.

        Once again, "A-List bloggers" have become the new talking heads, their opinions are no more qualified than the rest of us, but because they "own" the blog they write, we somehow have relegated a great deal of expertise to a group that is made up of, basically, geeky journalists, who joined their combination of writing talents and computer expertise to create this new "authority" that they really can't claim, it belongs to all of us who participate in this process called "blogging."

        Proof?  Just the fract that so many have chosen to sit on the sidelines and avoid the risk of making a commitment.

        They all started their blogs as an act of commitment, but nowadays, they seem to be leaving the real blogging up to those of us lurking and looking in, and every now and then commenting.

        •  Of course they're talking heads (0+ / 0-)

          They didn't become A-list because they're not. They don't have the authority they seem to have because they don't deserve it, but because they've worked hard for it.

          That said, they are not the same as MSM. They have a lot more freedom to say what they want to say.

          If you want to say smart, politically relevant things every day .. every hour ..every minute... than strive to become an A-list blogger.

          They've made careers..businesses.. out of it.

          The opportunity exists for you, too.

      •  do we care? (0+ / 0-)

        "a-list" bloggers aren't what this is about.

        Like communism and fascism before it, fundamentlism will not rest until it is thoroughly discredited or the entire world is under its yoke.

        by Guinho on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 10:19:29 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Disagree with one thing... (49+ / 0-)

      the only reason Obama's policies seems similar to Edwards is because Obama, like Hillary has been copying and pasting Edwards policies from the beginning since they had no real ideas of their own. Edwards led both Hillary & Barack on such a policy dance that they were FORCED to actually put policies on the table. In the beginning of the race the only thing HIillary & Barack put on the table were:

      1. Who collect the most money, the cha-ching race
      1. Who black people love the most
      1. Who hollywood love the most

      He led them the whole way and actually put the American people problems and solutions thereof while they chased money, black people and celebrities.

      Edwards: Giving us hope, giving greedy corrupt bastards hell

      by cosbo on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 11:56:04 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yeah, we seem to like (26+ / 0-)

        people who are willing to stick their necks out and start fighting first, rather than those who wait to see which way the wind is blowing.

        "The Power to change this party, and the power to change this country is in your hands, not mine." - Gov. Howard Dean, MD

        by deaniac83 on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 12:36:28 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Obama is consistent (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          DesertCat, mozlover, frontline in 09

          if you check back over his career, his positions have remained pretty consistent, unlike Edwards who has not been so consistent in his political career.

          You are a child of the universe; no less than the trees and the stars... Desiderata

          by byteb on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 07:41:45 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  consistently boring n/t (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            deaniac83, maxalb, zazzlin

   Sorry, is my sense of humor showing?

            by RisingTide on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 08:26:47 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Your remark is exactly the kind of comment that (0+ / 0-)

              riles people.  If you don't like someone or their platform, be specific.  Be issue or factual example driven in your criticism and you'll be respected even if folks disagree.

              Edwards is a wonderful speaker, persuasive, and intelligent.  While he may not have much legislation to his credit (as is the case with most first termers) what he did do was generally admirable and useful.  AUMF excluded...

              So is Obama...same qualifiers...same exclusion.  He didn't have the vote.  

              The longer I live, the clearer I perceive how unmatchable a compliment one pays when he says of a man "he has the courage to utter his convictions." Mark Twain

              by Persiflage on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 12:38:09 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  SNARK! SNARK! snarksnarksnarksnarksnark... (0+ / 0-)


                Now to take a different riff, I'm annoyed with his High Dollar Policy.

                Obama has an entirely different set of quals from Edwards. His are in compromise, in bringing people together. Edwards are in oratory, in poison pills, in finding bullshit and bringing it to the public's attention.

                Different people, different lives.

                They did have lives out of office.

       Sorry, is my sense of humor showing?

                by RisingTide on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 01:09:24 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

          •  Hmm, so Obama has consistently (0+ / 0-)

            pandered to the homophobic evangelical vote by giving center stage to gay-hating pastors?  I for one thought that was a recent "position."

            "The Power to change this party, and the power to change this country is in your hands, not mine." - Gov. Howard Dean, MD

            by deaniac83 on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 09:06:56 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Bingo! (0+ / 0-)

          And we are too tired to tolerate the latter any more.

      •  Points 2 and 3 are ridiculous (10+ / 0-)

        So which part was it exactly, that appealed to Iowans? Was it the love of blacks or Hollywood?

      •  No. (7+ / 0-)

        Obama's policies, unlike Edwards', have been consistent throughout his political career.  Unless he had a time machine, and effected some sort of retroactive stealing, you're absolutely wrong.

        •  Bullshit. (14+ / 0-)

          We're not talking about airy-fairy idea of hope. I'm talking about SPECIFIC plans on what he's going to do about the fucked up world that we're going to inherit. John Edwards has a plan on just about everything. He did his homework and thought about what he will actually do. I saw NONE of that from either Hillary or Barack in the beginning. If Obama and Clinton has a plan, it's because Edwards FORCED them to come up with something other than the money shakedown.

          Edwards: Giving us hope, giving greedy corrupt bastards hell

          by cosbo on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 05:33:20 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I'm sorry, but right back at you. (15+ / 0-)

            Obama fought for campaign finance reform, for universal health care, for fair elections, for progressive, equitable taxation, for a woman's right to choose, and for an end to this ridiculous war when Edwards was still co-sponsoring the original resolution in the Senate. There's nothing airy-fairy about his record, which is readily available to anybody with a search engine.

            He has been more consistently liberal through his career than any of our candidates except Kucinich.  As for the "plan" argument, you're right, Edwards came out in this election with "plans" before the others did.  About 2 years before the general election.  Personally, I think that's at least a little because he didn't have a record to run on.

            All of that said, I'm glad Edwards has been in the race.  I don't agree with his rhetorical style, which I'm absolutely sure would soften were he to be the nominee, but he has brought several important issues to the forefront, and for that, I'm grateful.

            •  I don't care about their records... (6+ / 0-)

              I want to know what the hell they're going to do as soon as they walk in the door of the White House. What are they're know an agenda, with plans. The world is a fucked up place right now, how do they plan to fix it? Only Edwards give the confidence that anything is going to change. With both Hillary & Barack, I get that they're agenda is changeable, based on the political winds and who they're having lunch/dinner with and how much it will benefit them politically.

              Edwards: Giving us hope, giving greedy corrupt bastards hell

              by cosbo on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 06:28:50 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  so, in other words (6+ / 0-)

                you're more willing to trust somebody's rhetoric than their actions?  I'm not, and that I can be firm on.

                I have to call bullshit on this, though:

                With both Hillary & Barack, I get that they're agenda is changeable, based on the political winds and who they're having lunch/dinner with and how much it will benefit them politically.

                Hillary I can see this with.  Obama?  Are you joking?  Not only has his platform not changed since 2004 when he ran for Senate, but he's consistently enacted parts of his platform, first as a State Senator, then as a US Senator.  I'm much happier about trusting that than a bunch of angry rhetoric with little other than printed propoganda to back it up.  

                •  Amen (4+ / 0-)

                  Many bloggers like Edwards because of his angry message.  Obama has a consistent message and personal integrity.  Edwards became a millionaire in the court room.  Obama graduated from Harvard and went back to Chicago and organized people in the streets.  Angry words are not going to change this nation - effective consistent action will.

                •  Rhetoric that Obama is COPYING. (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  maxalb, zazzlin

                  Try to remember that.

                  Edwards: Giving us hope, giving greedy corrupt bastards hell

                  by cosbo on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 07:36:32 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Who's Running Obama? (0+ / 0-)

                  ...answer me that, paduan, and you might have a touch of insight into what policies he will trot out.

         Sorry, is my sense of humor showing?

                  by RisingTide on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 08:28:32 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  um (0+ / 0-)

                    was that directed at me?  Not sure what you're talking about.

                    •  yup. It's a fairly simple matter... (0+ / 0-)

                      to read the tea leaves about what agenda a Presidential Candidate will have... Just look at who is buying influence (and, in edwards' case, who isn't).

             Sorry, is my sense of humor showing?

                      by RisingTide on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 08:52:37 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Edwards (0+ / 0-)

                        Edwards' entire post-Iowa strategy is dependent on 527s and 501 (c)s- external groups.  Obama is affiliated with 500,000 donors, and is running with their money.  Both have rejected lobbyist $$.

                        So, one candidate is running on small donations from half a million people.  One candidate is depending on special interest money.  Hmm, which one is more likely to be beholden to special interests?

                        •  I don't mind... people powered special interests (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:

                          do you mind unions?

                          Obama is just as bribed as Clinton is, if you listen to wall street much. I wonder what the stock market will look like after the caucus?

                 Sorry, is my sense of humor showing?

                          by RisingTide on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 09:20:44 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  could you please (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:

                            post some kind of link to your assertion that Obama is just as bribed as Clinton is??

                            I like unions.  I think they're really important.  I'm a member of one.

                            I like Moveon and Democracy For America, and have spent  hundreds of hours and quite a bit of money for/with them.  

                            But I think it's disingenuous to say that you're against special interest money and lobbyists, and then to base your campaign's hopes on them.

                            Where do you draw the line?  Who decides which lobbyists are OK?  Which special interest groups?

                            From what I've seen (although, like I've said, I'd be interested to see any evidence to the contrary), Obama is running a genuinely people powered campaign. I think that's a good thing. Why don't you?

                          •  Some kind of link... (0+ / 0-)

                            Specifically the comment about High Dollar Policy.

                            But I have a friend who works for wall street (and who is a notorious money-sniffer -- the type of person who determines how many anti-GW folks are paid by the oil companies).

                            Obama's been bought and paid for.
                            Obama's Line is pretty high

                            In fact, just skim the list.

                            I'm not going to say that he won't stop social security privitization -- he is an experienced pol, after all.

                            Edwards ain't the nicest knife in the drawer -- I'm voting for him because he's spiteful -- so I can trust him to hold a grudge against Wall Street.

                            Obama? The Compromiser? I don't need no corporatist selling me out... (note: sirota was cautiously calling Obama leaning People Party, in that article he linked).

                   Sorry, is my sense of humor showing?

                            by RisingTide on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 12:54:31 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Do i MIND a people powered campaign? (0+ / 0-)

                            Nope. It's a strong point in his favor. Problem is, it still isn't enough to get his CompromisingAss anywhere. If clinton takes fourth in Iowa, he's got a chance. Otherwise, I just don't see it.

                   Sorry, is my sense of humor showing?

                            by RisingTide on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 12:55:48 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  So... (0+ / 0-)

                            is it electability?  Or "selling out"?  Because that link showed that he'd raised like $3000 from business, and $79,000,000 from individuals.  That doesn't sound like a sell out to me, but to each his/her own.

                            I completely disagree about Obama's chances, but again, you're more than entitled to that opinion.

                          •  you aren't doing the same calculations i'm doing. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Chicago Lulu

                            $200 or more contributions are counted in the link I sent you. PACs are not businesses, AFAIK.

                            As to why Obama isn't going to win? It's because he's a compromiser, which hurts him BAD against Clinton -- nobody wants to be seen going against someone known to be petty (obama, by comparison, is known to not hold it against donors if they gave to someone else).

                            So that's money.

                            Secondly is his strategy is... just rather poor for someone who isn't the frontrunner. His entire political message runs against 'attack mode' -- but I think Hillary is smart and talented enough to sink him if he doesn't go into attack mode.

                            So, I discount him because he is a compromiser, and I think he would have done fine as Hillary's VEEP.

                            My opinion is my own, but it's a bit more nuanced than 'selling out'.

                   Sorry, is my sense of humor showing?

                            by RisingTide on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 01:28:28 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  fair enough (0+ / 0-)

                            I think that he's representing a different kind of politics. It may be an abysmal failure, but it's something he (and his supporters) believe in.  It's not about compromise, although I can see why it might come off that way.

                            I guess we'll see!!

                •  I trust Edwards Actions... (0+ / 0-)

                  He's a man of his word, even when it costs him.

                  Party's still on in South Carolina, ain't it?

                  Obama is just as corporatist as Hillary, and I do NOT like that leftwing.

                  You didn't really think anyone would get us out of Iraq, did you?

                  Obama spins a good fairy tale, but don't forget -- ALL CANDIDATES ARE ASSHOLES.

                  Maybe we should work to change things so they don't have to be, but all of them are, as of this moment.

         Sorry, is my sense of humor showing?

                  by RisingTide on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 08:31:06 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  obviously we disagree (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    highacidity, RisingTide

                    I don't think Obama is an asshole.  I don't think Edwards is an asshole.  I have my doubts about some of the others- although Dodd has consistently impressed me.  

                    Edwards had one big chance to be a man of his word (as a non-currently elected official), and that was on campaign financing.  The fact that his entire post Iowa (and much of his Iowa) campaign depends on 527s and 501 (c)s really belies his rhetoric.  I've lost a lot of respect for him because of it.  And no, I don't care if the special interests are interests I personally agree with.  It's still special interest/lobby money, and I think that's highly dubious from somebody running so explicitly against them.

                    •  Dodd is about as impressive as Huckabee... (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:

                      They're both unaffiliated.

                      Thing is, Obama is the MOST obfuscatory on who his affiliations lie with.

                      Then again, do you want to elect someone who will poison us or someone who will give Wall Street a poison pill?

                      ... there are reasons we elect trial lawyers, ya know? A rather different outlook on compromise, if you ask me.

             Sorry, is my sense of humor showing?

                      by RisingTide on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 08:56:22 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  what? (0+ / 0-)

                        I'm sorry, I honestly don't know what you're talking about.  In what way has Obama been anything less than transparent?  What affiliations?  What are you talking about???

                        •  You've heard kos talk... (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:

                          about the Religious RW
                          the Paleo RW
                          the NeoCon RW.
                          the Corporatist RW.

                          Ask yourself this: What are the factions on the left?
                          Who matters, anymore?

                          For Clinton, it's easy. She's running the same corporatist rhetoric and meaning that her husband did. She hopes for the same results.

                          For Edwards, it's likewise easy -- spurned by Wall Street (seriously, he's the only 'top' candidate they didn't put chips down for), he's pulling the dregs -- unions and rural voters (not the big money folks, but they're deep and heavy in his coalition).

                          For Obama, it's the weirdest damn coalition that you've ever seen -- the 'anti-clintonites'. I Am Not Kidding. (he's gotten that coalition because everyone else thinks he won't hold a grudge, and clinton will) Wall Street seems pretty sure they can bribe Obama to split their way, to the detriment of the American Populace -- and they're probably right (there's always a second term to worry about). Obama is just as much part of Corporate Democrats as Hillary is, he's just much less obvious about it.

                          What does this mean, on the issues? That most of what they say is bullcrap.

                          Clinton and Obama are in Wall Street's pocket (more money for clinton, but wall street knows how to get claims on people). Expect some way of keeping the soul sucking with the NEW universal health care. And expect similar flavors of 'wall street wins,' out of every issue you can think of.

                          Edwards would try to make something happen -- but we haven't seen a sitting president go up against Wall Street since Roosevelt, and Wall Street was a lot less powerful back then. If Edwards becomes president, he is Dead Man Walking. It's just a matter of time and positioning to see who shoots him dead (politically) first.  He won't bring in the money on the universal health care -- but he will go down fighting. And, let's not forget, he's a trial lawyer -- just the person you want to be holding a grudge against wall street. The legislation he crafts is likely to look good, but have nothing beneath the fat other than skin and bones for Wall Street. And give the next reformer a thinner fat cat to deal with.

                 Sorry, is my sense of humor showing?

                          by RisingTide on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 09:18:45 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                    •  As always, the loudest ones to accuse are the (0+ / 0-)

                      biggest miscreants.

              •  obviously n/t (0+ / 0-)

                Newsday: Rudy Giuliani missing in action for Iraq panel

                by jethropalerobber on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 08:48:01 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

          •  Somewhere, a hedge fund is missing (0+ / 0-)

            a poverty researcher.

      •  This would be a great Edwards Ad (n/t) (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        "America Rising" - John Edwards we are with you.

        by totallynext on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 07:55:11 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Policy positions are easy (0+ / 0-)

        especially for the Democrats. We have at least a decade and probably closer to three of unrealized policy dreams. There's great ideas on every topic out there, and you don't have to be a genius to pull them off the shelf. It's a promising sign, actually, in my book, that all of the Democratic candidates are essentially running on the same platform. That means there's consensus within the party which will help when trying to implement that agenda.

        Barack Obama -- The Time is Now

        by pragprogress on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 08:18:14 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  The CONSENSUS is we are never leaving IRAQ (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          no matter what they promise.

          Money talks louder than votes.

          Me, I'll be electing a sacrificial lamb, ready to go down fighting an apparatus larger than what felled Carter.

          But, hell, at least he'll be fighting!

 Sorry, is my sense of humor showing?

          by RisingTide on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 08:32:52 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Could it be that... (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kiwing, DesertCat, snout, totallynext

      we want a shouting match? That now that we're in majority, we want to beat Republicans down and want them publicly defeated and humiliated? Could it be that in some sick way, we care more about revenge than results?

      •  Short Answer (7+ / 0-)


        You can't always tell the truth because you don't always know the truth - but you can ALWAYS be honest.

        by mattman on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 01:07:34 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Absolutely not.... If you aren't pissed, (28+ / 0-)

        you haven't been paying attention.  

        Hardball:  The angry man refrain keeps getting hung around Edward's neck like they did to Dean, and Obama is more guilty of that than anyone.  

        Mudcat was on Tucker (saw bits while surfing).  Tucker threw the angry man at him, and Mudcatfumbled it.  

        Hillary is the Republican lite candidate that has been out Republican'd by Obama.  Obama has bean the Clinton's at their own game.

        Edward's represents blue collar, poor, unions, middleclass - you know the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party.   This "group" has lost the most, is ignored the most, and has more than enough reason to be angry at both parties.  

        If you aren't angry, you haven't been paying attention.  

        •  What has hurt Edwards in the media, (7+ / 0-)

          in my opinion, is Obama's charisma, plain and simple.  He appeals to them.  The media is pretty stupid, as we know, or at least they try to make themselves that way, focusing on such important matters as Aqua Velva scents and Dean-Screams and laughs and sighs.  

          So here comes Obama, a real two-fer: both presidential looking, "well-spoken" (Biden's clumsy phrase), and less we forget, African-American.  There is something startling about this.  Combine that with the HUGE early fund-raising advantage that he garnered that made him a serious candidate in their eyes early on, he has had an advantage.  By comparison, in this narrative, Hillary was cold and Edwards was a haircut.

          Full disclosure: I'm for Obama.  I like Edwards.  I hate Hillary and could never vote for her.  Having said that, though, this shallow interpretation of the year's reporting is probably more important to Obama's success WITH THE MEDIA than anything else.  It wasn't Edwards' message (a very good one) or Hillary's message (a very confused and bad one) that made the difference, except to those of us that are engaged enough to pay attention and really care.

        •  Interesting. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          Strong, economic arguments can be made that the groups you list, (blue collar, poor, unions, middleclass) have very different, and often competing interests.

          A good example is illegal immigration.  This benefits the middle class, by keeping down the price of low level service workers and various food products.  It also is seen as largely beneficial to unions, if the unions can get the illegal immigrants to organize.

          To non-Union, blue collar workers and the poor, however, illegal immigrants drive down the wages of the work available to those with the lowest level of education by providing a large, easily exploited pool of labor willing to work for very little money.  Thus illegal immigrants keep down the wages of the poor by providing a huge pool of unskilled laborers without which the price of unskilled labor would rise.  (Leaving aside the possible inflationary result of this, of course, as most of the poor are not overly concerned with monetary policy in the short term.)

          Thus I find it paradoxical that one candidate is seen as the champion of the poor and the middle class, the non-union and the union worker, as the interests of these groups are not aligned, at least economically.

          The welfare of humanity is always the alibi of tyrants. A. Camus

          by TastyCurry on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 07:05:47 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  What baffles me is... (0+ / 0-)

            Where is the evidence to back it up? Edwards has shouted Nader's message and made it more forceful, but Nader had the history and record to back it up. Is it really that exciting to see a candidate claim to fight for the poor and against the rich and fortunate? Maybe it is, if you haven't seen that before as it's relatively new here, but it's common politics elsewhere in the world.

        •  too bad (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          Your anger is eating you alive and affecting your perception.  This is why our "revolution" in the 60's didn't work.  

      •  Well, we're not in a majority in the Senate (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        NC Dem, gdwtch52

        The Republicans still have the White House. So, what "majority" are you talking about? The House?

        As far as "revenge" vs "results" go, we're for results. Results without compromise.

    •  If the netroots want|try to "School" Obama, (11+ / 0-)

      as much of the manner in which he's been criticized/attacked has gone on (your well-written diary is not one such) from the very beginning, he's going to respond with "screw you."

      If, on the other hand, a well articulated and sincere case is made, while giving and seeking respect, for anything where we'd like to influence his positions and views on, then I have no doubt that he'd heed and take our ideas and suggestions into consideration.

      That also extends into how he wants to approach the American public (not the Republican operatives or agents of greed) to  persuade them into supporting change towards progressive goals: persuasion, along the lines that I argued earlier.

      Those are my 2c.

      •  Not even close. (10+ / 0-)

        Obama said screw you before he even decided to run for President. When you go past the pretty words and read the attitude, both of these Obama diaries basically say: too bad, so sad, your dumb, and I don't give a fuck.

        •  Thanks for the link, (0+ / 0-)

          I wanted to revisit those pearls of wisdom... It is absolutely a mystery to me how these obamoonies came to be...
          ... and I rarely saw a booting as the one BO netted with that piece of dimwitted prose. The raspberry on Dkos lasted for a month. I am still chuckling...

