How can Obama make his approach work in DC?

I am constantly asking Obama supporters how they think he will be able to unite to the country.  I get few details.  So I did my own research to start the discussion. Based on what I read here, I think I have a good understanding about how Barack Obama intends to bring change.  

First, he will make friends with Republicans:

"I learned that if you’re willing to listen to people, it’s possible to bridge a lot of the differences that dominate the national political debate," Mr. Obama said in an interview on Friday. "I pretty quickly got to form relationships with Republicans, with individuals from rural parts of the state, and we had a lot in common."

He will make peace with Republicans by getting Democrats to give up their preconceived notions and accept things they were once not willing to give in on, like he did with the black community in Illinois:

Mr. Hendon praised Mr. Obama, however, for later winning passage of what some in Springfield called "the driving-while-black bill," which required the police to collect data on the race of drivers they stopped as a way to monitor racial profiling. Law enforcement groups had repeatedly blocked earlier versions while the Republicans were in control; when the Democrats took over, Mr. Obama brokered a compromise between the police groups and the A.C.L.U.
Mr. Hendon, sponsor of a previous bill, said Mr. Obama had "made some compromises that other members of the black caucus just weren’t willing to bend on" — perhaps, he said, because Senator Obama had never been abused by the police. But he added, "I’m not saying he gave up too much. In hindsight, it was best to go ahead with the weaker version because a lot of police attitudes changed when we passed it."

He will fight against lobbyists and try to let the sun shine on their activities:

"I know he wanted to limit contributions by corporations or labor unions, and he certainly wanted to stop the transfers of huge amounts of money from the four legislative caucus leaders into rank-and-file members’ campaigns," Mr. Dillard said. "But he knew that would never happen. So he got off that kick and thought disclosure was a more practical way to shine sunlight on what sometimes are unsavory practices."
The disclosure requirement "revolutionized Illinois’s system," said Cindi Canary, executive director of the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform. By giving journalists immediate access to a database of expenditures and contributions, it transformed political reporting. It also, she said, "put Senator Obama on a launching pad and put the mantle of ethics legislator on his crown."

Actually he already worked on campaign finance reform, as he mentioned in the New Hampshire debate.  Lobbyists cannot give free lunches.... Unless everyone is standing up.

So my question is, "How Obama can make his approach work in DC?"

Because while he is trying to reach across the aisle, Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly and others will be endlessly saying that Obama is the biggest flip flopper of all time because he didn’t keep his oft made promise about finishing his term in the Senate and he didn’t vote against funding for the war like he promised he would.  And they will also hit harder on his inconsistencies on the Iraq War vote than Bill Clinton ever thought about doing.  And other things.

And he will probably get criticized from the left too.

How will Obama succeed under these circumstances?  And before you answer, please note that I did not say Obama was a flip-flopper and I assume he has some explanations for what seem to be inconsistencies.  I'm just trying to be realistic about how national politics works and get straight answers instead of the usual dirty looks I get for asking such questions.  I think it is very fair to ask how he will succeed under these circumstances.  

And if his supporters cannot answer this question without resorting to slamming Hillary, then they obviously don't know how he will succeed either.  

I would be willing to accept other examples of what he has done that show I am on the wrong track.  I am trying to be fair and open-minded.

•  you see all those people heading to the polls for

  the first time?  that's called the power of inspiration.  it works something like a foot up the ass of congress in washington DC.  you don't arm wrestle your opponents.  you don't demonize them.  you persuade them or persuade enough independents and new voters to get their ass to the polls so that the same old DC hacks start looking around and worring about their own upcoming election

  by elephantitis on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 05:37:05 PM PDT

  •  No arm-wrestling and demonizing?

    Really?

    Tell that to the W. / Cheney / Rove / Haliburton / Blackwater regime.

    Then get back to me with their response.

    by John Driscoll on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 05:39:46 PM PDT

    •  i wont say those two twerps have been

      very effective at accomplishing much of anything (besides playing the fear card immediately post-911).  since the democrats have taken congress NOTHING HAS BEEN DONE!!

      the real secret of the obama campaign is not that people have some sort of mystical "hope" in a fellow human being...its that they want to throw the BUMS OUT!!

      by elephantitis on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 05:53:30 PM PDT

      •  Who doesn't ...

        want to throw them out?

        I'm just a little alarmed at the lack of clarity about exactly on what basis Obama is so generously offering to reach across the aisle.

        by John Driscoll on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 06:49:58 PM PDT

        •  look at his tone- its not demonizing of half of

          the voting population.  call it superficial if you want, but charisma and an out stretched hand go an awefully long way in persuading others.  ask churchill, kennedy, etc.

          but before you go around saying that he's just an empty suit and full of rhetoric remember the guy spent time at both the top of the class at harvard law and as a community organizer on the streets of south chicago.

          by elephantitis on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 06:56:01 PM PDT

          •  Nobody here said

            "he's just an empty suit " Churchill was run off once and brought back when they needed his help in WW II.  And Kennedy might have changed DC if had lived longer, but he gave a lot more specifics than Obama has and still failed to change DC before he died.  And after that Johnson used his experience to run DC.

            by mikepridmore on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 07:02:31 PM PDT