        •  wrong interpretation. He actually tried to (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          kiwing, mcfly

          connect with us. But the comments he got were rather rude.

        •  Here is a good quote from his diaires: (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          kiwing, Miles in WesternWA

             Our goal should be to stick to our guns on those core values that make this country great, show a spirit of flexibility and sustained attention that can achieve those goals, and try to create the sort of serious, adult, consensus around our problems that can admit Democrats, Republicans and Independents of good will.  This is more than just a matter of "framing," although clarity of language, thought, and heart are required.  It's a matter of actually having faith in the American people's ability to hear a real and authentic debate about the issues that matter.

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

          I could have written these passages for him.

          •  H/T (0+ / 0-)

            to dharmafarmer for excerpt selection.

          •  Here's an even better quote, from the same diary (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            rick, Sychotic1

            According to the [implicitly false, remember] storyline that drives many advocacy groups and Democratic activists - a storyline often reflected in comments on this blog - we are up against a sharply partisan, radically conservative, take-no-prisoners Republican party. ... I think this perspective misreads the American people.

            So, according to Obama, Republicans are:

            1. Not sharply partisan
            1. Not radically Conservative
            1. Not take-no-prisoners.

            Surely this does not accord with the experience of most of the Democrats in the party of which he wishes to become the head.

            After living under Bush since 2000, I'd call it borderline delusional. And maybe leave out the word "borderline".

            [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 Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 07:09:44 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  That's same wrong interpretation again. (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Adam B, byteb, Miles in WesternWA, Foodle

              Obama is talking about Regular American people (Dem, GOP or Indie) not the Republican operative class.

              •  More to the point (0+ / 0-)

                With regard to Republicans he is talking about many of the people who self-identify as Republicans, whom he believes do not share the radically partisan orientation of the GOP leadership, and whom Obama believes are troubled by that leadership's take-no-prisoners confrontations.  Telling those Republican voters in the middle who are unsettled by their own party that you don't, in fact, believe that they are anti-American, partisan nutjobs is a much better way of convincing them (as well as many Independents) to vote Democrat this time than is shouting "fuck you and the horse you rode in on!"

              •  Check your facts. I have the right interpretation (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                I followed that talking point quite closely.

                The original talking point (#1) was that Obama was appealing to Republican operatives, and that one lost badly, as it should have (Harry, Nancy).

                The talking point then shifted (#2) to Obama appealing over the heads of the operatives to the "good" Republicans. I doubt this will happen, but the jury is still out.

                You're trying to smuggle Obama's delusional quote in under #2, when its clearly under #1 (that would be why Obama, a fine writer, says "Republican Party", right?).

                Doesn't work.

                Settling on a consistent message at the talking point detail level would be easier for you guys, as well as more effective, so I don't see why you don't do it; I get so tired of playing whack-a-mole.

                [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 Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 07:58:17 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Here are the two paragraphs: (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  According to the storyline that drives many advocacy groups and Democratic activists - a storyline often reflected in comments on this blog - we are up against a sharply partisan, radically conservative, take-no-prisoners Republican party. They have beaten us twice by energizing their base with red meat rhetoric and single-minded devotion and discipline to their agenda. In order to beat them, it is necessary for Democrats to get some backbone, give as good as they get, brook no compromise, drive out Democrats who are interested in "appeasing" the right wing, and enforce a more clearly progressive agenda. The country, finally knowing what we stand for and seeing a sharp contrast, will rally to our side and thereby usher in a new progressive era.

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

                  The audience he has in mind are American people.

                  He's clearly saying let's open up communication channels with all Americans, and was certainly NOT saying that we should cut deals w/ Republican operatives.

                  •  Yeah, and? n/t (0+ / 0-)

                    [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 Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 08:29:08 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  And (0+ / 0-)

                      ...the major point is that, despite your editing, it is clear that Obama was rejecting the notion that a Democratic party defined by pugnacious partisan purity will cause the American people to "rally to our side and thereby usher in a new progressive era."  Obama was not arguing that the Republican leadership is not sharply partisan, not radically Conservative, not take-no-prisoners.  

                      The minor point is that  to the extent that he was addressing the nature of Republicans at all, Obama was speaking to those in the middle who are suspicious of labels, jargon, and confrontational partisan rhetoric, but who at the same time are deeply troubled by the actions of the Bush administration and its big business backers.

                      •  These are the issues (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        1. What Obama says
                        1. What Obama says about what the American people believe

                        To me, this intro:

                        According to the storyline that drives many advocacy groups and Democratic activists - a storyline often reflected in comments on this blog...

                        unequivocally shows that Obama characterizes the idea that the Republican party is "sharply partisan" as a fictional construct, because that is what a "storyline" is: A fiction. (I also note that you are not saying, as more simple-minded commenters do, that Obama is not talking about the Party, but about its members.  Obviously, from the text, he's talking abotu the Party. Whackamole is hard work.)

                        That takes care of #1, which is a simple question of fact. The whole question of "partisan purity" is irrelevant here.

                        As to #2, the beliefs of the American people. Perhaps Obama is right, perhaps he is wrong. Those beliefs have nothing to do with the factual issues in #1.

                        Of course, on the ground, this is a big issue, since Obama may, or may not, be able to attract enough non-Democrats into the caucuses and the primaries to pick the Democratic nominee, which doubtless his adoption of right wing talking points is designed to do. Good for him if he can do it; it's a clever strategy; but separate from what he said about the Party, and what the American people believe about the party, and the whole partisan purity thing.

                        Personally, I don't care about purity as such; I just think the unity schtick is content free and not the way to win with a progessive mandate. Obama and the fan base disagree. Time will tell, as David Broder would say.

                        [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 Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 09:06:39 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Your #1 is nonsense (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:

                          unequivocally shows that Obama characterizes the idea that the Republican party is "sharply partisan" as a fictional construct, because that is what a "storyline" is: A fiction.

                          "Storyline" does not imply fictional; and even if it did, fictional does not imply false.  Many fictions convey a great deal of truth.  Others, like your misrepresentation of Obama's comments, perpetuate falsehoods.

                          By "storyline" Obama is talking about pretty much the same thing that we talk about when discussing "framing."  It is a conceptual or narrative framework with which to simplify and make sense of the complexities of reality.  Nowhere in the above paragraphs does Obama reject as false the storyline or framing that the Republican party is sharply partisan, etc.  What Obama did and continues to do is reject the inference that many draw from that storyline or framing that the best and only way to respond to that kind of Republican party is to adopt our own strategy of pugnacious partisan purity, and that doing so will attract the American people to our way of thinking.  Obama disagrees and thinks there is a better way to persuade the many Independents and Republicans who are troubled by the Bush administration and the current Republican party leadership.

                          If you want to rationally discuss #2, please proceed; but please also stop making the false claims that Obama doesn't think that the Republican party is sharply partisan, that he thinks we should compromise with extreme Conservatism, etc.  That is simply not true.

                          •  "storyline" not "fictional construct" (0+ / 0-)


                            Weak, but plausible with hard work (for which I just recommended your comment).

                            I disagree.

                            [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 Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 10:09:07 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                •  Does work (0+ / 0-)

                  "Republican party" is not the same as "Republican leadership" or "elected Republicans."  Especially not when Obama immediately follows up with his reference to "the American people."  It was clearly Obama's intent to broaden his rhetoric to address those who consider themselves in the Republican party but who are not sharply partisan.  It is also clearly not Obama's intent to vilify all Republicans in order to win cheers from the Democratic base.  Obama is aiming for something other than just partisan cheers.

          •  Obama revealed how little he understood about the (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Sychotic1, NeuvoLiberal

            the nature of blogs when he wrote in to tell us how to FIGHT with Republicans and with Democrats who were busy enabling Republicans. People should follow your links, and then follow Armando's links and comments on those links, to see what so many of us were upset about when we were fighting those who would keep our powder dry during the Roberts--and then Alito's--nominations to the Supreme Court.

            Obama misunderstood our freedom-fighting role--or worse, politically took advantage of our commitment to change, our active commitment to truth as described by BooMan23 in this diary, by suggesting we were doing more harm than good, hence siding with--or worse, taking advantage of--those who do not understand the freewheeling tone that belongs to the public nature of the blogosphere (with its use of expressive foul language, or cheap shots as stress-relieving humor for example).

            A quick study of diaries during the two-week period leading up to Obama's diaries would recapture the annoying Washington insularity reflected in Obama's toe-dip into DailyKos.

            I hesitate to bring this up, as I usually agree with you, NuevoLiberal, and because I hope Obama has grown quite a bit in the last six months as a political leader. Perhaps he even understands what we are today --and perhaps not. I think this experience is part of the reason I distrust Obama's motives at times, perhaps more than I should. I find myself liking Edwards' message more, and probably for the reasons BooMan23 outlines in this excellent diary.

            I am ready to back the Democrat that wins the primary process, as I think all of them have the potential to be a great President.

            Disclosure: I back Kucinich and Dodd.

            Habeas Corpus:See Hamilton quoting Blackstone in The Federalist Papers, number 84.

            by Ignacio Magaloni on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 07:38:40 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  This post not well articulate, sincere? (0+ / 0-)

        Funny how the "unity" thing dissolves so fast, isn't it? For progressives, of course...

        Though not for Joe Lieberman...

        [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 Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 07:06:36 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  In order to practice what I preach, (0+ / 0-)

        my choice of the phrase "screw you" in my comment above maye have been a bit harsh and hence I want to apologize for it.

        My point  there was that relationships are two-way streets and therefore, if we are fair-minded and reasonable toward him, I think that we'll have a friend and a dependable progressive partner in Barack Obama.

    •  I don't think Obama intends to negotiate with (18+ / 0-)

      the Republicans in Washington.  His style isn't Harry Reid's.

      I think he plans to take his message directly to the american people.

      Head to Heading Left, BlogTalkRadio's progressive radio site!

      by thereisnospoon on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 01:31:43 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I agree (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        highacidity, Wizznilliam, empathy, Foodle

        I don't think he's talking about compromising with THEM, I think he's talking about making them compromise with us.  To me it seems like his method is all about moving the window to a completely different place.  To do that he has to put himself above them (representing the people) instead of validating them by fighting with them (as if they were equals).  I think he'll most likely win (JRE is more my style) and I hope if he does his method works.

      •  This is well put (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        byteb, highacidity, mcfly, Wizznilliam

        and though I am for Edwards, that is what I think his strategy is as well.

      •  that's what (0+ / 0-)

        you think... in other words, speculation

      •  Ah, the go on TV theory. This is a new one (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        chumley, EastCoastShock, robroser

        Maybe Obama can take his message "directly to the people."

        If so, whatever message he's going to have won't be progressive mandate, because he's not asking for one.

        And a lot of Presidents have gone on TV. Obama will be different how?

        When I went first went out onto the threads from Obama's fan base, there was a LOT of talk about how Obama was an "honest broker," would "negotiate," would get everyone "around the table."

        So, we all played whack-a-mole with that one for awhile, and it went away, because it's easy to refute by looking at what happened to poor Harry and Nancy.

        Now, apparently, that theory is inoperative, has been dropped, and now we have the new "go on TV" theory.

        I don't like playing whack-a-mole. It brings up too many had memories of how Republicans behave.

        Wouldn't be simpler to just take a consistent line?

        Unless, of course, the consistent line is simply and only teh awesomeness of Obama.

        [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 Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 07:18:45 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  How quickly we forget (20+ / 0-)

      Obama, whatever his bipartisan delusions, could have owned the blogosphere had he led on Iraq. He had one of the world's biggest megaphones due to his celebrity, and what did he do with it? Opposed timetables and defunding. Fretted publicly about "hurting the troops." Then kept mum on the biggest Iraq vote last spring before sneaking in at the last minute along with Sen Clinton to finally vote to oppose funding.

      •  He doesn't want the blogosphere (9+ / 0-)

        He wants the oval office.  I'd bet he thinks being associated with usn's would give the MSM a tool to marginalize him (like the did to Dean).  That's what he very artfully keeps dodging.  In the same way they haven't been able to marginalize him by describing him as another Jesse or Rev Al.  They can't call him a "typical liberal".  It seems to be working.  He's been defining the discourse, we haven't had a candidate who could do that since Clinton.

        We're a tiny fragment of the voting public.  He knows almost all of us will vote for him in the general anyway.  

        I personally prefer JRE's tone and message.  It addresses my concerns more directly, but I don't mistake Obama's tactics for selling out.  I think he sees a way of winning and he's going that way.  I think he will probably win.  If so, good.

        •  It'll be Jimmy Carter revisited (0+ / 0-)

          The goopers will hand him his head on a platter.  

          "I said, 'wait a minute, Chester, you know I'm a peaceful man.'" Robbie Robertson -8.13, -4.56

          by NearlyNormal on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 06:58:23 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I don't think so (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            kiwing, mcfly, mozlover, Foodle

            I love Jimmy Carter, but I don't think he was anywhere near the skilled politician Obama is.  Small town JC was overwhelmed by Washington and lost control very early on (even of his own party).  I don't see Obama being overwhelmed --in a couple of years he matched HRC in organization, endorsements, and money raising.  Guy's good at what he does.

            •  Organization is good (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              but the endorsements and the money raising are actually kind of troubling to me.  I stand by what I said, I think he gets killed in the big leagues at this time.  Maybe he needs some seasoning, maybe his nature is just wrong for the current situation, but I don't see him as able to stand up to whats coming next.  That is the only reason that I'd vote for Clinton if Edwards gets eliminated, I don't agree much with her, but she knows that she will have a fight on her hand; she won't be fighting for me, and what I care about, but she will be fighting the right wing.

              "I said, 'wait a minute, Chester, you know I'm a peaceful man.'" Robbie Robertson -8.13, -4.56

              by NearlyNormal on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 07:15:47 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I see your point (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                kiwing, NearlyNormal, Foodle

                But I think fighting them tends to validate them.  They thrive on bitterness and anger.  Almost 30 years after Reagan, they're still here.  Maybe the way to make them go away is to laugh at them, to ignore them, to treat them like the bratty children they are.  They marginalized us by doing that.  Shrill doesn't work for us, it only makes us look desperate.

                Obama seems to be doing alright in the majors so far.  HRC is a veteran with a lot of money etc. behind her and O's gone toe to toe without blinking.  I don't get the impression that he's scared of anybody.

                •  I don't think he's scared of them (0+ / 0-)

                  I think he should be scared of them, I fear them, I've seen what they will do, and I want them fought at every step.  30 years after Reagan it is time to fight again, not continue the long slide rightward.

                  "I said, 'wait a minute, Chester, you know I'm a peaceful man.'" Robbie Robertson -8.13, -4.56

                  by NearlyNormal on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 07:30:58 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

        •  Ah, so few "typical liberals" are left. You are (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          gogol, zbctj52, eru

          right to  compare him to Bill Clinton who ended up making Wall Street happy, but Maytag workers not so happy.  Southern Democrats, Blue or Yellow Dogs, DLC or whatever you want to call Democrats who are more in line with FriedmanReaganRubinonics aka more in line with creating wealth for Wall Street deride FDR, Truman liberals as "typical".   But no traditional Democrat should applaud Obama for dissing Dems who still feel that the party should be the party of the average working person who has had no voice for over 30 years.  As successful at creating Wall Street wealth as they are, without also giving something to the middle and lower classes such as healthcare or keeping good factory jobs here and helping small family farmers, they are basically a business party.

          And there was a party for business.  It was the Republican Party.  Business folks who aren't whackos have quietly drifted over to the Democratic Party over the years and I wish they would just go  back instead of hijacking the labor party for their own ambitions and wallets.

          That's why you see the anger and the hurt on the faces of the factory workers, steel workers and carpenters.  Which party leader represents them or truly holds out their hands to them and embraces them?  

          I cannot be a Democrat if it is not the party of those folks.  I cannot look at their faces and turn away.  John Edwards cannot turn away either.  He is making one last grand stand to reclaim the Democratic Party for the majority of Americans.  It would be less seismic if he gets his chance.   But part of me would like to see an earthquake

          "It is not be cause things are difficult that we do not dare; it is because we do not dare that they are difficult." Seneca

          by MontanaMaven on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 08:18:16 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Business Folks want Universal Health Care too... (0+ / 0-)

            'level playing field' means able to compete with China and Britain and Germany.

            But if you really wanna give us fiscally liberal dems a new home, help Huckabee get the Republican nomination.

            I want a Republican Party again!

   Sorry, is my sense of humor showing?

            by RisingTide on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 01:14:07 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  I'm concerned about megaphones, too. (7+ / 0-)

        But let's not kid ourselves.  The Democrats with the biggest megaphones for the past seven years, without any question, were the Clintons.  Not just Hillary, but Bill.  Either one of them could have spoken out at any point and tried to put some backbone into the Party leadership's resistance.  And they would be much loved this very day, instead of struggling in Iowa.

        Although I have questions about Obama's cautious rhetoric and tactics, AND HAVE SAID SO BEFORE, there is no comparison with what the Clintons in this regard.  If the Democratic Party has been one of spineless enablers, there is nobody who deserves the blame more than they do.

        Let's not forget Bill's op/ed endorsing war with Iraq before the war.  Let's not forget Bill's going on CNN with George Bush Sr. and saying that Jr. shouldn't get the blame because nobody could have foreseen the mess, and let's not play the blame game.  Let's not forget Bill defending Bush in 2003 saying that Bush couldn't have known that there were no WMD's in Iraq.

        But for them, the whole past seven years of tragic disaster might be laid totally at George W. Bush's feet.  Instead, history will give the Democratic Party leadership much of the blame as well.  And THAT PISSES ME OFF.

      •  opposed timetables? (0+ / 0-)

        he sponsered timetable legislation.

        btw, those votes by BHO and HRC represent the only time one of the major candidates have actually voted against iraq war funding. but amazingly you count that against them.

        i'm not one to say he couldn't have done better on the issue. but he certainly did better than any other major candidate. by a long, long way.

        Newsday: Rudy Giuliani missing in action for Iraq panel

        by jethropalerobber on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 08:59:10 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  And why was the reality-based (6+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      fladem, byteb, mozlover, TastyCurry, Foodle, AJsMom

      blogosphere so quick to latch on to Edwards' fierce rhetoric, and poo-poo his disappointing voting record? You're not painting a very pretty picture here.

      It's really discouraging to think that this "reality-based" community is so easily swayed by pretty words.

    •  This is an excellent essay, Booman. (7+ / 0-)

      You are a true progressive.

      This is exactly right:

      we can beat them by telling the truth and getting organized.

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

      by TomP on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 06:05:23 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  But there is one point. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mdgarcia, America08, Ellinorianne

        If you cannot endorse Edwards over Obama and see them the same on issues, you clearly are missing something.

        It's not just style.

        There are clear substative differences, starting with universal health care.

        In the end, Booman, you end up just like the other A-Listers.  Sorry, but that ain't progressive.

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

        by TomP on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 08:34:07 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  I don't understand why existing chances of (5+ / 0-)

    winning affect your endorsement.

    The point of endorsements is to change the chances of winning.

  •  army of change (22+ / 0-)

    Obama at Coralville tonight explained that his change will be effected politely because he will have the numbers, he is not beholdent to the special interests, he has the hope and will and vision to effect change, and he will do it in a way that attracts not only democrats hungry for change but also disaffected republicans and independents who hunger for change, redemption even for voting for bush.

    how else can you explain Barack's Republican Precinct Captains?

    My sense about people like Monica is that they've actually been Democrats for a long time, they just didn't know it. Monica told me she was increasingly concerned about the environment and wanted the war to end. She said she voted against Kerry in 2004, not for Bush. What kept her a Republican all those years, I think, was an unflattering mental image of who Democrats were--crusty union hacks and effete Northeastern elitists--which Obama shattered. It wouldn't shock me if there were lots more like her.

    At the end of the Day, you can't deny that Obama has the Biggest Upside Potential Obama/Richardson '08

    by kubla000 on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 10:56:07 PM PST

  •  The blogosphere did NOT go for Edwards (51+ / 0-)

    when they had a chance to make a difference.  They were too afraid of pissing off Her Majesty.

    Now they've just discovered that the Democratic nominee will be either the DLC Establishment, or someone who doesn't believe in the way the Netroots does politics.  Either way, the next President won't give a shit what Markos or Jerome or Chris or Jane or Duncan have to say.

    They had their turn at the plate, and they just swung real late at strike three.

    "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

    by Geekesque on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 10:57:10 PM PST

  •  Because he pandered to them. (4+ / 0-)

    He took the most left wing positions on issues. Thats a problem too because it also makes him seem phony, from what he was back during his senate term and in '04. He even went so far as to hire radical feminist blogger Amanda Marcotte.

    I think he realised he went overboard too, because recently he changed from being all about poverty to emphasizing the middle class more. Had he started out doing that, he may have had a better chance to be the nominee.

  •  The media (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ourprez08, Ranting Roland, Salo

    is supposed to keep an eye on the politicians but they've failed their prime directive more often than not. Thankfully, we now have the blogosphere to keep an eye on the media.

    No longer is dirt as easily swept under the rug. There are thousands in cyberspace who will lift the edges of the rug and point out the lazy housekeeping skills of the MSM.

    Reader, suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself--Mark Twain

    by Libertaria on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 10:59:22 PM PST

    •  Think of the Other Meaning of "Supposed." (0+ / 0-)

      The framers, and most of us, "suppose" that that's their role.

      The framers, and most of us, ignore the forces of actual society in this epoch and the laws of economics and mechanics.

      The media are doing what our system is designed and built for them to do.

      There is no problem with the media. None whatsoever.

      There is a problem with our system of government.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 11:43:59 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Good insights (8+ / 0-)

    I agree with your conclusion about the policy differences between Obama and Edwards.

    Watching Obama I get the impression that he can deliver a mandate for the party. Not 51 percent but 60+ percent in the general. That would move those dinosaurs out the Senate and then some real work could get done.

    Obama is powerful. You don't see him working diners. He fills the bigest rooms or arenas in town and makes the girls cry. Few politicians are able to do that.

    Obama has the right content and package.

    We shall overcome, someday.

    by Sam Wise Gingy on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 11:00:46 PM PST

  •  Whatis the blogosphere? (6+ / 0-)

    Is it a seelct group of site owners? If so, then correct. But if you are talking about bloggers en toto, then you are off the mark.

  •  Fantastically well said (9+ / 0-)

    "...and we don't believe bipartisanship is possible without first crushing the Republican Party down to a stump."


    U.S. Supreme Court - Political hacks in black robes.

    by Brian82 on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 11:02:40 PM PST

  •  The true reason (9+ / 0-)

    They couldn't get Al Gore!

    But I say that as one who prefers Edwards over Clinton or Obama. I like some of the others too.

    Admittedly, the Edwards bloggers did a good job of recruiting those who accepted Gore's decision not to run.

    In an honest poll of whether they'd prefer Gore or Edwards, I think the blogosphere has been clear in its preference.

    Do your best to make Edwards the nominee and I'll do mine to get him elected in the general.

    My last sig was forced into retirement. The position is open.

    by MakeChessNotWar on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 11:03:16 PM PST

  •  one issue, a really BIG ONE (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ourprez08, Mojo Jojo

    You use the examples of Ried and Pelosi, two poll driven legislateurs, both which fall very short of a President Obama... Give that man with that gift of Oration and Talent for Writing + Vision the Bully Pulpit and he will get anything he asks for!

    Upside potential

    See my signature

    At the end of the Day, you can't deny that Obama has the Biggest Upside Potential Obama/Richardson '08

    by kubla000 on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 11:05:51 PM PST

  •  The blogosphere (5+ / 0-)

    is behind partisan politics.  The country isn't.  Obama isn't going to play partisan.  Blogosphere doesn't play Obama.

    Obama wins.  World gets better due to unification approach.  

  •  Repugnicants do not compromise. (17+ / 0-)

    That is what Edwards understands ... and why I have decided to vote for him.

    "We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them." - A. Einstein

    by FWIW on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 11:08:08 PM PST

  •  Are you trying to speak for all of us? (5+ / 0-)
  •  "How this diarist was extremely presumptuous." (3+ / 0-)

    Read the diary - it's all in there.

    This blogosphere denizen isn't for Edwards.

    He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing - Mua'dib

    by Shane Hensinger on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 11:10:13 PM PST

  •  We had better nominate a FIGHTER because... (21+ / 0-)

    ...otherwise the American people aren't going to vote for the Democrats again. They sure didn't get their money's worth when they showed up to vote in November 2006.

    The Democratic House and Senate -- which happens to include two of the top-tier presidential contenders -- have not given those voters any reason to show up again.

    Edwards is the one who lays it out in no uncertain terms that we have to FIGHT, and that alone makes him the only nominee who is going to get those voters back next November.

    •  Sing it, Meanie! (5+ / 0-)

      We need real change and it needs to happen soon. No nibbling around the edges will do.

    •  who are you fighting? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Quicklund, Mojo Jojo

      we are all americans... is there a boggieman Edwards will fight?

      Do you discount the fights that Obama has had in life?

      They're both fighters... just one has tact

      At the end of the Day, you can't deny that Obama has the Biggest Upside Potential Obama/Richardson '08

      by kubla000 on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 11:24:17 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Clink on the link in my sig (6+ / 0-)

        if you've forgotten what the boogieman looks like.

        Everyone getting together and holding hands isn't going to do it.

        The system is rigged - John Edwards

        by okamichan13 on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 11:28:02 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  i'm getting sick of this bogus meme (4+ / 0-)

          seriously when did obama ever say we'd hold hands and come to a solution...

          Obama is all about attracting as many AMERICANS to his side as possible so as to build an Army of Change which will give him a WORKING COALITION which gives him the numbers to push the Boggiemen out of the way and EFFECT REAL CHANGE

          This isn't Boxing... this is Governance... there is no one to fight, it's about Power, and POWER comes from VOTES...

          Obama can win in a Landslide, appeals to all, and will have you in toe too as he changes america once and for all...

          I don't hate Edwards but I don't see the need to FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT... Anger gets you zippo zilch!

          At the end of the Day, you can't deny that Obama has the Biggest Upside Potential Obama/Richardson '08

          by kubla000 on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 11:32:18 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Did you click on the link? (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            MeanBoneII, Salo, hedgey

            you don't seem to think there is a boogieman so holding hands seemed to be the alternative if there's noone to fight.

            The system is rigged - John Edwards

            by okamichan13 on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 11:34:16 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  so what, CEO's make too much money (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Mojo Jojo

              who isn't using this talking point but serious what can any politician do about that crap... the injustice is that the services provided are costing you and me too much money. I give a shit how much Steve Jobs or Bill Gates gets paid because i'm happy with my computer and internet etc... and those guys are rich as SHIT

              So if the healthcare industry could be forced to provide coverage to you and me at a savings so we may have insurance, then I will again give 2 Shits what they make

              I'm a capitalist, I like profit, I try to make it day to day in my own life, and so long as a company provides services needed, then let them make their profits.  

              An army of change with a solid national coalition can make change happen... Edwards will be Fillibustered into the Fucking Ground!

              At the end of the Day, you can't deny that Obama has the Biggest Upside Potential Obama/Richardson '08

              by kubla000 on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 11:40:10 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  Power comes from votes? (5+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            MeanBoneII, Salo, mightymouse, hedgey, sherlyle

            When people are ignorant about issues, they can be manipulated to vote any which way.

            If power came from votes, why do the powerful try to gobble up the resources?

            I think your statement is purely theoretical.

          •  Two examples of Obama singing kumbaya (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Salo, hedgey
            1. When he endorsed Lieberman, his mentor, over Lamont in CT:

            Obama wasted little time getting to that point, calling it the "elephant in the room" but praising Lieberman's intellect, character and qualifications.

            "The fact of the matter is, I know some in the party have differences with Joe. I'm going to go ahead and say it," Obama told the 1,700-plus party members who gathered in a ballroom at the Connecticut Convention Center for the $175-per-head fundraiser.

            "I am absolutely certain Connecticut is going to have the good sense to send Joe Lieberman back to the U.S. Senate so he can continue to serve on our behalf," he said.

            1. When he became totally untethered from reality about the nature of the Republican Party, on Kos, in 2005:

            According to the [implicitly false, remember] storyline that drives many advocacy groups and Democratic activists - a storyline often reflected in comments on this blog - we are up against a sharply partisan, radically conservative, take-no-prisoners Republican party.  ... I think this perspective misreads the American people.

            Republican Party not sharply partisan?

            Republican Party not radically conservative?

            Republican Party not take-no-prisoners?

            I have to say... That Obama's statement is at variance not only with the views here at Kos, but with the experience of most Democrats -- the Party that Obama wants to head.

            [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 Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 07:32:29 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Fighting isnt about Anger... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            I dont know where you got that idea. Hollywood perhaps?

            Fighting means taking a stand,  promising to enforce the law, (courteously or not)  creating new laws to address new scams, and following through on the promises.

            You are confusing Anger, the kind where you are mad at someone, with Righteousness, where injustice gets addressed by way of not tolerating the intolerant. It is a dfficult concept.. being intolerant of the intolerant, but, it is the essence of justice.

            Your "rhetoric" is faux sophisticated and mushy. "Biggest Upside Potential" You actually think that is effective speech? Its more AD SPEAK! Thats what our problem IS! AD SPEAK rhetoric! Wake up! Come alive and get mad at those who have been ripping you off, murdering and plundering for some kind of American Manifest Destiny. Its not 1840 any more.

            Come on over. 27 years of Republican rhetoric, fake "niceness" are about ready to end. Edwards for President.

            Figures don't lie, but liars do figure-Mark Twain

            by OregonOak on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 08:16:23 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  i've never been ripped off (0+ / 0-)

              maybe it's because i'm a successful individual fortunate to have great friends, love in my life, a job i love and a salary that gives me no wants, that i'm an optimist.  i have not been put upon, and I'm sorry that you have been. I have wonderful health insurance, wonderful retirement accounts, and was the product of a wonderful public school system.  

              I've been an optimist all my life, and the system works for me.  I am tired of people pitting people against each other, that is why there is a perception of a crumbling america when in reality there are always those who will go through tribulation while there are those who will be triumpant.  

              Upside Potential is NOT adspeak. It's the language you use when you recruit people, such as my other passion, NCAA College Football, specifically the LSU Tigers. You don't always want a known quantity, sometimes a situation calls for potential, and Obama's upside potential extends to horizon much further than your limited, jadded, cynical world view can see.  It extends to the world America will be 8 years after he's left office, 10 years after he's been elected, the way he'll make America believe in itself again.  I am an idealist, I believe in the good nature of people, our neighbors and even Republicans.  Americans are at their heart good people, and if we for once find someone we can all agree upon, we will all then work to create solutions for the problems which do ail portions of our population.

              For instance, my Mother has bad Health Insuarance.  She has a $1700 copayment, but her Net Annual is only $22,000.... that's stiff.  It's been 10 years since the Democrats tried radical change and it'll be 20 years before any results come about if there is no compromise.  She needs better insurance now... she doesn't need universal healthcare.  By virtue of insurance she had 3 years ago, before it went to shit, she beat cancer in the current Health System.  What she needs TODAY is Insurance that gives her a Copayment she can afford again, coverage which meets her needs, so she can live her lifestyle again.

              Obama will deliver that, and oh so much more.  In a few days, maybe 23 maybe 35, all Democrats hopefully will have the same infectious optimism Obama brings forth after he's locked up the Nomination.  

              There doesn't need to be a Fight

              There doesn't need to be Anger anymore

              In the end, Kindness IS the most Dangerous Weapon

              At the end of the Day, you can't deny that Obama has the Biggest Upside Potential Obama/Richardson '08

              by kubla000 on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 09:23:04 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Thank you (0+ / 0-)

                for clarifying.

                I respectfully disagree, despite the fact that I am also a Big Winner in the American Dream. House, farm, job, intellectual stimulation. good friends, family, sardonic sense of humor and most importantly a great education provided by the people of Oregon in public schools and colleges.

                I have come to different conclusions despite our similarities, much as Mr. Edwards and Mr. Obama have come to different conclusions explaining how we got to where we are. I respect your point of view, but I do strenuosly disagree.

                I am also an optimist, but we are contesting a deep cynicism, that is, an intolerance which is so deep and dark that one finds oneself having to look into the abyss to fathom the oppostions' point of view. Either that, or they are vapid. "The banality of evil," as Hannah Arndt identifed the worst of human behavior in the worst of times, the mid-20th century. Unknowing. Ignorant. Disregarding fact. Ordinary. Banal.

                McCain makes brutal jokes about Chelsea Clinton. Huckabee doesnt know anything about Pakistan except Muslims live there. Thompson, Romney Giuliani.. all pander to the worst angels of the nature of mankind. And they appear to be nice. Appearing to be nice is not the proper attitude. Deep meanness and cynicism must be met with power, force and law, and a posture of anger, or if you like, righteousness.

                Obama and Edwards are right. Their style of leadership is the issue. I pray that either one of them wins, but I know that Obama's task will be made more difficult because of his posture. We have been "nice" and the manipulators use that as a force to divide us. I merely suggest that we take on the mantle of being mean SOB's until we can get them out, and then see who we can bring to the table. They do NOT understand anything else. If that is not clear to you, you have not been paying attention.

                Figures don't lie, but liars do figure-Mark Twain

                by OregonOak on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 01:08:05 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

      •  Ask Nataline's parents who the fight is against. (6+ / 0-)

        And as for Obama's "upside potential" you might want to check that again.

    •  Fighting's great... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      But only if you lead a team that wants to fight and can be motivated to fight effectively.

      For example, do you think Edwards could give Harry Reid a spine transplant?  The spine that Edwards himself could've used when HE was in the Senate??

      It's a genuine question.  Maybe he can - but there's a huge leap of faith required to believe that.  Just as going with Obama requires a huge leap of faith from Edwardites.

      •  The only way to give Democrats backbone is to... (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        human, hedgey, sherlyle, seabos84

        ...have them see our nominee run as a fighter for the working people and win. The only Democrat who has shown that he understands that and is willing to make that run is Edwards.

        By running on a strong progressive agenda and making it clear that he's going to take the power away from the corporations, Edwards will have a mandate when he wins. He can say, "The American people have spoken, and we're going to have real universal health care now." If Congress wants to defy him, they'll have the President of the United States using the bully pulpit to let their constituents know whose side they were on.

  •  Who exactly is (9+ / 0-)

    ...the blogosphere?  I see a lot of Obama supporters here (on the internets) and yes, even Hillary supporters, and of course those still with the second tier candidates.  

    Arrogant lips are unsuited to a fool-- how much worse lying lips to a ruler - Proverbs 17:7

    by Barbara Morrill on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 11:11:09 PM PST

  •  wha? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DelRPCV, Quicklund, Mojo Jojo

    Maybe you should retitle this "Why Booman23 and a Few People He Knows Went for Edwards".

    I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy.

    by Ickey shuffle on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 11:12:56 PM PST

  •  Good insight (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MarkC, ourprez08, humphrey, hedgey

    You helped to transform my jumbled impressions of the campaign into a clear insight.

    So thanks.

    I'll keep my fingers crossed tomorrow that Iowa voters will support him, too.

    "Of course your need to consume is an exception due to your incredibly challenging circumstances."

    by Topaz7 on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 11:21:26 PM PST

  •  Not Larry Sabato endorse Hillary (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    And I THINK Raising Kaine is neutral.

  •  I think lots of us are just where you are (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MarkC, mconvente

    on Edwards and Obama.  Thanks for expressing it so well!  I'm also torn between Edwards and Obama, and will likely support whichever one makes the best race in the first few contests.  I have the luxury of waiting until Feb. 5 to decide here in California.

    The thing is, I really want it to be Edwards, and I really want it to be Obama.  Maybe Edwards / Obama.  It's kind of a nice position to be in, unless they bloody each other and nominate Hillary by accident.  I'll probably go with the momentum.

    Choose Our President 2008

  •  Hmm. Thanks (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DrMicro, chicago minx

    I get it now.

    Thing is, I don't think a President Obama would be weak. His crack, smart campaign reminds me more of Clinton - not exactly a wallflower. I've actually felt Obama's rhetoric might be more 'authentic' because it isn't in lock step with us.

    Who controls the past, controls the future. Who controls the present, controls the past. George Orwell

    by moon in the house of moe on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 11:35:48 PM PST

  •  Don't underestimate ego (5+ / 0-)

    The blogosphere rose in the 04 elections with the Dean phenomenon, helping catapult Dean from 2 or 3% to the lead.  It was all about Trippi's people-power message, and born out of frustration with the corporate takeover of the Democrats.

    Sometime after that, the blogosphere interpreted people power as power to the blogosphere.  If you were around in 2006 and early 2007, there were tons of messages along the line of 'its all about us, who will listen to us'.  Edwards recognized this and catered to this.  Hillary probably never had a chance due to her association with Bill who represented the corporate takeover the blogosphere was against, but in Obama's case it just wan't his style.

    This is pretty much the history of the rise and fall of all movements, from the most trivial to the most earth-shattering revolution.

    •  The future ain't bright for blogs... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Mojo Jojo

      I think you make a key point when you note the distinction between 'people-powered politics' and 'blogosphere-powered politics'.  The blogs have become entirely too self-righteous and to paraphrase Obama "what I see on this site now surprises me less and less".

      •  over statement (0+ / 0-)

        The statement that the "blogs" (really, all 70 million of them?) are too self-righteous smacks of someone who hasn't harnessed the benefit of them.

        Look, blogs, social networking, etc. is THE way to reach a big part of the population. Stating summarily saying that "the blogs" are too self-righteous is silly.

      •  Oh come on. (0+ / 0-)

        There are over 100k UIDs on dailykos, just by odds that means there are over 10k active posters that are arrogant pricks. That isn't a new phenomenon. Not to pull a "in my day" but the Dean movement was one of the most self righteous arrogant blowhard collection of drama queens the world has ever seen. That was what brough together most of the early memebers of the site, but that isn't what made dailykos grow.

        This isn't about ego, this site was founded and grew mostly on partisanship and the aggregation of people willing to fight for what they believed in in the face of a corrupt government and an inept media. We are not a bipartisan crowd by self selection. The fact that every "bipartisan" leader we've seen since 2000 has been beaten like a scrambled egg by the GOP.

        So it's a cultural barrier really, in my view at least. Obama thinks he can move the party forward via outreach and we disagree. He may well be right given all the Blue Dogs in congress, but it just has never worked in my adult life so I doubt it'll start now.

        But again, and you'll see this over and over on this site, I think he's a good man and I'll vote for him if he wins the nomination, he just doesn't fit the ethos of this crowd.

        Grunge is still in... right?

        by Windowdog on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 08:43:35 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Good points, well put. (0+ / 0-)

          Just to clarify: when I suggest compromise, I don't mean watering down our progressive agenda at all, I mean finding a better way to sell it. I think the blogosphere is terrible at that. We can't even sell our ideas to our own Congresspeople, who probably agree with us to begin with!

          This whole community needs to re-read "How to Win Friends and Influence People".

  •  Oh C'Mon This Stuff Can be Severely Overthought (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    johnny rotten, Dave925

    The blogosphere is obsessed with ideas.

    The political system runs on force.

    The rest is left to the student.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 11:46:17 PM PST

  •  Yipes. Battling. Comrades-in-arms. Enemies. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kiwing, Quicklund, Mojo Jojo

    Sorry, I'm really not relating to the military metaphors here. I think you build a coalition, get the votes, and win. I'm not interested in destroying or smashing anybody. I mean, if it has to be done it has to be done, but its not a goal in and of itself for me.

    If Edwards doesn't win, I hope we can have an honest discussion about who that style appeals and does not appeal to and why. I'm not going to speculate until we have some hard data.  

    •  The Rethugs Refer to "Bipartisanship" As... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:


      Maybe now you understand why they must be defeated not negotiated with.


      "There is a time for compromise, and it is called 'Later'!"

      by LeftyLimblog on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 06:59:31 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Wow! The scales have fallen from (0+ / 0-)

        my eyes with that 20 year old Grover Norquist quote. Now I love metaphors of violence and revolution, and believe other potential Democratic voters will totally love them too.

        In truth, I found your comment insulting. You obviously think I have not even a passing familiarity with the conservative movement. Now that you've told me how it is, I surely must agree! It couldn't be that I actually just dislike metaphors of violence and revolution and believe they can be a real turn off for potential Democratic voters. For one thing, they're incredibly cheesy. To the barricades!! Comrades-in-arms! Fight the power! Seriously? You think people find that relatable?  

        •  Don't like my Quote - Go Over to Hullabaloo (0+ / 0-)

          And read up on how Republicans really work... The Republicans don't deal in metaphors, they deal in delivering defeats to progressives, not in being fair and reasonable, and now they have even more millions of dollars behind them.

          If you aren't willing to fight for a better America, you are not going to get one.

          Year after year I've lived through watching the Republicans divide and conquer, and yet you decide that you don't like my attitude.

          Four more years from now Grover Norquist's quote will be four years older and just as true then as it is today.



          "There is a time for compromise, and it is called 'Later'!"

          by LeftyLimblog on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 09:13:28 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  obama is ironically the people-powered candidate (6+ / 0-)

    This is a fair diary, so nice to read after the slanderous crap that's been posted on this website today.

    Ironically, the Obama campaign is the grass-roots people-powered movement that the Blogosphere seemed to be calling for, one step past the Dean campaign: unbelievable numbers at passionate rallies, unbelievable number of small donors, fantastic use of web technology, a return to liberal positions..

    So it's a bit bizarre that the blogosphere pundits have been attacking it viciously.

  •  Andgarden vs Geekesque (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    IM, Dave925, mightymouse

    I'm thinking of posting an Andgarden vs. Geekesque diary whereby they would be encouraged to duel to the death via comments.

    Except then I would be violating the terms of this site.


    Question authoritarianism.

    by m00nchild on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 11:59:32 PM PST

  •  The blogosphere is focused on verbiage. (11+ / 0-)

    John Edwards knew this and used popular rhetoric to distract from his own abysmal Senate record.  Edwards was never any more successful than Pelosi and Reid in getting anything done.

    No one backed down from Bush/Cheney more than John Edwards did when he declined to scrutinize the message coming from the White House about Iraq, when he accepted the cherry-picked intel from Cheney instead of reading a mere 92 pages himself, when he co-sponsored the Iraq Resolution with his mentor Joe Lieberman, when he went on TV promoting Bush's war for oil agenda.

    The truth is that the blogosphere privileges words over actions, rhetoric over record.  That is the reason they went for John.

    "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 Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 12:00:06 AM PST

  •  The new "Decider" of the "blogosphere?" (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Quicklund, bobswern, Mojo Jojo

    Or did i miss the "vote?"  

    Blogs, and their readers are decidely bigger than the frogpond.  

  •  RedState endoresed Edwards! Who hoo! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Oh, you mean a certain portion of the blogoshpere endoresed Edwards?  And that other portions endorsed candidates close to their own personal inclnations?  That the bloggoshpere is really just a varied bunch of citizens typing up a varied bunch of opinions.


    Sorta anti-climatic, that.  Not so dramatic.  Not so kingmakerish, I guess.


    Read Biden Joe's Diaries Sen Joe Biden (D-Ascerbia)

    by Quicklund on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 12:02:25 AM PST

  •  Sounds like a winning strategy (9+ / 0-)

    for a Black man.  Go around telling everyone on the other side to f**K off.  You all are clueless.  I often question whether you all live and breathe in the real world.  He grew up in a house with a white family, went to school in a country of indonesians and muslims, in the diversity of hawaii, family in kenya.  Just b/c someone doesn't look like you doesn't mean they're not family, just b/c they pray differently doesn't mean they're pagans, b/c they don't speak your language that their ignorant.  This is not a man who is comfortable with demonizing people b/c he knows what common ground is.

    I like JRE and all but his multi-millionaire "I feel your poor/middle class pain does not ring true to me, but that's me.  He's studied you guys for the past 4 years and is saying what you want to hear.  Good for him.  I think it's only a matter of time before you turn on him too.

    "Don't vote your fears, vote your aspirations." Deval Patrick

    by Hope08 on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 12:08:20 AM PST

    •  Here's a likely prediction (5+ / 0-)

      I think it's only a matter of time before you turn on him too.

      Read Biden Joe's Diaries Sen Joe Biden (D-Ascerbia)

      by Quicklund on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 12:28:53 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Well Said (6+ / 0-)

      I think it's only a matter of time before you turn on him too.

      Spot on.

      The blogosphere's greatest weakness is that it blows with the wind. Any politician who says what we want to hear gets treated like an emperor, but anyone who says something we don't want to hear gets treated like pond scum...even if it's the same person.

      Nobody much cared for Chris Dodd all these years, and then all of a sudden he's our savior in the Senate. Did he become a new person or something? No. He changed his rhetorical suit.

      Four years ago, Edwards' message was pretty shitty and he tanked. Today he says everything we want to hear, and it's as though he's god's gift to progressivism. Is he a new person? No. He spent four years learning how to talk.

      A year ago, we loved Reid and Pelosi. Then they failed to do our bidding and now we hate them. Were we wrong then, or are they different people now? I'll give you one guess.

      This sort of mindless egotism makes the blogosphere very hard to work with. Sadly I have no choice. I'm a liberal. Ideologically, I fit right in at Daily Kos. I belong here. I just can't stand some of the people. I guess that's true anywhere, but the blogosphere has one hell of a knack for bringing out the very worst in people's vanity, egotism, and closed-mindedness. Individually, many of these people are great. But put 'em together and it's a friggin' mob. And the folks in charge, like Kos, thrive on stirring us up. Some days I think he feels like he's some goddamn reincarnation of P.T. Barnum. Where's the leadership?

      Never mind that. I have a better question: What is it about being safely anonymous in a citadel of likeminded people that causes us to become so vain, hotheaded, and closed-minded?

      Why don't we use our heads for a change? Why are we dumb as fuck in our strategy? Why do we think with our vocal chords? Why do we blow with the wind?

      This place really is a circus sometimes. We may have it together on the issues, but collectively we're no better than the Republicans when it comes to smarts, decency, and integrity. What I wouldn't give for some Jeffersons and Washingtons rights now...folks who knew not just what they were about but how to conduct themselves, and how to achieve their goals!

      These primary wars are the best proof yet that democracy is only as good as the people it's printed in. Just you wait: If Edwards makes it to the White House, this site will be home to his worst critics in less than a year.

    •  I almost agree with you. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mcfly, Mojo Jojo

      The first paragraph is right on. I don't doubt Edwards' rhetoric about helping the middle-class, though.

      But Daily Kos has an inflated sense of self-importance and Barack Obama is too smart to spend his time working this crowd.

  •  I actually would like to know what this means: (4+ / 0-)

    "we don't believe bipartisanship is possible without first crushing the Republican Party down to a stump."

    It's a common sentiment; Chris Bowers articulated it just the other day and I used to think it too.

    But just what is it that we think is politically achievable here?

    The only way that Dems can crush the Republican party is if the only important constituencies that matter in that party go ahead and migrate into Steny Hoyer's column.

    The party of the left -- unions, blacks, gays, feminists, workers, techies, greens -- can be crushed.  The party of the right can be as well, but only if the corporate interests that are its heart and soul abandon it and migrate into the old "party of the left."

    The fundamental enemy is the greed and selfishness emanating from corporate boardrooms, and I don't think it's going away.  We could maybe dismember the party that they currently use, but we can't destroy them.

    We can beat them.  It's not hopeless.  But it's exceedingly unlikely that we'll crush them, and if we do it will only be that we crushed their old political party, and thought we were crushing them along with it.

    •  Greed is good... greed is God! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      The fundamental enemy is the greed and selfishness emanating from corporate boardroom.

      I'm afraid it's gone way farther than that now, the corporate interest's message of "me-first" has been pimped and promulgated for decades now through the televisions of the masses. "Pamper yourself..." "Indulge your urges..." - and that's just the shampoo and coffee ads. People want to be Donald Trump, though he's defrauded his investors and the taxpayers by declaring bankruptcy - twice. People all believe that if only they themselves were rich, all would be well. The primary interest of 79% of incoming college freshmen is to become very financially well-off. Not just well-off, but very.

      Once everyone owns their own internet-based consulting business, no one will have to flip the burgers or pick the grapes - it's simple economics.

      The most common form of human stupidity is forgetting what one is trying to do - Friedrich Nietzsche

      by David Mason on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 12:54:38 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Self-absorbed, illogical, disaffecting...n/t (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

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

    by bobswern on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 12:11:28 AM PST

  •  My take on Obama (2+ / 0-)

    is that his notion of bipartisanship, unlike that of these useless old establishment Dem wheezebags, while it might superficially resemble theirs, is of a quite different sort.

    I.e. unlike their "bipartisanship", which is either naively sincere (although I doubt it), or a dishonest cover for cowardice and complicity (much more likely), his--I hope, as I cannot know if this is in fact what it is--appears to me to be a ploy to both win over the center, which I imagine is sick of the "partisanship" that the media keeps pretending is both parties' fault and just wants everyone to get along, as well as  to defuse the right's effectiveness and catch it off balance. After all, if he comes off as a good faith player who's willing to talk, how can they come after him with 527's and Swift Boaters? They'll just end up looking like they're beating up Bambi (heh) or just shot her mom. That takes away some of their power right off the bat. At the same time, under cover of faux bipartisanship, he can go after them quietly--and then take a swing at them publically, with the public's support, if and when they make the mistake of going after him nastily and publically. And they will.

    I think that he's playing with them, pretending to be Mr. Nice Guy and trying to get them to throw a sucker punch at him, which will just make him look like the good guy when they inevitably do. At which point, he will have gained much political capital, and they will have lost much, not unlike how Clinton's numbers went UP after the Pubs tried to take him down on a bogus issue. In a way he's learned from the Clinton playbook, and that part doesn't bother me--these people are smart and tough, and you beat them by being smarter and tougher. What does bother me is one, that while Obama's plenty smart, I don't know how tough he is, and two, even if he's tough, I fear that if he ends up winning this political war, he won't do enough with the politically power that he will have gained to advance a progressive agenda. If he wins, he will have won without our help, for the most part, and won't owe us or feel holden to us. And a strong politician who doesn't owe people on his own side can be a problem for his side and its agenda (e.g. Bush II).

    I think that I "get" Obama's strategy, and think that it's quite smart. I'm just worried that he either doesn't have what it takes to make it work, or does, but will not use it to advance a strong progressive agenda, but instead, having beaten the other side, will proceed to become best buddies with it. Wouldn't be the first time that a "good guy" did that.

    0101011101100101 010101000110100001100101 010100000110010101101111011100000110110001100101

    by kovie on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 12:29:53 AM PST

  •  That would be Harold Ford, *JR.* (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    IM, boofdah

    I don't believe anyone ever accused Harold Ford (Sr.) of not "battling with us." He was a true liberal. Far from perfect, but definitely one of us.

    "Even newbies with 4-digit userids are welcome to rate my posts up." - Aexia, March 30, 2005

    by grndrush on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 12:36:59 AM PST

  •  The Thing For Me (8+ / 0-)

    (And I am an Obama supporter)

    is that I don't get the feeling of compromise at all. In fact, Obama hits, perfectly, another obsession of this site... taking the fight to the enemy. I don't get the feeling he is a Broder/Lieberman type at all who would sell out his principles in an attempt to curry favor.

    Rather, I get the feeling he is willing to go to the other sides home field, is comfortable showing up in their churches, can talk to them in a language the can understand and that he can sell progressive ideas to people who are not already progressives.

    His rhetoric, to me, is the type of bold, aggressive, evangelical (in the sense of seeking converts) type of message that I could imagine resulting in actual change. I agree with him that winning 51-49 wouldn't do a whole lot - governmental institutions would just bounce back and forth and nothing would change. At least he has the boldness to aim for a 65-35 win.

    •  Exactly right! (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Urizen, Chicago Lulu, Mojo Jojo

      Well put.

      Unfortunately, I don't think a lot of people on this site are interested in winning non-progressives over. Given the opportunity, the blogosphere would rather win by whatever small margin we can and beat the opposition over the head with our agenda for the next 4 years.

    •  Yes (0+ / 0-)

      I think too many of us have learned to think like losers and we can't see that we ARE the majority.  After he wins the compromising will be done by the losers.  

      If he weren't a tough hard guy underneath the smooth talking he wouldn't be in a position to run for prez this early in his life.  Think on it: Hilary's been setting up to do this since '92 and in a couple of years Obama's (nearly) matched her in money raising, endorsements, and organization.  This is a very skilled politician, probably better than Bill Clinton ever was.

      I don't think he plans on compromising with wingnuts any more than "I'm a uniter, not a divider" Bush did.  Saying it gets you elected.  We here probably represent a fraction of a percent of voters.  He doesn't need to suck up to us.  If he did suck up to us it would limit his appeal to all those swing voters he needs to win.

    •  He gets glowing reviews from Broder. (0+ / 0-)

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

      by Salo on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 08:31:40 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  crushing the Republican Party down to a stump (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sychotic1, Dave925, boofdah

    ...that sounds almost... partisan. And divisive... Gee whiz, didn't your mommy teach you to play nice? Tom Delay likes your toys....

    The most common form of human stupidity is forgetting what one is trying to do - Friedrich Nietzsche

    by David Mason on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 12:42:20 AM PST

  •  The sad thing about Carville/Begala (5+ / 0-)

    is that in the early 1990's, they were the hyperpartisan, combative sons of bitches we admire, and then something changed in them.  For Carville, I think it was marrying Mary Matalin, and for Begala, I think it was after leaving the White House (where, by all accounts, he suffered a lot because of the investigations and the Monica thing) and joining Crossfire, he seemed to feel he had to moderate to keep his job.

    I like Edwards a lot, and this has been hard on me, because I've been pushing an Obama run since the 2004 convention speech, and I never thought Obama would run this early, so it has been hard.  My best wish is the two of them on a ticket, because no matter what my righty friends say, those two would CRUSH any Republican because they know how to connect, they know how to explain, and they have principles that Clinton, Biden, etc. don't have, let alone any Republican in this race.

    There is hardly a political question in the United States which does not sooner or later turn into a judicial one. -5.25, -4.67

    by wolverinethad on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 01:24:22 AM PST

  •  'true' bipartisanshit? WHEN? 1938? '48? '58?... (12+ / 0-)

    in '38 people were argueing about ...

    how good /bad the new deal was or wasn't (they passed the 40 hour work week that year after decades of fascist opposition!)
    whether America should care or not about those stupid germans, russians, french

    in '48 they were argueing about ... COMMIES! wasn't that the time when Nixon got going ?

    in '58 we were 4 years removed from '...have you no sense of decency sir?'

    in '68 we had Nixon's silent majority and ... southern strategy

    in '78 we had jerry fallwell organizing his people for yet ANOTHER round of christo-fascism cuz carter and god's country were weak (see RayGun & fallwell all you who write like politics started after scotus appointed bush)

    in '88 we had willie horton

    in '98 we had impeachment for a guy trying not to get caught by the old lady for fucking around





    Since RayGun, EVERY* 'bipartisan' thing that came out of DC has fucked little people so all the big people could slap each other on the back and say how bipartisan / smart / superior they were.

    (* out of 1000's of pieces of legislation, I'm surely wrong on some ... oh well.

    HOW much better is it for us peeee-ons? ya know, job security income security retirement security retraining security health security...

    So stuff your petty counter examples of random happy happy legislation)

    'Bipartisan' is a fascist meme to keep Dems electing spineless sell out fucks, under the MYTH that they are electing statemen from a better time ...

    any of you remember how popular that idiotic show "Happy Days" was in the 70s?

    Nostalgia is fascist bullshit that helps keep us blubbering about myths instead of stopping fascists from picking our fucking pockets.


    Yond Cassius has a lean and hungry look; He thinks too much: such men are dangerous

    by seabos84 on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 01:58:12 AM PST

  •  Obama is willing to sit down and talk (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kiwing, Chicago Lulu, malharden, Mojo Jojo

    with some of the worst regimes on Earth, and you expect him to basically say "talk to the hand" when it comes to republicans of any stripe? That's just not how he operates.

    •  If you want that... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Dave925, DrWolfy for Harry Reid.

      Barack Obama: Bringing Nuclear Power to a Town Near You!

      by demwords on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 02:56:34 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Want what? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kiwing, Mojo Jojo

        I want a candidate who's not scared of talking to the enemy. I don't want Bush's "my way or the highway" style foreign policy imported into domestic policy. It's not tough, it's stupid and cowardly.

        •  There are no enemies. (5+ / 0-)

          The US has no enemies other than imaginary ones to justify the obscene military budget.

          Talking with the repigs is a different matter. They are in the minority and they still ream the dems. It's about backbone. Let the repigs make the first concessions...weve been doing it since 1981. It's time to win, not chat.

          Barack Obama: Bringing Nuclear Power to a Town Near You!

          by demwords on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 03:17:32 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  This is astoundingly naive (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            boofdah, TastyCurry

            Of course the U.S. has enemies.  Hell, BELGIUM has enemies.  We may have brought them on ourselves, but yes, there are groups and nations who don't like us very much and who work against our interests when they can to further their own interests.

            There's on one single enemy out there that can destroy the U.S., but there are plenty that can hurt us to one extent or another.

          •  See, you are afraid of talking to them. (0+ / 0-)

            The worst thing Obama says is that he will listen respectfully to the other side, and Edwards supporters assume he's going to roll over for them. It nonsense. Edwards knows he has to negotiate with the other side, and has said so, even going so far as to say he'll put republicans in his cabinet, but you wouldn't know that from the way his supporters bitch endlessly about anything Obama says. It's as if when republican and democratic ideas are put before the public honestly and openly, the republicans will somehow come off as reasonable or sane.

            What will happen if Edwards goes in guns blazing, is that the republicans will gridlock the system until the next election, using the excuse that Edwards is unreasonable. At which point there is a good chance the public will get fed up and we'll have a split congress again and the only way he can get things done is to compromise poorly. Thankfully Edwards isn't that stupid, he knows he has to negotiate with corporations and republicans to get anything done, he's admitted it. We don't elect dictators, despite what Bush would have you believe.

            •  They talk all the time (0+ / 0-)

              Harry Reid talks to them all the time and what has that delivered.
              The problem isn't that they don't talk, it's that the dems who have been at the top of this food chain don't say anything, or fight for anything. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are the Emilie Latelle of politic - some worked fury followed by a "nevermind."

              You nouveau politicos don't understand that polotics is about strength. The repigs win cause they don't back down. Obama has the whole thing wrong. The problem is not a lack of civility it is a lack of conviction on the part of the dem establishment.

              The repigs want
              A war in Iraq - we don't
              The existing health care - we don't
              low taxes for the rich -we don't
              prayer in school - we don't
              to export jobs- we don't
              to smash unions - we don't
              to ruin the the environment - we don't

              what's to negotiate? Parking spaces at the Capitol?

              Barack Obama: Bringing Nuclear Power to a Town Near You!

              by demwords on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 09:39:17 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

    •  "Talk to the hand" to Republicans! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      I love it!

      That's exactly what he should do!

      Funny you don't classify the Bush regime as one of the worst regimes on earth. Sure, America's not North Korea by any stretch of the imagination, but in terms of the destruction of Constitutional government, I think Bush ranks right up there.

      And Obama wants to bring a "Hello Kitty" pencil case to the table with these people, and then engage in deep breathing exercises....

      I don't think that's a recipe for success.

      [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 Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 07:36:02 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  YOU NAILED IT! (5+ / 0-)

    Worse, he began to use rhetoric we had spent energy to debunk.  He went even further.  He tossed aside one of our central insight won through hard experience:  we cannot compromise with the Republican Party...we must smash them.  

    Even though I would not tar Begala with same brush as Mark Penn. Begala is the most talented message guy in the party. He is just married to the Clintons.

    Barack Obama: Bringing Nuclear Power to a Town Near You!

    by demwords on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 02:55:18 AM PST

  •  Frankly... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Urizen, Mojo Jojo, sirwonkalus

    The blogosphere has an inflated sense of self-importance and I agree more and more with Barack Obama's assessment of this site-- what I see here rarely surprises me anymore.

    Daily Kos seems to deal in divisiveness lately and I respect Obama for not pandering to it. It seems we'd rather win the presidency with just 50% of the vote and really stick it to the other guys than to persuade voters to join our side and create a real mandate. Have we given up on winning the middle or are we simply trying to find a way to force our agenda on the nation? We can't gravitate as far as possible to the left and expect to succeed. We're painting ourselves into a corner and alienating people.

    This isn't a dig on John Edwards, just my take on why the blogosphere has gravitated towards him and away from other candidates.

    •  It's not our job to "surprise" you (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sychotic1, hedgey, maxalb

      How odd that Obama and his fan base want to be "surprised" or entertained.

      Perhaps they should go on Oprah for that?

      The blogosphere is not about providing fodder for celebrity culture.

      One of the things that the blogosphere is about, as Boo eloquently puts it, is about crafting a language that will help us understand and defeat the conservative movement. Obama trampled all over that.

      And that's one reason we think the "unity" schtick will not work. It violates things that we've seen to work in the past -- the campaign to defend Social Security.

      So, I'm sorry that you're not surprised. Hard and effective work is often not "surprising," although the results sometimes are.

      [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 Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 07:40:02 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  It's a thesis about how we deal with the (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Sychotic1, maxalb

        Republican Party.

        The Bipartisanship of Broder, Freidman, Brooks, Sullivan, Klien collectively weakened the left and ensured that we we in the minorty of 12 years.

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

        by Salo on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 08:30:01 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  You're out of touch. (0+ / 0-)

        And you're so disenchanted with the state of politics that you've cynically given up on even trying to win voters over to our side. You think the only way that we can get what we want is by is dragging the other side kicking and screaming through the legislative mud and forcing our agenda down their throats.

        Which is just insane.

        The "unity schtick" is actually important. But I'm not talking about cowardly Blue Dog Dems, compromising Nancy Pelosi, or Joe Lieberman. I'm talking about public opinion, and winning over ordinary people. You seem to think that 50% of the public just doesn't get it like you do and never will. Well, the Democratic Party, especially the liberal wing of the Democratic Party hasn't given them much good reason to get it lately. You can't hammer people over the head with what you think they should think and expect them to say "Thanks, I needed that!" No, we actually have to convince them. Keep playing hardball if you want but I think you're 4 years too late.

    •  Obama will not spend (0+ / 0-)

      a cent of national campaign cash in the south.  He'll be Kerry +1.

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

      by Salo on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 08:28:18 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Bloggers like what bloggers do, that's why. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    johnny rotten, Mojo Jojo

    Angry, aggressive rhetoric from the sidelines is what bloggers do.  Pretending like it is THE most constructive form of political engagement is a form of self congratulation.

    With all respect to Armando, he's never changed anything except his own screen name.  I don't think he's even changed a mind, much less had the biparitisan, meta-changing bills Obama has.

    Read Obama's 2002 speech against invading Iraq.

    by Inland on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 04:07:39 AM PST

  •  why I want Edwards to win (8+ / 0-)

    (not the only reason)

    I want it to be demonstrated that his rhetoric - economic populism - is a winner for Democrats.

    If so, others will pick up on it.

    As it is, very few in the political class bring up that the system is grossly slanted toward the wealthy elite and that consequently the middle class is disappearing. Many grasp this, but few talk about it.

  •  I wamt to register a protest (0+ / 0-)

    concerning the title.

    I don't think you get to speak for the entire blogosphere of which I am a long-time member. I haven't decided yet.  I'm leaning towards a different candidate.

    And I'm irritated that you think you have the right to declare that I'm backing Edwards.

    You don't have that right.

  •  Brrrrr cold weather (0+ / 0-)

    = good news for Edwards today in Iowa!!

    Vote John Edwards and break the corporate media stranglehold on American politics.

    by Subversive on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 04:33:48 AM PST

  •  Making Passionate Advocacy a virture, again (5+ / 0-)

     Why get involved - why read, write, check, study - if not to find the truth and advocate for a policy that makes sense and advances ideals?  

     The diarist is dead on - it is a whole mindset the blogosphere fights - the mindset of spin and fuzz and market - say anything so that the insiders can run business as usual.

     Edwards, by far, represents that point of view - willing to say - we are right, they are wrong.  We are right, they are wrong.

     The Dubya has run roughshod with elections that had no ringing endorsement from the population - just take a moment and imagine what can be done if we have that message - we are right, they are wrong - as what the electorate has ratified.  


  •  More like the why the "Kos fans" fell for Edwards (4+ / 0-)

    A few short years ago....

    John Edwards was the DLC candidate
    Voted for Iraq War
    Voted for Bankruptcy Bill
    Did nothing about evil corporations in America
    Did nothing about lobbyists influence in Politics

    Smart philosophy:  Track record and issues beat rhetoric.  

    If you judge a man by his words and not his actions you are a fool.  And Mama didn't raise no fool over here.

    •  agree (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      If you judge a man by his words and not his actions you are a fool.

      He is a politician, politicians say what they need to say. Edwards is no different than the others in this respect. I just wish that his supporters would be supportive but critical as opposed to swooning hero worshippers.

      The end game is the presidency not the nomination

      by stevej on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 05:12:52 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Edwards has kept his word... (0+ / 0-)

      even when it cost him.

      He says something, he'll stick by it -- however transparently fake his words are.

      He's the one who isn't a coward (obama and clinton are, like it or leave it). Sorry, is my sense of humor showing?

      by RisingTide on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 01:18:33 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I disagree with the premise on several fronts. (5+ / 0-)

    First, the premise that the blogosphere "went for Edwards."  I don't see that.  I see a diverse breakdown of people going for several candidates.

    Second, I don't necessairly agree that Edwards is in line with "our" way of doing things.  This attitude of "fuck everybody who may disagree with us."  While that may be the way some, or most, of us want to do things, I've heard otherwise in the blogosphere, too.

    For future reference: My name is not actually William.

    by wmtriallawyer on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 05:11:51 AM PST

    •  asdf (3+ / 0-)

      First, the premise that the blogosphere "went for Edwards."  I don't see that.

      They learned this from the Rethugs, just state your preferred present often enough and hope that enough people get sucked in to make it reality.

      It is the whole create your own reality thing. I don't mind so much that the hacks and partisans do it, it really pisses me off that people fall for it though.

      Pity they use it on their own side.

      The end game is the presidency not the nomination

      by stevej on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 05:17:30 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Is there a consensus gay candidate? (0+ / 0-)

    How has the GLBT community divvied up its support this go 'round?

  •  Edwards appeals also to us pre-blogospherians (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Salo, hedgey, sherlyle, maxalb, fayeforcure

    I suppose I am part of the "blogosphere", but I am using the same analysis and expressing the same resistance to idiocy that I've been doing since the Reagan era, another Republican whose programs were enabled by a Democratic Congress.

    Back then we were dismissed by mainstream Democrats as crazy extremist-leftists or ultra-liberals etc. etc. etc.  Such was the case in my opposition to the Central American wars of Reagan / Bush Sr., to Iraq War I, to NAFTA.

    But now supposedly I'm a dissastisfied crazy person because I'm in the "blogosphere", so the establishmentarians just have a new phraseology with which to dismiss me.

    THAT is why I have appreciated Edwards campaign -- he's the only one of the 3 major Democratic candidates not continually trying to portray my multi-generational sane views as fringe, undoable, unstable.

    Obama's good.  I like him.  Just right now I think Edwards' a bit more of where we need to go.

    •  That is still the "label" (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sherlyle, el cid, maxalb

      Back then we were dismissed by mainstream Democrats as crazy extremist-leftists or ultra-liberals etc. etc. etc.  Such was the case in my opposition to the Central American wars of Reagan / Bush Sr., to Iraq War I, to NAFTA.

      We are still called the "far left" by the MSM.  They are truly scared of us, and will soon move beyond ridiculing us to direct fighting.

      I want Edwards for that upcoming fight, he has it right in that these folks will not negotiate in good faith.

      It's possible that Obama gets it and is just being polite to keep the ultra-wingers from being too afraid of him.

      I really don't know anymore.

      -6.5, -7.59. Is there a hyphen in anal retentive?

      by DrWolfy on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 05:38:11 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I disagree (0+ / 0-)

    ...with the "blogosphere" this time.

    I personally think Obama has the best chance at effective change. I don't care for Edwards "southern charm" style and I don't feel I'm alone.

  •  for the last time (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    boofdah, Mojo Jojo, sirwonkalus

    we did NOT watch Tom Daschle, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi do what Obama is doing.

    They did not have solid majorities behind them.

    When you've got the votes, and you don;t have to worry about the president's veto anymore, you don't have to back down.

    and with all due respect, "Fuck David Broder, fuck Joe Klein, fuck Chris Matthews, fuck FOX News, fuck Tim Russert, fuck Mitch McConnell, fuck Big Oil" etc is not a winning campaign strategy in the general election.

    increased polarization does not help the blue team.  it keeps the majority apathetic and people who might otherwise join us can justify their decision to stay cynical and uninvolved.

    the R party is doing a good job of crushing itself down to a stump.  let's nominate someone who can take advantage of the R party's self-destruction and build on our majorities so we can undo the worst of BushCo regardless of what the few remaining toothless R partisans want.

    Politics is like driving. To go backward, put it in R. To go forward, put it in D.

    by TrueBlueMajority on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 05:22:36 AM PST

    •  Nah, we must crush them (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Ivan, checkmate, tommymet, maxalb

      It's not enough to just win the WH and keep a majority. We have to throw the bums out with a tidal wave and push the fascist movement back on it's heels. We must use the new power to prosecute the hell out of the Bush mafia and make sure every one of them is jailed for every crime. We must sweep them out of corporate board rooms and appointed positions alike. We must smoke out the moles Bush will try to leave inside the government to "Carterize" the next president, or if you like, "Clintonize" the next president.

      We must use prosecutions of the K-street project to eject as many Republicans out of Congress as we can, even after we get rid of many of them by beating them at the polls. Why? Because they're crooks who have been protected by a mafia in the WH.

      And, do we care about the spin machine? Nope. We can take them to task for being liars and propagandists, challenging charters to face them down, if necessary. Remember the precedent set by a case involving Fox granting the MSM the "right to lie?" That has to be slapped down hard. It can be, it should be, it must be.

      And we WILL build the broad coalition that Obama talks about, even doing all of the above. Know why? Because we're not lying fascist warmongering racketeers and traitors, that's why. The majority of the country is standing around, staring in disbelief that Bush is just GETTING AWAY with all of this corruption and wondering if this is the way things are gonna be from now on. When we take action, we're gonna get that broad coalition by re-affirming our principles as AMERICANS.

      But Obama's way will not produce the same result. Obama's way will piss away a watershed election, IMO. We will still have to do the things that I outline in this comment, later, if we go with Obama's plan now.

      But next time, it's gonna be REALLY nasty. Maybe even bloody. Obama just doesn't have a handle on how dire the threat is from the fascist movement. I doubt, if you asked him, that he would even acknowledge that there is such a thing. We ignore it or dismiss it at our peril.

      •  I agree with everything you've said about goals (0+ / 0-)

        except for the part that says Obama's way won't produce the same result.

        I guess I'm not convinced that anyone else has a better chance or stronger motivation to do it.

        Politics is like driving. To go backward, put it in R. To go forward, put it in D.

        by TrueBlueMajority on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 11:30:35 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I have a different opinion of Obama now (0+ / 0-)

          Than I did before tonight.

          He gets it. I withdraw my criticism. He gets it. I'm convinced of it now. I'm still an Edwards supporter, but I'm wildly happy with the Iowa results. Obama made a FANTASTIC victory speech. He sounds more like a president than Bush ever did, that's for sure. He's pushing into MLK and RFK territory tonight.

          Let me say that Obama won an important victory tonight, but so did Edwards, and IMO, so did Huckabee. (try to see Huckabee's speech).

          Populism itself won a victory tonight.

          •  i saw Huckabee's speech (0+ / 0-)

            it's interesting that his 9 point victory over Romney is being called "decisive and crushing" but Obama's 8 point victory in a stronger field is not getting the same overwhelming accolades.

            Edwards did very well to pull out second given Hillary's inevitablility as recently as three months ago.

            Populism won and democracy won and the American people won, I believe.

            Politics is like driving. To go backward, put it in R. To go forward, put it in D.

            by TrueBlueMajority on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 08:37:56 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  Daschle is part of Obama's brain trust (0+ / 0-)

      And that worries me.

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

      by Salo on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 08:26:50 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  WTF do you do when you don't have the votes? (0+ / 0-)

      We're under the assumption that Obama will have the votes he needs when he's in the White House. What if he doesn't?  We will continue getting the same results as we've been getting with Pelosi, Reid, et al.

      What we need is an uncompromising street fighter who will kick major ass from the bully pulpit - majority or no majority. No wonder most republicans think we're pussies.  We need to hit them hard, knock them down, and then kick them in the nuts and face for good measure. Repeatedly.

      •  well, we won't have crazy vetoes to worry about (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        or unconstitutional signing statements, or unilateral executive orders.

        why are you afraid that Obama won;t have the votes he needs/we need?  No one, not even the most optimistic Republican, think we are going to LOSE Congressional seats in this election.  and we are heavily favored to pick up a few more in the Senate for a comfortable margin to work with, because Rs have more vulnerable Senate seats open in 08 than we do.  2006 was just the beginning.  everyone who is as angry as you and I are about the lack of action since 2006 (which is just about everybody) will help sweep out the uncooperative and bring in more people who are willing to kick major ass.

        the bully pulpit only works when the president has exceptional communication skills.  I hate to bring up the trial lawyer thing again, but every political speech can;t be a fiery jury summation.  sometimes the people respond better to a different kind of persuasion.

        an uncompromising street fighter never gets close enough to the table to win elections.  but a street fighter who knows how to build consensus gets results.  I believe in Obama's consensus building results and haven;t seen anything like that in the other major candidates.

        the way things are is not the way things always will be.  if you believe that, you have lost all hope.  i'm tired of being called crazy for acting upon hope.  hope is the only thing that has ever changed the world for the better.

        Politics is like driving. To go backward, put it in R. To go forward, put it in D.

        by TrueBlueMajority on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 11:42:40 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  interesting... (9+ / 0-)

    First off, I like John Edwards.  But I wouldn't say I am 'for' John Edwards and 'not for' Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton.  

    Having said that, if Obama has one flaw in his run, it seems to be the central place that he has given 'good manners' in his message. It's a flaw because our form of deliberative democracy requires meaningful participation, not good manners.  And heated debate is meaningful.  Very meaningful.  It's exactly what the framers had in mind.  The only problem is violent rhetoric or threat, but the right has a monopoly on that. But it's not a fatal flaw for him.

    What I see is a difference between what the three candidates are telling us to do if we want change.

    Obama seems to be saying, "If you want real change, then sit down and listen!"  Edwards is sayin, "If you want real change, then stand up and shout!"   Hillary, "If you want real change, stand or sit but clap loudly!"

    Bloggers, obviously, want to make noise.  Except for those who don't.

    Frameshop needs your love to survive! Click through to support the site...

    by Jeffrey Feldman on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 05:25:43 AM PST

    •  Dr Feldman (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      pHunbalanced, highacidity, Urizen, boofdah

      I posted this in thereisnospoon's diary yesterday, and I still have to email him (time gets away from me sometime!) to ask about this.

      I seem to remember a panel at Yearly Kos with you, thereisnospoon and Dr. Lakoff, at which the general sentiment was that we needed to find exactly this kind of discourse. That conservative ends and "fuck you" rhetoric (sorry, but it's accurate!) were naturally suited to each other, whereas liberal ends and policies required an appropriately nuanced rhetoric.  The panel advocated for the development of such a rhetoric.

      Isn't that what Obama has done?  He's found a progressive rhetoric, which by comparison seems, for lack of a better world, kumbayesque.  I don't believe it is.

      I'm not sure what I think about bringing the founders into this, as they never envisioned or intended the party system. I like the JFK quote that's been floating around:

      So let us begin anew, remembering on both sides that civility is not a sign of weakness, and sincerity is always subject to proof. Let us never negotiate out of fear, but let us never fear to negotiate.

      •  good question (5+ / 0-)

        There's no doubt that the right-wing responds to a certain kind of confrontational rhetoric. In all fairness, though, I think Obama has advanced two distinct ways of speaking.  First, he uses inspirational rhetoric.  There would be no Obama campaign were it not for his convention speech.  Second, he uses mediation rhetoric.  Many people respond to that, but it has also created a problem.

        The JFK quote is a great one, but remember that JFK was talking about a situation where people were not talking--US-Soviet relations--not a situation where people were constantly in confrontation.  JFK was saying, let's sit down for the first time together.  Obama says that for foreign policy, but he also says, let's stop bickering at the table where we are already sitting for domestic policy.  These are two very different concepts.  I think most of the country agrees with Obama on foreign policy.  But when they hear him say, let's be nice to those here at home who are calling us traitors with increasing regularity, people tend to think 'Why not kick them out of the room until they behave?  We've been behaving--they are the problem!'  And there's considerable frustration loaded into that reaction.

        So this is where I think OBama has himself in a corner because he seems unable to fix his message on that basic point.  

        I was in a room with him for a few minutes, and I can say without question:  this guy is not meek.  He's very aggressive.  No doubt he can get the job done.  This one part of his message just makes no sense.  He needs to balance it out with a stern warning to right-wingers--a warning that every right-winger who has dedicated their lives to destroying civil debate will be locked out of the room.  We need that missing half of the message from him.

        Frameshop needs your love to survive! Click through to support the site...

        by Jeffrey Feldman on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 06:01:51 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I think (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Urizen, boofdah

          there's a difference in the rhetoric Obama should be using when dealing with the Republican leadership, and the rhetoric he uses on the campaign trail.  He's not talking to the people who have  "dedicated their lives to destroying civil debate."  He's talking to the people who voted for them.  

          I reject the idea that every Republican voter is as dreadful as the people they vote for.  I think he's been fairly clear about how he intends to talk to those people:

          I also think that his record of success is helpful in making this argument.  But, to each his own.

          •  Obama has become (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            pHunbalanced, highacidity, hedgey

            a blank canvas onto which people project the ideals they hold for this country.  I think that's great.  We need that.

            But there is a force out there that simply will not  lay down easily or even legally. And even when that force loses the election, it will not go away.  

            We are in for a very rough 8 years.  Hope is going to need some serious teflon to get by.

            Frameshop needs your love to survive! Click through to support the site...

            by Jeffrey Feldman on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 07:23:29 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  maybe (0+ / 0-)

              the difference in our viewpoints is that I've seen Obama, and his rhetoric, as virtually unchanged since the Senate primary in 2003.  I saw him deliver what was essentially the convention speech in early 2004, when he was running 4th in a formidable field of Democrats.  

              I think the implication that he's merely a blank canvass on which we all see what we want to see is a little insulting.  I think that he couldn't possibly have been so successful if he was merely a box of hair.

              Again, his record speaks much louder than he does.  At least to me.

  •  Excellent Diary... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sychotic1, hedgey, maxalb

    Yes, I completely agree.  Edwards gets it and shows that he gets it.

    Obama seems to get it, but doesn't show it.

    I am a strong Edwards supporter, but Obama is my 2nd choice, WAY above the "anointed one"

    -6.5, -7.59. Is there a hyphen in anal retentive?

    by DrWolfy on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 05:34:03 AM PST

  •  Agree: Nailed it! (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sychotic1, hedgey, tommymet, malharden

    I've been trying to make this point for a couple of days, and I must admit, I haven't been as diplomatic as the diarist has here.

    My approach was to run straight at the "message of change" claim by Obama. When Obama supporters are challenged to make the case that this "message of change" includes a method that is different from the same old DLC strategy, they can't do it. This diary explains why.

    Indeed, it is not just about policy.

    When Edwards talks about the problem of corporate corruption, everyone in the country knows what he's talking about. That is, they know what he's talking about if he gets to say it in the MSM, which just doesn't happen that often.

    Those that have heard Edwards are acutely aware that the problem of corporate corruption has something to do with the fact that it seems to be a taboo subject in the MSM.

    So, we want Edwards to win to force the subject into the public discourse, at the very least. It will change the whole frame of discussion, not just in the Democratic primary, but in the Republican primary and in the general election, and that's what we want.

    First, there has to be an acknowledgement of the problem, in the MSM outlets, which are controlled by corporate charter, and thus subject to a grant of privilidge granted by the people. Once the problem is acknowledged, then we can have a discussion about what to do about it.

    There are several reforms in corporate governance, campaign finance, media ownership, and labor law that address the problem directly. The corporate establishment doesn't want to have the discussion. They don't want the election to be a referendum on that discussion, or on policies derived from that discussion. But if John Edwards is the front-runner or the nominee, they won't be able to avoid that outcome.

    What's really freaking them all out, though, is that the anti-establishment sentiment is manifesting in BOTH parties. The Republican Party is losing members and funds, and those that are staying want change. What kind of change? What kind, indeed.

  •  mahalo, you said it for me ...... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sychotic1, tommymet

    I do hope Edwards wins in Iowa, but not necessarily because I prefer him to Obama.  More than anything, I want Edwards' style to be vindicated.  I want partisanship and combativeness to be rewarded.  And I want Clinton/Lieberman/Ford/Carper/Carville/Begala/Penn to lose.  

  •  John Edwards never had my vote (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Mojo Jojo

    and his political style is anathema to me.  Elizabeth Edwards is an Angel and if she were the candidate then an Edwards vote from me would have been a foregone conclusion.  Certain Edwards supporters are the most interesting and thoughtful people in the blogosphere and command respect.  

    Armando is dead wrong about Obama's political style.  It goes to understanding how big organizations or nations do change and make it last.  The impatient blogosphere was demanding an aircraft carrier or the ship of state turn on a dime in rough political seas as if it was nimble and quick. No one wanted to do the hard advance work critical to making the art of significant change possible.  Look at all of the corporations that flounder with big change because they do some fancy credenzaware initiative and everybody who works there looks at it as the flavor of the month and it dies on the vine while the leaders just can't figure out what happened.

    Lasting change is not ordinarily through demanding rhetoric as many people will undercut it by using malicious compliance as what happened to Congress. Lasting change means working outside to get stakeholders involved and to care enough to use their power on other misguided stakeholders.  The best trial attorneys persuade with imagery, and effective communication styles, not threats and permanent anger.  John Edwards was magnificent as a trial attorney because he truly got that aspect but lost it during the 2008 campaign by stating who had to do what, in a tone that invited other powerful stakeholders to dismiss him as belligerent.

    Political style is also about whether one has a one size fits all approach so that one does not become predictable. Pelosi, Reid et al, are/were one trick lame ponies with suitcases of broken promises now. Barack has used audiences of like minded people to say something different and to convey a sense of the possible while acknowledging it won't be easy or painless.  

    Every time history repeats itself the price goes up - Anon... Visit Mind Sorbet

    by Pithy Cherub on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 05:40:20 AM PST

  •  Obama's using Right Wing Talking Points hasn't... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sychotic1, Militarytracy, hedgey, sherlyle

    . . . helped him any here.


    The distinction that goes with mere office runs far ahead of the distinction that goes with actual achievement. H.L. Mencken

    by BenGoshi on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 05:42:15 AM PST

    •  Edwards wearing pink tutus hasn't either (3+ / 0-)

      Oh wait, neither of those things actually happened.

      •  Uh, you're wrong. (5+ / 0-)

        "The sky is falling" rhetoric over Social Security and attacking those awful, horrid, (oh my!) Trial Lawyers are standard, basic, fundamental fare for your typical GOP stump speech.  

         And while not a Republican talking point, it's a de facto capitulation to the Right Wing Hate Machine position to tout how, if one only plays nicey-nice with Republicans and "reaches out" and finds "common ground", blah, blah, blah with the GOP then all will be right in the world.  That's as naive as it is, uh, naive.  

         You apparently don't know how the current GOP works:  compromise and "reaching out" by Democrats are (rightfully) seen as weakness, and the GOP takes advantage of it every time.  Perhaps someday, maybe only 2 or 3 election cycles away, the Wacko Corps of the GOP will fade away and more moderate Republicans will get into office and then such a strategy will work.  For now, though, anyone who's kept even one eye open during the last 14 or so years knows that the only chance of defeating the GOP agenda comes with fighting it, not promising to do a group hug and finding our inner, collective, non-confrontational, moonbeams and fairy dust desire to all get along.  The GOP Hate Machine just licks its chops at such a prospect.  


        The distinction that goes with mere office runs far ahead of the distinction that goes with actual achievement. H.L. Mencken

        by BenGoshi on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 06:05:35 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Obamas opposition to Iraq war, liberal record (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      hasn't helped him here either.

      Perhaps if Obama had followed Edwards lead, sponsored the Iraq war, had a conservative voting record on trade, bankruptcy, environment he would have more support from DKOS, MyDDD and the other old bulls of the blogosphere...but then Obama would not be the liberal Iraq war opponent that the country needs.

      •  Yes, this is a real Right Wing site. Yeh. nt (0+ / 0-)

        The distinction that goes with mere office runs far ahead of the distinction that goes with actual achievement. H.L. Mencken

        by BenGoshi on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 08:36:30 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Well DKOS supports conservative Iraq war sponsor (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          If you feel that makes DKOS "right wing" you are entitled to your opinion.

          Edwards is a conservative Democrat who was wrong on Iraq, bankruptcy bill, China Trade bill, energy bill but I would not call him "right wing"...just a Democrat with a conservative record.

          We have better choices, candidates how were right about Iraq, bankruptcy, environment. Candidates who have solid liberal records supporting progressive policies.

          For DKOS in particular, a website founded by Iraq war vet based on opposition to Iraq war to support one of the sponsors and boosters of Iraq war makes no sense.

          •  33% of congress is blackmailed... (0+ / 0-)

            66% of the top candidates have been bought by Wall street.

            We aren't ever getting out of IRAQ.

            John Edwards is welcome to try -- he'll burn in hell just like the rest of us.

   Sorry, is my sense of humor showing?

            by RisingTide on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 01:21:32 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  Well said (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Equal rites for ALL Americans!

    by Diana in NoVa on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 05:42:21 AM PST

  •  Authoritarism . . . (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Urizen, TastyCurry

    "We cannot cut deal with [democratically elected leaders] we must smash them!"

    That pretty well sums it up.

    On an issue such as nuclear non-proliferation -- we must never cut deals with Republicans.

    On issues such as S-CHIP -- we must never cut deals with Republicans.

    Webb's Dwell time amendment giving our military equal time at home and on the job -- we must never cut deals with Republicans.

    This is absolute b.s.

    Meanwhile, we put the greatest weight on a guy because we like his rhetoric?  (Even when his actual record at times stood against this -- the 2002 AUMF).

    Only dupes vote for a politician because they trust the politicians WORDS.  ACTIONS are what matter -- how has a candidate actual conducted him or herself in their life and while in office.  What a politician says is IRRELEVANT -- especially if his or her actions put the lie to those words.

    And then there are issues such as campaign finance reform.  Where was Edwards on this issue when he was actually in office?  He never made this a priority.  But NOW he's against 527s?

    Meanwhile Obama works with Feingold to cut actual legislation on this issue.  He has a track record on ethics reform and campaign finance reform going back to his days in the Illinois state legislature.

    But no, these things don't matter.  Especially not to progressives.  Not anymore apparently.

    If a candidate makes the OUTLANDISH idea that he will cut deals with democratically elected leaders -- if that's who the American people send to Capitol Hill -- and that's what it takes to get the job done -- that's just plain unacceptable.

    Instead we want our own George W. Bush who talks about how he never makes deals with the opposition.

    We want a Democratic version of George W. Bush?

    I don't.  

    George W. Bush is a failure as much because of the means that he used as the ends to which those means were directed.  He burned bridges -- and now all he can do is obstruct, obstruct.  His policies will be targeted for reversal the minute he leaves office.

    I want to get deals done that advance my interests long-term.  I don't care if the legislation is cut with someone I personally don't like, or who I disagree with philosophically.  If the legislation reflects my interests -- that's all that matters.

    •  You will also find . . . (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      a certain, for lack of a better term, "Red Scare" mentality among some of the comments, seeking to purge even career government folks because they may be Republicans.

      Now, I will be the first, as a historian, to admit that hyper-partisanship is nothing new and that our current debates would be considered civil by the standards set in the first 100 years of the nation.

      That said, our system, unlike the parliamentary one, is not designed to be fast, efficient or responsive.  It is designed to be slow and to allow minorities to obstruct.  Thus dramatic rhetoric of "crushing" the opposition is prurient and more than a bit juvenile.  Our system is not designed to allow this sort of thing and if that is what folks want, they are living in the wrong nation.

      The welfare of humanity is always the alibi of tyrants. A. Camus

      by TastyCurry on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 08:03:52 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  should we change the name of dkos (0+ / 0-)

    to dEdwards?
    You have to give Edwards credit for redefining the term "publicity hog."

  •  kiss of death? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    As 2004 showed, the bloggers favorite is not the popular choice.  One group knows the news, the other reads/watches msm.

  •  blogosphere leadership? "prominent" bloggers? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:


    surely yoo fookin jest!

    Kos ain't my Daddy.  Booman69 ain't my Daddy...

    Whoever made that comment up above thanks.  ,,,,hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

    I laughed so hard I don't have to do my treadmill this morning....

    prominent blogosphere comedians more like it.....hahahahahahaha

  •  Great diary! (0+ / 0-)


    No more compromises, no more reaching across the isle to be bitten by the snakes on the other side, and I am excluding one republican senator that has kept his integrity and is not running for re-election.... you know who I am speaking of.  

  •  Sidebar: Assets and Socail Policy (0+ / 0-)


    Institute on Assets and Social Policy

    Who We Are
    The Institute on Assets and Social Policy is dedicated to the economic and social mobility of individuals and families, particularly those traditionally left out of the economic mainstream, and to the expansion of the middle class.
    The Institute is part of The Heller School for Social Policy and Management at Brandeis University. Working in close partnership with state and federal policymakers, constituency organizations, grassroots advocates, private philanthropies and the media, the Institute bridges the worlds of academic research, government policy-making and the interests of organizations and constituencies. The Institute works to strengthen the leadership of policy makers, practitioners and others by linking the intellectual and program components of asset-building policies.
    The Institute on Assets and Social Policy is building on the work of the former Asset Development Institute. Within the Heller School, the Center on Hunger and Poverty and the National Program on Women and Aging are affiliated with the Institute.
    Our Mission
    Our mission is to help broaden wealth, reduce inequality, and improve the social and economic well-being of American households by fostering the adoption of an asset policy framework through research, analysis, education, and public engagement.

    I try to speak up for 'the bottom 99 percent' I'm trying to make sure everyone has a seat at the table. - Rep. Carol Shea-Porter N.H.

    by pollwatch on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 05:53:13 AM PST

  •  The constraint on Obama (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Urizen, hedgey, tommymet

    Like Jackie Robinson, he is not allowed to show anger.

    I am supporting Edwards because he is the most progressive electable candidate on the issues. I like his passion in explicitly challenging corporate power, and he has no unacceptable positions.

    Obama, bright as he is, remains unsatisfactory on energy issues. He thinks coal and nuclear are part of the solution rather than part of the problem. Energy is a core issue for all earthlings; getting it right is a   matter of survival.

    But an Obama presidency has the potential to make the greatest progressive change.  Racism has been the achilles heel of American democracy thoughout our history, the mother of all wedge issues.  Overcoming that will enable progressive change on everything else.

    I don't think Obama really expects to compromise with the hard right GOP politcal leadership any more than is necessary to govern.

    I think his "can't we all get along" rhetoric is intended to coopt some of the rank and file GOP voters, and to bridge the racial divide.

    So if Obama is the nominee, or even the last Dem alternative to HRC, I will support his candidacy enthusiastically. But as of today,  Edwards has a fighting chance to win Iowa and gather momentum, and looks like the most electable in November, so I am sticking with Edwards.

  •  This is an excellent diary (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    To me, the diary explains the unfortunate egoism of the blogosphere.  But what perturbs me is the the dishonesty of the criticism by the blogosphere of Obama.  Obama's life's work, record, and rhethoric has always been progressive.  But if you read the blogosphere, you would believe Obama is a right-wing ideologue.

    What's more interesting, is that the blogosphere would champion someone who has no record of being a progressive, but simply "represent[] our fighting natures."  I guess when you sit at a computer words matter more than action.  I do not denigrate the power and importance of words and rhetoric, I just trust more someone who has always put the words and rhetoric into action.

    I ask again, would someone tell me specifically what Edwards means when he says he will fight.  Does he mean leading the people holding pitchforks and torches? Leading sit-ins or demonstrations?  Encouraging, organizing, and leading national strikes? Or flooding recalcitrant Congressmen with e-mails and diaries? Please, nay, pray tell.

  •  Booman gets it but not on a deep enough level yet (3+ / 0-)

    I just watched the video clip of Obama on the other diary also now on the rec list, and left a similar comment.

    I have concluded that anyone who thinks they can deal, negotiate, and compromise with conservatives does NOT know conservatives very well, and does not know American history, either.

    Trying to compromise with American conservatism today has about as much chance of success as trying to compromise with the Southern slave-holding aristocracy in 1854 to 1860. In fact, there are so many similarities between American conservatism today and the Southern slave-holding aristocracy a century and a half ago, it's very frightening. Emblematic of these similarities is how American conservatism today rejects the general welfare clause of the Constitution. When the Confederacy wrote its constitution, it copied the U.S. Constitution word for word, EXCEPT for omitting any reference to the general welfare.

    Bush retains his core support of 28 to 30% exactly because he will NOT compromise his "principles." How anyone could conclude that the "principles" of a spoiled rich kid pretending to be a Christian might possibly cohere with the interests of our republic is a whole different question, but the point is: the bastards will NOT compromise and need to be dealt with as ruthlessly as Grant and Sherman dealt with the South in 1864-5.

    And remember, when Grant and Sherman finally won, they offered very generous peace terms. Sherman's peace terms, in fact, were so generous they were rejected by the Senate, and he had to renegotiate Johnston's surrender. That is the proper time to be nice - after you've got the bastards down on the ground and unable to walk anymore.

    A conservative is a scab for the oligarchy.

    by NBBooks on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 06:01:40 AM PST

    •  Of course . . . (0+ / 0-)

      Grant and Sherman were generals, fighting a war and offering peace to a militarily defeated enemy.

      They were not, in any way, attempting to reach solutions without violence.  Thus, if what you are proposing is a violent put-down of conservatives, only then is your analogy apt.

      If, instead, you reject a blood-letting and are simply being hyperbolic, then I am not sure your analogy makes sense.  The Dems are not going to be in a position to "offer terms" to other, equally legitimately elected representatives.  They, though perhaps in the majority, have no more claim to legitimacy than the elected opposition.  

      As I stated in another comment above, our system is designed to be slow, deliberate and to allow minorities to obstruct.  The South was defeated and delegitimized. Republican representatives are just as much a legitimate part of Congress as the Dems.

      Without bloodshed, no one gets to offer terms.

      The welfare of humanity is always the alibi of tyrants. A. Camus

      by TastyCurry on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 08:14:36 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Part hyperbole, sadly not all hyperbole (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Mad Kossack

        I've pondered just how far conservative resistance will go in our time, and I have to state, I fear the worst. Remember, Jerry Falwell accused Bill Clinton of being behind a number of murders, and the Secret Service broke up a number of amateurish plots against Clinton. And, there were not a few conservatives who were silent and did not backpedal publicly like Newt Gingrich when Timothy McVeigh blew up the Federal Building in Oklahoma City.  I wrote it above, and I will restate it here: there are so many similarities between American conservatism today and the Southern slave-holding aristocracy a century and a half ago, it's very frightening.

        Further adding to my discomfort is that while the locus of conservatism today is in the South, it is more geographically dispersed than it was in the 1860s. If it does come to the worst, there are not going to be ANY geographic limits, and it is going to be impossible to defeat without suspending most civil liberties.

        I recognize my fears are "out there," but I have read a lot of Civil War history, and what I see happening today is very, very disturbing. Let me be very precise here: to see what I mean, you have to look not so much at the war itself, but the years leading up to it, starting with the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, through the civil strife that broke out in Kansas, the escalating rhetoric especially by the Southern "fire-eaters" and the military preparations that many southern states began in 1859. Remember, the South began to secede BEFORE Lincoln had even been sworn into office. The mere fact that they had lost political power in Washington precipitated the South to go along with the fire-eaters. The heated rhetoric of "morality" I see today from conservatives is not much different than what was being said in 1855 to 1859.  

        A conservative is a scab for the oligarchy.

        by NBBooks on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 09:09:59 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I disagree. (0+ / 0-)

          Simply put, the southern slave-holders were single issue ideologues with perfectly aligned economic, geographic and socio-political interests.

          Todays "conservatives" are anything but aligned.  Look at the Republican candidates.  You have pro-immigration and anti-immigration.  You have pro-war and anti-war.  You have economic conservatism and economic populism.  You have small government types and big government types.  You have evangelicals, a Mormon and a couple with very little religious appeal what-so-ever.

          I find very little around which one could coalesce anything like the commitment, in terms of both ideology and critical mass of population, of the slave-holding south.

          This is not to argue that certain, fringe elements might not become violent, but that is not unusual, nor exclusive to the right wing.  A few nut-jobs does not a civil war make.  The Weather Underground did not cause a civil war in the 1960's and I do not see a few religious nuts starting one now.

          I would also argue that the precise type of restriction of civil liberties you describe as needed to possibly get the supposed conservative violence under control are the same restrictions which would cause many on this side of the spectrum to take up arms against the government.

          I know that, as a firm believer in our Constitution, I would fight for the right of any political group to use as heated rhetoric as they please.  Freedom of speech for only speech we find comfortable is not freedom of speech at all.

          The welfare of humanity is always the alibi of tyrants. A. Camus

          by TastyCurry on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 10:27:30 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Excellent arguments, and I hope you are correct (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Mad Kossack

            but may I ask if you have factored in the increasing liklihood of widespread economic hardship as the credit crises deepen and the dollar continues to decline? If the economy worsens, how much will the population be radicalized?

            Also, don't neglect the covert aspects of manipulating public opinion. The financial interests that control most of the Republican AND Democratic parties today are not going to go quietly into the night -- and their stranglehold on the national policy process must be broken if we are to do anything more than have a political circus every two year election cycle.

            I rather envy you your more optimistic view of our national prospects. Me, I agree more with this chap's assessment:

            The current leadership of the US, and of Europe, is completely committed to a global conflict in the future in order to keep doing what they are doing in the present. The right that people are willing to kill for is the right to overconsume what is underpriced. The disutility of oil - in physical terms of war, pollution and scarcity - is well under priced. The price of oil will rise to just below the cost of solving the problems. It will always be a little bit cheaper to pay Saudi Arabia an oil tax not to solve the problem, than to pay ourselves to solve the problem. Just as it was always a little bit cheaper to let slavery continue than to buy it out.

            A conservative is a scab for the oligarchy.

            by NBBooks on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 11:06:31 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  conservative resistance (0+ / 0-)

          will take violent turns, I have no doubt about it.  During the 2000 election, the righty blogosphere was full of calls to arms in the event that Gore won the election.  The Militia movement was inspired by the horrors of having a Democratic president.  

          The Jesus Camp nutjobs and the whole rest of the lunatic Right is armed to the teeth and prepared to take the country down with them in a final Armageddon to usher in the return of Jesus.  

          These folks don't play around.  When they are defeated electorally and have neither the Congress nor the Presidency at their beck and call, they will become quite dangerous indeed.

          You analogy to the pro-slavers is also apt because many of these forces are close to the Neo-Confederate movement.  The past isn't over for these folks, it isn't even past.  The Civil War wasn't a war lost, but a battle lost and a victory postponed.

          Bush repealed Godwin's Law with a Signing Statement.

          by Mad Kossack on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 12:33:36 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  And they're getting ready for it even now (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Mad Kossack

            The conservatives are already busy at work rolling out the "marketing" campaign for the coming "holy war." Just look at some of the book titles that have come out recently.

            John Bolton: Surrender Is Not an Option: Defending America at the United Nations  

            Mark Steyn: America Alone: The End of the World As We Know It.

            And, have you seen Jonah Goldberg's new book yet? It is entitled Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning. Just two nights ago I saw a conservative blog riffing off it about the new mortal danger of liberal fascism. The argument is pretty frightening: liberals are like Nazis, and if the Germans had killed Hitler and the top Nazis, the world war would have been averted, so draw the appropriate conclusions.

            A conservative is a scab for the oligarchy.

            by NBBooks on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 01:09:03 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  yep, it was all postponed by the Supreme Court (0+ / 0-)

              The SCOTUS handed the presidency to Bush, thereby calming the waters on the turbulent Right for a few years.  As soon as he's gone, they'll be goose stepping again.

              Jonah Goldberg's new book (which was supposed to be out, what a year ago?) is too bizarre for words.

              I don't believe that any of our major Democratic leaders should consider themselves safe.  I think that things will get very very ugly before this year is over.

              Bush repealed Godwin's Law with a Signing Statement.

              by Mad Kossack on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 04:03:16 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

  •  Unrequited love (0+ / 0-)

    For all the love of Edwards here, when he was asked what he thought of YKOS, he needed an aid to remind him what it was.

    We have nothing to fear but fervor itself-from both sides

    by makes you think on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 06:14:01 AM PST

  •  Close your eyes, You are from a certain race (0+ / 0-)

    and for the very first time in history, one of your own is a smidgeon away from making the most important and dramatic achievement in your race's and in your nation's history. Imagine as this person strives to achieve his goal, he is bombarded from within with the worst smears and inuendo people can paint someone with. Never before in history has a person from your race ever attained anything near the accomplishment this person may achieve. Now open your eyes and find a copy of the May 18, 1952 Brooklyn Dodgers game when Jackie Robinson stole home. That's right, in 1947, Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier and withstood the kinds of latent and overt racism that Barak Obama is now enduring. If Obama wins in Iowa and/or New Hampshire, his achievement would surpass even the roadblocks that Jackie had to conquer. It would be the most remarkable thing to happen to the African American community since the abolishment of slavery. However, to the white dominated blogosphere, this event is a non sequitur because the blogosphere doesn't give a rats ass about anything but their own agenda. Trashing Obama so their candidate Edwards can win.

    The past few weeks on this website has been about you. I think even John Edwards who I believe is a good man and someone I would have no problem voting for, privately thinks many of the sentiments here were way over the line. Sorry, based on so many of the comments and diaries read on this website, I think some of the reasons the blogosphere went for Edwards had to do with what this nation is still coming to grips about. Race. To the majority who have not succumbed to the lowest common denominator and truly supports Edwards without going after Obama's throat, I applaud you and hope Edwards, if not the president, will be an important element of a new administration in 2008.

    You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war..... Albert Einstein,

    by tazz on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 06:16:37 AM PST

  •  Great diary (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:


    'Fuck David Broder, fuck Joe Klein, fuck Chris Matthews, fuck FOX News, fuck Tim Russert, fuck Mitch McConnell, fuck Big Oil, Big Pharma, and Big Defense.  We don't need them.  They won't negotiate in good faith.  They're stacking the deck against us.  And we can beat them by telling the truth and getting organized.'

    perfectly encapsulates Edwards' message.  And it's the right one.      

    This isn't a credit crunch. It's a solvency crisis.

    by bdtlaw on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 06:16:50 AM PST

  •  I guess I'm not part of the blogosphere then (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Because I'm for Obama.

  •  I don't think fighting is nearly as (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kiwing, highacidity, Pithy Cherub, k9disc

    important as winning.  When Obama talks about compromise he's assuming he's already won and the compromising will be done by the losers.  So, he ends up with a 58/42 senate and calls for bipartisanship.  

    We've been losers for so long we think like losers now and that's why we've kept losing.  When we win this time, we won't have to fight them in the same way we've needed to (and mostly not done) over the last 15 years.  Obama's looking to reposition the window in a way it hasn't been done since RFK tried it, claiming to speak for all the people instead of one camp.  Reagan repositioned the window far to the right being polite and jocular, the only people he talked about fighting with were the "evil empire".  It worked and plunged us into an abyss of nearly 3 decades of darkness.

    Obama doesn't need the blogosphere.  He knows we'll vote for him anyway if he wins the nomination.  What he needs, to win and to keep winning after he's won, is the goodwill of the millions of people who don't have anything like our level of involvement.  He's playing for that, not for us.

  •  Obama's soft, creamy emotional center (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    scorpiorising, Sychotic1, hedgey

    Calm down people, and take a deep breath.

    Why are you harshing the mellow with your silly demands for Constitutional government and accountability?

    Don't you know that the corporations have only your best interests at heart?

    Don't you want me to be your next Reagan?

    I can be want you want me to be...

    Don't worry, baby.

    Everything's going to be fine.

    [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 Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 06:35:02 AM PST

  •  the "blogosphere" responded to Edwards' courage (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Recall, if you will, the endless, repetitive laments on DKos about how the Democrats were "spineless," "lacking balls," "timid," "sockpuppets," etc.  Remember?  It was perpetually frustrating to watch them cave on everything, all the time.  No one stood up to the Republican-Corporate machine.  Or almost no one.  

    And then Edwards came along, fighting spirit on display, calling the people to arms.  Edwards is one of the only Democrats whose rhetoric has matched the frustration of progressives in this country.  What other nationally famous Democrats have sounded like they belong to an opposition party lately?  Very few.  

    There is no mystery why liberals like Edwards.  He has a strong spine, a fighting spirit and is not afraid to tell it like it is.

    May all beings be free from fear.

    by shakti on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 06:37:22 AM PST

  •  I am the blogosphere, too... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    And I support Barack Obama.

  •  This diary speaks to the complete and utter (11+ / 0-)

    ignorance and lack of appreciation of the role of race by many of the prominent white and white-like bloggers. Privilege and cultural encapsulation frame and seem to determine their worldview. As such, the only 'right' way for a candidate to campaign is to run a campaign consistent with their worldview. That's why they demand (privilege allows that) that a suitable candidate is one that breath fire and venom and demonize their opponent, which is ironically exactly what many Democrats condemn Repbulicans for. Anyway.

    As I have commented a number of times and as rikyrah over at jack and jill politics has put quite well,

    Barack Obama and no other Black candidate would EVER

    and I mean EVER

    campaign on a theme of 'attack dog', or anything remotely dealing with 'attacking' the opposition.


    This doesn't mean that they roll over and play dead with the opposition. They will debate on the issues. They will be strong against their opponent. Being forceful without seeming nasty. They could never be the nasty, vengeful attack dog that Progressives seem to want.

    So for all the white or white-like bloggers, operating from a privileged perspective, their expressions of anger or stupidity (posting a candidate in black-face for instance), are simply that, an expression of anger and does not define the totality of who they are. Whether their behavior is repudiated or not, there really is no consequence to them acting out in this manner. This is the crux of privilege.

    For Barack Obama and many other black politicians (and black people in general), they don't have that luxury.

    The MINUTE Barack Obama turns into that 'attack dog' that the Progressives are clamoring for, what will happen?

    He will become THE ANGRY BLACK MAN.

    He knows it.

    I know it.

    And, then, THERE will be ANOTHER excuse as to why they can't vote for Obama.

    I have personally experienced this. When I get angry, I become an an angry black woman and a threat  (which if you knew me, you would see the foolishness in that assertion). When white people get angry, their anger is simply one aspect of who they are.

    Barack knows this as do many blacks along with culturally aware/sensitive white people understand. It is clearly something that many of the more prominent white or white-like bloggers fail to or refuse to consider in their view of Barack Obama's style.

    •  you may have a point, and this comes from a (0+ / 0-)

      white, or "white-like" blogger. ;-) Very reasonable.

      We have a plain and tested device for keeping tabs on the government when it's keeping tabs on Americans. It is our Constitution~~Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse

      by PeckingOrder on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 06:53:44 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  This still doesn't answer to Obama's... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      stand on many issues. Social Security, his militant views concerning Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan. Change? What change?

    •  What's "white-like"? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      •  Basically, this is a term (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        I adopted because many of my hispanic or biracial friends did not like being considered to be solely white, even though they  appeared to have assimilated many of the traits of White people and their culture. It is solely an academic designation  and probably shouldn't have been used in this setting.

        It is not a derogatory term and simply meant to describe behavior/predilections within the context of cultural identity.

        Again, is just an academic term.

        •  Would you consider Obama white-like? n/t (0+ / 0-)
          •  No, because he self-identifies as a ... (0+ / 0-)

            black man and is treated as such (e.g. having problems getting a cab in NYC or DWB-driving while black) and acts as such. His kind of conciliatory style is very likely just his personality which is essentially immutable at this stage of his life. Thus, he is consistent in his interactions with people and is appealing to diverse groups of individuals.

            White-like is someone like my friend from the Dominican Republic. She self-identifies as Hispanic or more specifically as a Dominican, but she behaves more like the white people in my classes. By doing so, she acquires privilege and is not subject to the stereotyping that people like me who do not assimilate aspects of white folks behavior into my way of being.

        •  Thanks for the clarification. nt (0+ / 0-)
    •  I agree completely (0+ / 0-)

      and have blogged about it.

    •  No (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Mad Kossack

      The nation needs social democracy like never before. The Senate Dems already do whatever the Republicans want them to do.

      Bi-partisanship shouldn't be a theme in the kick off Caucus. Mybe later in the National Election but, jeezus NOT NOW. It conceeeds to much power to the right.

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

      by Salo on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 08:25:10 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm not sure how this comment relates ... (0+ / 0-)

        to the point that I was making. However, your comment is laden with fear. Bi-partisanship for you is synonymous with bending over and asking for another. That's just fear talking.

        Obama is not afraid of Republicans or lobbyists or whoever else. He is confident and has evidenced throughout his life that he can persuade people to his point of view.

        Just because the knuckleheads in congress couldn't get anything done, doesn't mean that Obama who comes from a wholly different perspective can't get stuff done in his way.

  •  You can say this again: (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I don't think the mainstream media or the people that work inside the Beltway really understand the blogosphere at all.  

    and even better, this:

    You want Edwards' message?  Here it is: 'Fuck David Broder, fuck Joe Klein, fuck Chris Matthews, fuck FOX News, fuck Tim Russert, fuck Mitch McConnell, fuck Big Oil, Big Pharma, and Big Defense.  We don't need them.  They won't negotiate in good faith.  They're stacking the deck against us.  And we can beat them by telling the truth and getting organized.'  That's Edwards' message, and that is the message we have internalized both through our successes and our failures.  

    Great diary, Booman! Agree 100%.

    We have a plain and tested device for keeping tabs on the government when it's keeping tabs on Americans. It is our Constitution~~Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse

    by PeckingOrder on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 06:50:00 AM PST

  •  P.S. Edwards is the most progressive. Period. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Edwards will end the occupation of Iraq

    Edwards has the best healthcareplan

    Edwards fearlessly stands up to Big Business

    Finally, Edwards has led the Democrats in pushing the progressive envelop, consistently being in the vanguard with his policies.  Obama and Clinton have followed his lead.  (See, e.g., Krugman's analysis.

    Well, Edwards has been forcing the pace on the progressive agenda. The basic picture is that [the leading candidates] have very similar policy proposals, all of which are substantially more progressive than anyone would have imagined that the Democratic candidates would have if you'd asked two years ago. They're all proposing very nearly identical universal health care plans. They're all proposing very substantial changes on poverty aid. They're all proposing pretty good energy plans.

    The sequence has been that Edwards comes out with the plan first, he pushes the envelope on how progressive you can be. And then the base likes it, and the public doesn't seem to be disturbed, so several months later Obama basically matches what Edwards has done, and a couple months after that Hillary Clinton more or less matches what Edwards has done. Edwards has been forcing the pace, but if you look at what they're proposing on policy, there's not a whole lot of daylight between them.

    Krugman interview link here

    May all beings be free from fear.

    by shakti on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 06:56:10 AM PST

  •  In full disclosure I did not read your diary (0+ / 0-)

    but, in answer to your question, the reason the "Blogosphere" went for Edwards is because it seems that Obama has gone mainstream, corporate, soft, willing to concede to the establishment--at least that is the perception.

  •  So why didn't y'all throw your support behind... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    ... Edwards earlier? I am behind Obama, would be real happy with Edwards. I have heard all sorts of reasoning, explanations of motivations (of which I believe yours in most honest) but if you guys are behind Edwards I have seen not one appeal for fund raising, not a single rally call for Edwards. I just don't get it.

    Kos posted some poll results that he claims show hyper-partisanship gets more people out to vote. A assume this was a defense of "The Spheres" position that we must destroy them, we are correct, therefore we must destroy conservatism, rather than let it destroy it's self.  Apart from that poll, I have seen no evidence based defense of that position. And more than that, we had a front pager saying correlation equals causation, which certainly makes me believe you are right, this is about not wanting to be wrong.

    Personally I think things are cyclical, as in the UK we saw the conservative movement fail, and be in effective for a decade. I really believe that the conservative movement in this country was so dominant for so long not just due to their anything goes strategy, but also due to a lack of ideas from liberals, a lack of echo chamber. That’s been fixed in many ways now. The key I not to keep hyper-partisanship and make this a civil war, but now to bring people back in to the fold.

    Sure if Obama wins the Presidency, you guys were wrong, and nobody wants to be wrong. But a country working together, is better than a country working apart, that’s what’s best for America, not the egos in "The Sphere".

    Anyway, i want you to be wrong. No so you guys will be shown up, but because if you are not i don't beleive this country can keep it's status in the World.

  •  I've supported John Edwards since November 2004 (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sychotic1, jasimon, John Patterson, edgery

    ...and you're right...there was a vacuum of leadership the media and in Washington D.C.

    But, you see, it was not that I was "angry" that I embraced Senator Edwards. It was because of all that I had learned by that point in time.

    His lead on just about everything, from alleviating poverty to his strong stand with unions to his fight for the minimum wage (an issue in which he encouraged me and others to join him), and then his bold healthcare plan, the first and best of any candidate to be presented to us...

    ...these, along with the absence of leadership anywhere else at the time [the vacuum], are the very reasons that I remember John Edwards as the one lone voice saying: "BE the leader you're longing for."

    I don't doubt for one minute that he will be the same leader for the next four or eight years..and will cause a new generation of people to come forward as leaders.

    I respect your choice, but I cannot let the untruth about the mythical Edwards "anger" and blogger "anger" pass without reminding all of us that this work we've all been doing has been about love of country and progress, emotion notwithstanding.


    •  Well-Said (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Iddybud, edgery

      I completely agree with your every word.  Except that I've been supporting Edwards since January 04 and not November 04.

      GO JOHN GO!!!!!!

    •  Well said! I came on board later than you (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      but for many of the same reasons.  Some days I am angry, some days I think we should all be angry.  But my support for John Edwards is not based on anger, it is based on the belief that you don't create the kind of fundamental change our Party and our country needs by making nice -- it is by being clear about our values, clear about the causes of problems, clear about the choices, clear about the direction.  John Edwards is clear, direct and forthright -- there's no mystery here about what he values or what drives him or what he wants to accomplish.

      There's going to be a rising ..., And it's going to spread across America, And it will be a wave of change that cannot be stopped. John Edwards

      by edgery on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 07:45:59 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Was at a conference w/mainstream&pajama bloggers (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        ...and we sat in a small room talking about the way things are. When I mentioned the "angry blogger" myth, everyone laughed heartily because, mainstream or not, everyone understood and agreed that it was just a myth. We blog about issues day after day. If you're not beholden to an editor, you can use cuss words on occasion. Because the mainstream media is restricted from doing so, they understand that those cuss words have great power. They show others, with no punches pulled, how an individual REALLY feels while talking about, in many cases, a more in-depth look at the issues at hand than the mainstream would.

        Charles Krauthammer and Bill Kristol can't SAY "fuck you" to us bloggers, but just look at them.....oh, what they'd say to us if only they could.

        Mary Cheney mouthed the words "fuck you" to John Edwards at the Cheney/Edwards debate in 04. Was she an angry blogger? No.

  •  Cannot recommend highly enough (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    John Patterson, edgery

    But while this is good as far as it goes, style does not trump substance. We are faced not only with the questions of "what to do" and "how to do it," but of "what comes first" and "who or what is the target."

    Obama's answers to those questions have been vague, mushy, and ambiguous, couched in flowery rhetoric that could mean ten different things to ten different people. Therefore people hear what they want to hear, believe what they want to believe, and conclude what they want to conclude.

    That to me is far more than a matter of style. That bespeaks a willful desire to obfuscate. Edwards, OTOH, has been forthright, direct, and specific.

    I will support Obama if he is nominated. Hell, I'll support Hillary if she is. I will fight tooth and nail to elect Edwards.

    "Lash those traitors and conservatives with the pen of gall and wormwood. Let them feel -- no temporising!" - Andrew Jackson to Francis Preston Blair, 1835

    by Ivan on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 07:14:49 AM PST

  •  FINALLY !!! A descent argument.. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    A descent argument why people strongly support Edwards over Obama..  THIS I can understand and have no problem with.  A well reasoned thought out post as to why a lot of people strongly support Edwards over Obama...  Thank You BooMan!

    In Obama's defense I would say that he is not just talking to the blogoshpere. He is talking to EVERYBODY.  This sounds similar to the argument that many black people give for not strongly supporting Obama.  Many say he is not out there constantly spouting black peoples issues...  The blogs are huge but they are still only a SMALL part of the American people...  Very small part actually. He is focusing on themes and tones that effect a lot more people than just us here.  And he has shown that he cares about the opinions on the blogs by actually participating.  I've seen him post here a few times...  And his web page blog is a pretty good one as well.  And his stances on technology, and how he will use it in his administration, are far beyond what I have heard from ANY of the other candidates.

    I also would like to point out that I think that Obama is a fighter as well.  I will take silent but deadly over loud but weak.  We have plenty of combative voices.  I love the Ted Kennedy's of the world too, but they can't get much done without the votes.  And anyone thinking that insurance companies or any other progressive enemy is going to lay down because someone comes in screaming is crazy...  They spend all that lobby money to get votes...  Obama is trying to get votes with his voice and the strength of the majority (70+%) of the American people. Obama is trying to wake the sleeping giant of American people who don't usually give a shit about politics because the status quo is just too over the top contentious...  And I think he will do it.  He sure as hell has woke me up.  I've been a lurker around here for years without posting much until I felt I needed to come to Obama's defense.

  •  So who was going to kick our soft teeth down our (0+ / 0-)

    whiney throats?

  •  So who was planning to kick our soft teeth down (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    our whiney throats?

    Seems to me it was Republicans planning that coup-de-crap, and they actually believed they could literally destroy the Democratic party.

    So everyone here who accepts Obama's conciliatory gestures towards the Republicans, the uranium mine owners and the warmongers, needs to remember that beneath their friendly handshakes and desperate smiles, they still want us ELIMINATED as a political force.

    If not for the blogs, they might have accomplished it.

    Karma has a curious way of turning on its victims.  What the Republicans tried to do to the Dems is exactly what has happened to them. Especially with the immigration issue, they have split along lines that can never be healed. Just watch the Iowa caucus turnout numbers, like the straw poll, the Republicans are ashamed of their leaders, so they won't show up to support them.

    So go ahead and support Obama or Clinton this time around, make nicey nice with the neocons and their puppet party, maybe we'll all have a glorious chance to send our grandchildren to war someday!

    If you people can't recognize the seriousness of this not-so-subtle hatred of Democrats and anything "progressive", you will only repeat the same mistakes that led to their usurped empowerment in the 21st Century.

    My opinion?

    Obama has been making political fodder of us all along, and Hillary has been kissing neocon ass for campaign contributions.

    Edwards is our only real hope, Obama and Clinton are just more of the same big-money influence, if you want proof, look at the money they spent in Iowa.

  •  Bravo! (0+ / 0-)

    You've hit the nail on the head.

  •  Great diary (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Though I'm an Obama guy, and I've worn out my keyboard lately arguing against the basic fallacies of the blogosphere critique of him, I totally agree with your conclusion that Edwards is a better apparent fit, given the lineage of the left blogosphere.

    Come the general election, I'll probably forgive you for having been an ass this year.

    by cardinal on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 07:45:36 AM PST

  •  Edwards is best with blogosphere because... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Rhetoric and words are more important than records and actions to the blogosphere.

    •  no (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Edwards has laid out the case for what we have been talking about for the last 8 years.  He's adopted the thesis WE have been working on colectively.

      Obama is representative of a trend that defuses that thesis. Obama is a Broderite.

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

      by Salo on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 08:19:09 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  ironic (0+ / 0-)

      given obama is nothing but words at this point. he's been the senate for a very short amount of time.

  •  Plus I just want you to know that Obama killed my (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Salo, edgery


    Charlie Wilson's War is a great movie and a better book.

    In other news Booman is one cable tv ad away from being one of the best front pagers that never was. Well written Boo, and spot on as usual.

    So yeah this is EXACTLY what I'm thinking. I LIKE Obama, I just don't think his methodology will produce enough change to really save this country from the path it's on. I might be wrong on that, but like Booman said we're a self selected group of political partisan fighters. Singing kumbaya and giving defference to the power of political horse trading is what got us into this mess. And in case anyone's missed it this "mess" is a fucking nightmare.

    How about we actually try fighting for a change?

    Grunge is still in... right?

    by Windowdog on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 08:16:24 AM PST

  •  It didn't. Obama 1st, HRC 2nd, Edwards 3rd (0+ / 0-)

    We've had multiple diaries recently of Edwards supporters claiming he is first on the "blogosphere" when in fact he is a distant third based on the actual web metrics of traffic to web site, web references and web financial support numbers.

    Here's a summary of the stats...again.

    Websites: Hitwise shows Obama with nearly twice the traffic as Edwards and shows Clinton and Edwards tied.

    Techpresident.comhad Obama way out in front, Clinton second and Edwards a distant third in web references.

    So far, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama is leading his '08 Democratic rivals, with more than 85,000 friends linked to his MySpace page. That's almost three times as many as New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, who has more than 32,000 friends. Former North Carolina Senator Edwards has little more than 16,000

    A more interesting diary would by why is Edwards first with the minority web "establishment" (DKOS, MyDDd) but last with the majority web grassroots?

    It's a real puzzle for several reasons.

    1. DKOS, MyDDD etc. are in large part a reaction to the Iraq war but Edwards was one of the sponsors of the Iraq war along with Lieberman.

    I'm no Lieberman fan, thought he was a terrible choice for Gore's VP BUT...

    1. Lieberman and Edwards sponsored Iraq war yet Lieberman is considered a bete noir while Edwards is championed. Lieberman at least has a 95% liberal record vs. Edwards 75% record.
    1. DKOS, MyDDD, MoveOn etc. are largely based on opposition to the Iraq war. Obama is the liberal who opposed the Iraq war, why doesn't the old guard, establishment "blogosphere" support Obama?

    Any way...knew you'd want to know that Obama does lead on the web by the actual numbers with Clinton second (makes sense...for Iraq war but liberal record) and Edwards last (sponsored war and conservative record).

    •  Lieberman went third party (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Edwards responded to reality and decided to repudiate the war.

      Not hard to explain.

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

      by Salo on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 08:45:45 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Lieberman liberal/progressive track record (0+ / 0-)

        Edwards a conservative track record so Lieberman's history of supporting progressive policy should buy him some slack.

        Edwards and Lieberman were two of the Democratic sponsors of the Iraq War resolution so it is hard to understand why the more liberal, progressive Democrat is punished more for his Iraq war sponsorship than the conservative Democrat.

        For DKOS and the other old line bloggers, Iraq war was/is the defining issue, yet many of them support Edwards who, like Lieberman, sponsored the Iraq war.

        But getting back to the overall topic, Obama leads on the web, Clinton second and Edwards third so the idea that Edwards leads on the web is totally contradicted by the facts. Not sure why that particular fiction has been getting so much play lately on DKOS.

        •  Lieberman has practically ensured (0+ / 0-)

          that we have problems.  He's the biggest benedict Arnold the  party has seen in recent memory.

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

          by Salo on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 08:59:19 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Lieberman gave US Senate to Democrats (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            Count your blessings.

            However, you avoid answering the real question about why a liberal Democrat with a solid record of supporting progressive policy who sponsored Iraq war should be punished while a conservative Democrat with a weak track record of supporting progressive policy who sponsored Iraq war is rewarded.

  •  you nailed it when you wrote... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    johnny rotten

    "Obama didn't embrace our way of doing things". that's it in a nutshell and it's really pretty close to just saying "he didn't pay the proper respect to the blogosphere."

    though he shares most of our goals, he's continually kept this community at arm's length. and that is the whole story of how a bunch of anti-war bloggers chose one of the AUMF's co-sponsors over the only major candidate who opposed the war from the start.

    edwards cozied up to us, BHO didn't.

    end of story.

    Newsday: Rudy Giuliani missing in action for Iraq panel

    by jethropalerobber on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 08:45:52 AM PST

  •  I totally disagree 100 % - THEY ARE NOT THE (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:


    There has been much coping of JOHN EDWARDS, not only in word but he took the lead on all the major issues.

    They are not the same, I do not want a bi-partisan that believes in conforming and that is Obama.

    There is too much at stake to sit at the table with the old style politicians and call it bring them together. It will never happen unless concessions are given and that is where we have been for way too long.

    Edwards is the better choice by far, and I will vote for John Edwards.

    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 Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 08:51:59 AM PST

    •  I have to agree here. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      America08, ronlib

      Booman sees half the picture, but in the end, like many A-Listers, he cannot make the final step to fight for real change by supporting Edwards on substative issues.  I'm disapointed, because he seemed more progressive than many A-Listers.

      These issues won't go away.  Obama will not address the fundementals.    

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

      by TomP on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 08:56:38 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  went? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    How about we are  going for Edwards!

  •  You don't understand. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Miles in WesternWA

    Barack Obama was always walking his own way.

    You guys waited for the ring kissing and he did not commence.

    Now if he wins and moves on, you have no say for anything he does.  NONE.  Shut out.

    And about Edwards.  You establishment bloggers were cowards.  Not only did you not back your own horse in the race, you allowed him to plummet miserably to the depths of not being viable financially.

    IF the establishment bloggers believed in John Edwards so much, you should have collectively raised money to make sure he was viable.  But you did not.  Mainly because of fear, of Her Majesty Hillary Clinton, afraid of no seat her her table so you went mute.  And stayed out of it, instead of having courage and backing Edwards with your ability to raise money and your bully pullpit, you, your blog.  Pity.

    Now you are whining about Barack Obama because you won't have a seat at the table.  But there will be others who sit in the seat, but none of these establishment bloggers, only new ones.

    Finally, you also forgot to do your homework and to get away from the computer and get to the pulse of the everyday person.  Not these intellectual elites that love to read their words on a blog, but average Americans who could give a shit about a blog.  You would have learned a lot.  You would have found out that many are sick and tired of fighting and partisanship and need, long for someone to make government work again.

    But you did not.  Still caught up with our own partisanship that you FORGOT the average American don't feel that way.  They know that everything is screwed up, at this point they want to fix what they can and move forward.

    You can continue the partisan mindblock, but many are moving and will move past this.  At this point, we should.  This is a CHANGE ELECTION, period.

    •  Reread the Armando quote (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Militarytracy, kck

      I don't know why Obama supporters can't get it through their heads. This isn't about Obama not kissing blogger ass.  It is about Obama insisting on a negotiating strategy that has been proven to not work in D.C. politics.

      If you want Republicans to sign on to the Democratic Agenda you don't accomplish it by inviting them to a tea party.  You push the agenda, use the bully pulpit to rally public support, and make the Republicans wet their pants at the prospect of opposing it.

      Maybe after a few years of using the stick, Democrats can go back to using carrots.  But right now, Obama's approach is a recipe for failure.

    •  Hugely important point, IBS - thank you! (0+ / 0-)

      Finally, you also forgot to do your homework and to get away from the computer and get to the pulse of the everyday person.  Not these intellectual elites that love to read their words on a blog, but average Americans who could give a shit about a blog.  You would have learned a lot.  You would have found out that many are sick and tired of fighting and partisanship and need, long for someone to make government work again.

      But you did not.  Still caught up with our own partisanship that you FORGOT the average American don't feel that way.  They know that everything is screwed up, at this point they want to fix what they can and move forward.....

      In a separate thread, my pro-Barack post pointing out that at least 33 percent of union members voted for Bush was almost completely ignored.

      Folks are not understanding that a HUGE slice of working-class America doesn't give a flip about Edwards or the message of class conflict that the liberal/left wing of the Democratic Party is trumpeting.  That doesn't mean Edwards is un-electable; it does suggest that his approach is far from a sure bet.

      If you've worked in a blue-collar, manual labor, unionized environment, and talked with unionized Republican or non-partisan types (as I have) who sneer at liberals, you realize Obama KNOWS something about reaching people that a lot of DailyKos does not.  

      Obama knows how ordinary people out in the streets and farms and workshops think about politics.

  •  Hate to say it, but (3+ / 0-)

    the blogosphere has been reduced to literally a joke in Obama's stump speech. I caught him on C-SPAN addressing a crowd in Iowa (a big crowd at that). He essentially paraphrased the blogosphere/Edwards critique of him, "They're saying that I'm too nice! That I won't fight for you."

    The crowd laughed heartily.

    Obama did five minutes reciting his 20-year record of doing nothing much else except fighting and winning progressive change for regular working people.

    End of story.

    Barack Obama -- The Time is Now

    by pragprogress on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 09:06:26 AM PST

    •  Have you looked at Obama's record? Voting (0+ / 0-)

      present is not a fight in my eyes.  Because of his "bipartisanship", I don't want him sitting down with insurance companies when it comes to national health care.  I can just see them now, hammering out the details of the cost that it will take for we Americans to have the insurance companies rob us blind and Obama's response "present"

      •  Actually voting "present" is (0+ / 0-)

        very much a part of the fight when it's part of a Planned Parenthood initiated strategy to protect abortion rights.

        If you think that insurance companies will have no influence over the future of national health care then you are just not living in reality. Shouting at them or ignoring them will not make them go away. Putting the whole debate on national TV, as Obama has suggested, will definitely put them in their place.

        Barack Obama -- The Time is Now

        by pragprogress on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 10:07:55 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  What nonsense. (0+ / 0-)

    Try to accurately poll the blogosphere; I dare you.  What exactly, in your definition, does that even include?  And are you talking about proprietors or comment-ors?  

    Your whole premise is baseless.

  •  How is it even close? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Militarytracy, invisiblewoman

    It baffles me that people could come to dKos (or any other political blog), complain about Reid and Pelosi, complain that Democrats "don't have a spine", complain that Democrats don''t fight, don't give as good as they get, and don't draw lines in the sand...and then turn around and vote for Obama or Hillary.

    I'm not saying that there is no logic to voting for them.  If you think that the system isn't broken, vote for Hillary.  If you think the system is broken, but liberals are as guilty as conservatives, vote for Obama.

    Obama and Hillary will tell you to your face that they won't take a confrontational style.

    But if you think that Democrats have gotten kicked in the teeth for the past 10-20 years and have basically rolled is there any choice but Edwards?  

  •  I am not a blogger and I honestly don't know how (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Militarytracy, invisiblewoman

    you all find the time to key such excellent blogs.  I do know one thing; John Edwards has awakened Iowa and the country from its semicomatose state and is saying what we all as Americans know.  This country no longer belongs to us; it belongs to money.  Iowa and the country is paying attention to what we all know is true and the media wants nothing to do with the truth. Here in Iowa, we don't have to rely on media, we have the priviledged fortune of meeting any and all candidates.  I have seen all of the candidates except Gravel, and there are none that compare to the passion in the message.  John Edwards knows what is wrong with the country and he knows what to do to fix it.  He has changed the dynamics of this race and other candidates have had to start talking about (some in roundabout ways) the same issues John Edwards has in order to not be blown out of the water tonight.  I am looking forward to caucusing for John Edwards tonight as I do not want to see the middle class move closer to extinction.

    Iowans will come through for John Edwards tonight and there are several Iowans who will quickly move on to helping him win in New Hampshire, South Carolina, Nevada...

    I do want to say one final thing.  I want to thank all of you bloggers.  I am an old time hoof to the dirt person and don't blog.  All of your efforts is what will help us win here in Iowa.  Thank you all, and I look forward to reading your John Edwards blogs in the next month leading up to The Really Big One MegaSuper Tuesday.

  •  YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (0+ / 0-)

    I've been explaining this exact point but have not managed to boil it down.

    Boy, Armando is a great voice.  Not to mention BooMan.  Thanks for stopping by.

    Visit for insight into how to lead a meaningful life as a secularist.

    by annaconda1 on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 09:36:18 AM PST

  •  I was watching MSNBC this morning (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MontanaMaven, machka, invisiblewoman

    and one of their talking heads said pertaining to Iowa that the Edwards campaign was too angry and seemed suggesting that Edwards was already sort of washed up.  Who are these bubbleboys and their silly trash talk?  I pray for strength today to be able to continue watching them.  The Edwards campaign is not too angry talking head idiots......I'm too angry and several other military families that I know now, and I'm willing to bet maybe a few folks in New Orleans are too angry right now too to able to do much more than tell someone to Fuck Off.  I back Edwards because I need a President who will do hard work and make hard decisions on day one and not worry his or her pretty little head too much at first about creating a beautiful day in the neighborhood.  I'm beyond bipartisanship here folks because bipartisanship has my husband still in Iraq.  I'm essentially done with bipartisanship until someone can show me that it can once again do something beneficial for someone other than Blackwater Security.

    "People die. Strategies fail. Blame is laid. And we, as a nation, are made to look like assholes." - Brandon Friedman

    by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 09:49:34 AM PST

  •  Identity Politics - great diary, tip'd & rec'd (0+ / 0-)

    we cannot compromise with the Republican Party...we must smash them.  

    Sure, while planning Congressional tactics or during negotiations - when dealing with Republican operatives. But such bombast is not how you deal with voters, of any party, or neighbors, or people you sit beside in church. Edwards never actually identified "the enemy" other than "the system" so...

    But Obama's tone deaf to the blogosphere.  And, as a result, the blogosphere didn't trust him.

    Same is true for Hillary.

    IMO, the blogosphere went for John Edwards because of identity politics - identity determined not merely the candidate but the embrace - the whole enchilada - issues, framing, options, words, mannerisms, interpretations, and history.  

    The Apprentice - Obama - we all start out pure, wanting to get along...inclusiveness is not a new enemies, all friends...

    The Journeyman - Edwards - now that he's made a few friends and a few enemies he's ready and able to fight and feels able to assume the mantle of power...but power is not about smashing A but moving from A to B...building enemies...  

    Master - Hillary/Dodd/Biden - lots of friends, few enemies, know how to fight and how to win. Lets subordinates do the fighting. Tends to stay out of fights with people but attacks issues. Ready to use power, to wield it, rather than to hit people over the head with it...building influence  

    It's all about identify politics, BooMan, and imho  you're just scratching the surface in this important diary. There are certain ways to create influence from the trenches - the blogosphere - like fighting back. But leading - in a representative democracy -  is different (as it is different than leading in a corporation) and there is a very different set of reliable, successful, results oriented core competencies...very different than blogospheric illusions of how to manage power day by day. Different venues.


    This odd grouping is the essence of a tone deaf blogosphere...and I think it has a bit to do with our state of self-awareness regarding identity politics.

    If the Journeyman is elected he will have to become a master to get reelected. If an Apprentice is elected, we will all sit and watch his step by step learning on the job. If we elect a Master, it's more likely our loyal opposition will be put to good use.

  •  I am voting for Edwards (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    machka, invisiblewoman

    And he CAN win a bi-partisan majority.

    Edwards-Richardson 2008

    by TekBoss on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 10:09:14 AM PST

  •  bravo!!! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Miles in WesternWA

    In any case, this is the best I can do to express why the blogosphere went for Edwards.  

    and you did a most excellent job.  kudos!!

    The greatest deception men suffer is from their own opinions...Leonardo da Vinci

    by Mom to Miss M on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 10:28:41 AM PST

  •  Exactly! I love this part of your diary... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nom de paix

    Obama didn't embrace our way of doing things.  Worse, he began to use rhetoric we had spent energy to debunk.  He went even further.  He tossed aside one of our central insight won through hard experience:  we cannot compromise with the Republican Party...we must smash them.  

    This is what I have been advocating for years... a brief glimpse at my comments shows that I am a firm believer that if you want to win a fight - and it IS a fight - you have to... FIGHT TO WIN.  Smash the Republican party?  Hell yes.  Fight those within our own party (Reid / Pelosi) - HELL YES.

    You do not win a fight by being cowed or timid.  I look forward to the day when those like Pelosi and Reid do not occupy "leadership" positions and have such little influence they can't even get an airport named after someone.

    Privatization: The art of giving taxpayer funds to those who don't need it for providing services they view as wasteful.

    by Johnathan Ivan on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 10:35:40 AM PST

  •  The policy differences between Edwards and Obama (0+ / 0-)

    are huge.  It's not about only style, it 's about huge differences.  
    Obama is pro nuclear power plants.  Building new ones!  Must be his friends at Exelon that gave him $155,000.
    Obama is pro multi national trade pacts.  Bad bad bad.
    Obama will keep some combat units in Iraq.
    Obama is not terribly interested in helping people through  class action suits against corporations.
    Obama said a few weeks ago that "Iran" was the biggest threat in the world.  Um, no. It's Russia and Pakistan.
    Obama is pro liquid coal.  Very dirty still.  

    Sorry, but their policies are different and their styles are waaaaay different.  

    "It is not be cause things are difficult that we do not dare; it is because we do not dare that they are difficult." Seneca

    by MontanaMaven on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 10:52:18 AM PST

  •  I'm hoping for an Obama win (0+ / 0-)

    but this was a good, honest diary, and accurate, in my opinion. Thanks. Much better than all the (honestly) ridiculous crap trying to smear him as a conservative or Lieberman clone.

    "Beauty is truth, truth beauty, - that is all ye know on earth, and all ye need to know." --Keats

    by Illissius on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 10:53:02 AM PST

  •  The problem with the blogosphere (0+ / 0-)

    is our inflexibility.

    we cannot compromise with the Republican Party...we must smash them.  

    That should have happened the last election.  What we did accomplish was a loud enough, stident enough voice that it woke up those NOT in the blogosphere to what treachery was going on in the White House.  

    If that's all we've accomplished in the last 8 years then I say we're doing a great service.

    How many Republicans have resigned?  How many have been ratted out for the hypocrites they are?  How many people who were behind the war are now against the war?  I attribute alot of that to our efforts.  Further, I think we need to keep being bloodhounds of the most diligent sort.

    But, politically speaking, now is the time to move forward as one nation.  That's why Obama is NOW.

  •  good analysis but I believe you are overlooking (0+ / 0-)

    one element. The rebutters are now rebutting the rebuttals. Fighting is now appearing to be the only thing the blogosphere really has in common and knows how to do. That gets really tiring very fast. I keep seeking the real 'change' everyone is screaming for and most of what I get is that everyone who doesn't agree is an idiot, a jerk, a moron etc.

    I have no real idea what the consensus of what a 'progressive' is or specific details of the core tents of the movement. In fact more and more it seems to be leaning toward more Americsnism and less globalism. I lean the other way. i don't agree with the ccorporate multi-national stranglehold but i don't agree either that my counterpart in mexiso, in India, in china or anywhere else has less right to their version of 'the American Dream' than I and my children do.

    All I really know after the past year hanging around is that I am obviously not one. I am a social democratic who knows how necessary it is to balance my household buudget  aand want what I want for myself and my family for all mankind in every nation of the planet.

  •  Learn history, one is not the other (0+ / 0-)

    I don't agree with the basic premise, that the blogosphere is about fighting for our policies, etc.  It's about empowering all of us to stand up to the bully on our block, not to fight him.  Those are two different things.  Fighting only comes out of failure.  Failure to communicate, failure to find a solution, and failure to really think.  I am so sick and tired of the military metaphor.  The War on This, the War on That, fight them there so we don't fight them here, attack, attack, attack.  There are other ways to view the world.  Using these military phrases and thinking only accepts the frame that the Republicans created.  One that insists that our liberties have only been won by the soldier.  When was the last time you saw soldiers protecting a picket line? or a Civil Rights march? or even the right of free speech?  Our rights and liberties were won with blood, but not only that of soldiers.

    Second, what is it we are faced with?  In the last couple of years, I think it has become clear for me:  In 1981 (at his inauguration, wasn't it?), Ronald Reagan proclaimed that "Government in not the solution, government is the problem."  I think that statement has haunted us ever since.  It is still fashionable to bash government as incompetent and expensive.  Definitely, government can get bloated, bureaucratic, and unresponsive.  And we, the Democrats were a very big part of that happening.  The Democratic Awakening has happened because of what Bush has crystallized:  Government does matter, and good government is made by good people, put in place by the people.  Government of, by, and for the people can still be effective.

    Now, I want to note that what Edwards is saying I agree with 100%.  Totally, his analysis is correct.  But for me, it is too much like Reagan saying "Government is the problem."  It's simplistic and dishonorable.  I don't want to take out / take down my enemies, I want to replace them.  It's really only a difference in semantics, but it is also the attitude.

    If he gets the nomination, I am sure that John Edwards will immediately move to the middle with his rhetoric.  One doesn't get elected if the middle sees him as too extreme.  Just as Bush sounded compassionate in 2000, Edwards will adopt a similar tactic in reverse.  And what will happen?  The same people cheering him on now, proclaiming that Obama and Clinton are running to the right / too DLC / too whatever, will be the same ones to complain that he is waffling, that all is lost, that he is such a disappointment....

    I only offer a word of caution.  When we credit the blogosphere with all of the successes, humility is lost.  Hopefully, we can find ways to renew our humility, every year for generations, and keep the power of the people where it should be:  for the people.

  •  Interesting. I am not sure I agree with your (0+ / 0-)


    If indeed Edwards' message boils down (as you say) to this

    Fuck David Broder, fuck Joe Klein, fuck Chris Matthews, fuck FOX News, fuck Tim Russert, fuck Mitch McConnell, fuck Big Oil, Big Pharma, and Big Defense.  We don't need them.  They won't negotiate in good faith.  They're stacking the deck against us.  And we can beat them by telling the truth and getting organized.

    then I think you are wrong that Obama is "tone-deaf" to it.  More likely, he has made a conscious choice that such a caustic message will only alienate moderates and independents outside the Beltway whom we need as allies in order to build a progressive majority, while at the same time doing absolutely nothing to actually chip away at the power structure currently propping up the likes of Mitch McConnell and "Big Defense."  I think Obama has sized up the landscape and concluded that, while the blogosphere is great (and who is a bigger proponent of net neutrality and transparency in gov't than Obama?  No one), it suffers from its own sort of tone-deafness to the broader America in which it is embedded, and that no one who wants to lead this country can afford to fall into the trap of pandering to the posturing of the left blogosphere.  I think he knew full well that he would not be the Howard Dean of this primary season, but I don't think that has ever been his ambition.  Yet even still, he enjoys quite a bit of support here

    Let's face it:  we are a tiny fringe of this country.  We cannot make up a working majority.  The left blogosphere is also too full of purity freaks to make for a reliable constituency.  Those who are capable of thinking pragmatically and at least trying to see the bigger picture and the longer view might get what Obama is trying to do.  The rest will, of course, fall for Edwards' more simple-minded rhetoric.

  •  Bipartisianship CANNOT be possibe w/o accounting (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nom de paix

    of the crimes of Bush, his administration and the Republcian party and their media, corporate and other enablers, in general.  To do so without exposing these cancerous cockroaches to the light of day, and to justice, will just insure their quick return.  They will eat us alive, with even more tools at their disposal the next go around.

    What they have wrought must be reversed and exposed, FIRST AND FOREMOST.  Then, and only then, can "cooperation" with sociopaths even be truly considered.  Anything else is slitting our throats.

    You don't negotiate with fascists, you defeat them in the name of democracy. --Ambr. Joe Wilson

    by FightTheFuture on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 12:27:39 PM PST

  •  My reason for recommending this diary (0+ / 0-)

    was that it articulated what you aptly describe as a "central insight" of the progressive blogosphere:

    [W]e cannot compromise with the Republican Party...we must smash them.


    "The cloud of mind is discharging its collected lightning, and the equilibrium between institutions and opinions is now restoring or is about to be restored."

    by nom de paix on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 05:54:44 PM PST

Serephin, chris, Chris Bowers, jbou, arlam, anna, DCFD Rudi, Ed in Montana, mbw, renska, BrooklynBoy, robert green, Alfred E Newman, vicki, MewZ, nofundy, SteveLCo, kid oakland, From the choir, RF, filkertom, sny, quantum, Phoenix Woman, nolalily, hester, Rayne, wystler, Jackson L Haveck, natasha, coturnix, casamurphy, gogol, GordonNC, Ivan, lipris, Windowdog, yerioy, Philosopher, human, misscee, Neil Sinhababu, CA JAY, kiwing, abarefootboy, dfarrah, mikeb42, mishar, Nina Katarina, cosbo, whataboutbob, melvynny, mattman, PeterHug, Winger, chadlupkes, bdtlaw, jethropalerobber, Robespierrette, Hounds, tommurphy, Shockwave, byteb, Heimyankel, Wintermute, billlaurelMD, anonyMoses, LionelEHutz, Lipstick Liberal, Jim in Chicago, fugitive, jrod, ThirstyGator, Pompatus, devtob, frisco, marjo, sobermom, Luam, wmandevi, RFK Lives, grndrush, DBJ, MasonMcD, exNYinTX, Jerome a Paris, expatjourno, PeterSD, nanoboy, zeitshabba, BrewerDem, silence, Vitarai, Birdman, Heart of the Rockies, Dumbo, RubDMC, NoisyGong, Jon B Good, Boston Boomer, Hatu, bronte17, jfeichter, kfractal, mentaldebris, DrKate, wonkydonkey, Cassandra77, petercjack, clarkent, OCD, grrtigger, srkp23, Agathena, ask, KMc, chuckvw, Minerva, Scoopster, Porfiry, narrowback gal, vmibran, mbair, roses, LeftofArizona, amberglow, Ignacio Magaloni, cognitive dissonance, Toktora, House, BruinKid, turneresq, ClickerMel, Nechton, VA Gal, Ohiocrat, rioduran, naperken, bewert, kport, Alna Dem, Boorad, orapaho, Janet Strange, Eric Blair, psnyder, rcvanoz, danthrax, Dallasdoc, Subversive, paluxy1945, pointsoflight, Chicago Lulu, smg225, StuartZ, Can Tab, brainwave, gmb, grannyhelen, votermom, Kidspeak, astronautagogo, desmoinesdem, churchylafemme, jlamkin, NYFM, Black Maned Pensator, joan reports, Oy the Billybumbler, ArcXIX, Sychotic1, ourprez08, MmeVoltaire, Tillie630, papercut, Mrcia, LeftyLimblog, elizm, Timbuk3, welshvalleymaid, Anna Luc, 4jkb4ia, Brian82, Democratic Hawk, dkmich, CabinGirl, bwintx, Exurban Mom, nasarius, larrybutch, WV Democrat, Curt Matlock, smartgo, Wife of Bath, Deward Hastings, Steven D, valadon, Wizznilliam, snowbird42, boran2, Dave in RI, thereisnospoon, Sassy, TekBoss, iliketodrum, Arcparser, Illissius, sawgrass727, julifolo, MichDeb, soros, nehark, Recovering Southern Baptist, chumley, humphrey, Leslie H, bloomer 101, historys mysteries, Bluesee, marina, farleftcoast, 3goldens, CrazyCracka420, ichibon, Five of Diamonds, JanetT in MD, unclejohn, Pym, Independent Musings, ek hornbeck, Alice Marshall, ignorant bystander, OpherGopher, andgarden, Militarytracy, ejmw, Webster, Hotspur18, tgray, clammyc, zbctj52, stitchmd, juliesie, Ranting Roland, Salo, Laurence Lewis, LindaR, ratzo, boofdah, eru, GUGA, flubber, mojo workin, Viceroy, SaraBeth, Pam from Calif, Sharon in MD, truebeliever, Sun Tzu, washingtonsmith, elesares, jimreyn, thered1, GreyHawk, jcitybone, Kayakbiker, machka, ivorybill, lasky57, sunbro, twalling, FunkyEntropy, mikolo, el zilcho, The Raven, power model, FightTheFuture, LithiumCola, Red Bean, Tex Kosmaniac Dem Lady, JackTheIntelligentDesigner, proudprogressiveCA, empathy, mightymouse, hedgey, Alan Arizona, CJnyc, kubla000, SoulCatcher, Coherent Viewpoint, andreuccio, trashablanca, Icy, Zen Blade, Keone Michaels, vigilant meerkat, sherlyle, TimFong, Rippe, sabeke, BlueInARedState, cwaltz, faster democrat kill kill, Yellow Canary, buhdydharma, rhetoricus, annaconda1, poichick, Esjaydee, kck, Blue Wind, DarkestHour, Defeat Doolittle, MJ via Chicago, global citizen, StrayCat, Ashaman, Rachel in Vista, nilocjin, goodlittlesquid, taraka das, NC Dem, real world chick, John Patterson, NearlyNormal, el cid, totallynext, doinaheckuvanutjob, MBNYC, buckinfuzzard, oakroyd, llbear, mang glider, Sardanicas, democracy is coming, Persiflage, Timothy J, va dare, Peter from WI, scoff0165, Miles in WesternWA, AmySmith, pkbarbiedoll, bstotts, Snarcalita, kidneystones, Temmoku, sasher, Nulwee, Aaa T Tudeattack, AntKat, DrMicro, embra, DBunn, artist1776, dov12348, Boxer7, The Other Steve, Buckeye Hamburger, xaxado, asilomar, Mom to Miss M, Russ Jarmusch, Loudoun County Dem, FWIW, Terminus Est, ricsec7, leftyguitarist, suburi, Positronicus, aravir, maxalb, Outrider, danwood, soulsurvivor, Blue Waters Run Deep, yowsta, Joshua Brown, mystic, ronlib, 7November, ubertar, Newzie, beemerr, Bridge Master, Brahman Colorado, madgranny, KJC MD, Quanta, seancdaug, Hens Teeth, Terra Mystica, MKinTN, slade7, nom de paix, fayeforcure, mconvente, Spoonfulofsugar, Blue Town, TheFatLadySings, Phil N DeBlanc, dragoneyes, I, califdem, shanay, 1983sedge, spencerh, swalker007, Universal, thetadelta, okamichan13, Archangel, wvablue, bettync, jamess, Mardish, Cassandra Waites, huntsu, Tam in CA, jcbarr, PJ Jefferson, JedReport, GayDemInRedDistrict, TL Eclipse, smitha007, valsagem, LaEscapee, echatwa, ShainZona, MalachiConstant, rickyscorpio, JeremiahFP, Michael 4 Edwards, Tross, PeckingOrder, legendmn, dreamghost, natalie902, artmartin, Glacial Erratic, leisure, kbal11, emmabrody, gdwtch52, americanprogress, Hope08, Libertaria, Sullen Idealist

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site