            •  ok how about truman, FDR, Lincoln,

              these guys knew how to speak not just to partisans, but to the american people.  it's an important political skill that can bring about great change. a lot more change than simply if the american electorate remains two deeply divided and hateful political parties.  thats nothing but a reecipe for four more years of gridlock and bad government

              by elephantitis on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 07:07:11 PM PDT

              •  And they all

                gave details about what they planned to do differently. What will Obama do differently?  Please give examples.

                by mikepridmore on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 07:20:39 PM PDT

                •  oh come off it..

                  lincoln didn't have a commitee of polsters at his disposal and a long list of policy proposals.  frankly, he spoke in platitudes.  same with FDR.  but they were effective platitudes and people responded to them.  the rest is history.

                  the interst group micro polling and wonkish policy proposal madness is an advent of the 20th century and some would argue it has not necessarily made government more effective, but quite the contrary.

                  look- if you want to see where BHO stands on the issues go to his website.  its all there.  and frankly his platform is pretty much the same as JE and HRC.  the difference is he seems more able to inspire people to follow his lead.  once upon a time, that's what true leadership was all about.

                  by elephantitis on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 07:28:02 PM PDT

                  •  Lincoln lost the

                    Illinois senate election prior to becoming president mostly because of his views on slavery.  And he barely won the presidency later in the close election of 1860.  He wasn't brought into office on a tidal wave of support.  It was a very divided country and he embraced the division and stood on principles.  His was a very lonely presidency.  

                    I'm not sure where the part about polls and pollsters comes from?  I don't understand what context you intend to go with that part?

                    by mikepridmore on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 07:57:10 PM PDT

                    •  that's not what i'm saying...

                      Obviously principles and conviction are an indispensible part of leadership and it would be preposterous to suggest the contrary.  

                      What I am suggesting is that being bogged down in the wonkish minutiae of a government proposal is an inefficient and disingenuous way of claiming "experience" because we all know that congress makes the laws and unless you light a fire under their asses they are going to drag their feet the entire way and resist meaningful legislative change.  

                      You can have the most detailed of policy proposals in the world, but if you cannot motivate and inspire others to action, all those proposals are entirely academic, and you know it.

                      by elephantitis on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 07:29:40 AM PDT

          •  To talk about Dems & Repubs 'working together' -

            and not say a word about what has happened right before our eyes for the past 15 years is insulting, to be perfectly honest.

            It's not about "tone," as far as I am concerned. It is about telling the truth.

            by John Driscoll on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 09:06:50 PM PDT

      •  Wait a minute...

        It isn't so much what is not getting done, although we're all disappointed.  Lets try appreciate what Bush can't get away with now that his party doesn't control congress.

        Obama would get things done much the same way Bill Clinton did... depending on what congress looks like.  If he has a Democratic congress for a while, he can get a lot done without compromising much.  I suspect he wouldn't be rubbing the Republicans' noses in it, like Bush does ours.

        If Obama does not have a Democratic congress, he'll have to compromise to get anything done, just like Clinton did.  Clinton was criticized from left and right, too.

        But Obama would have a fresh beginning without all the preexisting hatred that the Clintons would be starting with.

        by juca on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 09:43:05 AM PDT

  •  Nope.

    In New Hampshire that flood of voters voted for Hillary too.  And in Iowa, although Obama won by 7 points, Edwards and Hillary also brought in tons of new voters.  So he can't claim that he alone is bringing in all the new voters.  Everyone wants a Democrat this time, not just Obama specifically.

    by mikepridmore on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 05:40:43 PM PDT

    •  my thinking is hillary knows she

      can't rely on the backlash against the mass media concerning the clinton tears beyond NH.  thats why shes started this democratic civil war against obama -- hoping she can depress turnout in later states.

      by elephantitis on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 05:56:33 PM PDT

      •  Oh good grief.

        She brought in a substantial portion of the new voters in Iowa too.  Barack focused on the youth vote and it really turned out for him in Iowa.  But he wasn't the only one bringing in new voters and the youth in NH didn't turn out as much as in Iowa.  I am thrilled that he is bringing new voters into the party, by the way.

        by mikepridmore on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 06:05:45 PM PDT

        •  we will see how many new voters she brings in...

          i give her credit for her victory in NH - it was stunning giving what the polls were saying.  it's not true that BHO was only bringing in young voters.  he also appeals to independents and even moderate republicans.  or at least thats what the polling data in Iowa indicated.

          bottom line is voters are looking for something new.  not just race, gender wise but also rhetoric, policy, and style wise.  moderates are really tired of the right/left witchfights

          by elephantitis on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 06:14:07 PM PDT

          •  Obama and Hillary are doing similar

            targeting to bring out their voters.  He was more successful in Iowa, she in NH.  Before Iowa, there was an explanation of what they are both doing here.

            by mikepridmore on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 06:35:35 PM PDT

•  Here's to fair, open-minded and ...

  not hollow, misleading and self-deceptive. We've had enough of that, haven't we?

  by John Driscoll on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 05:38:29 PM PDT

  •  I have. I was glad to see the truce called.

    What I want is genuine discussion backed up with relevant facts.  I'm tired of mindless "I don't like your candidate" BS from all sides.

    by mikepridmore on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 05:43:00 PM PDT

•  Where the words stop

  My daughter once told me that I do a great job at praising her for something then I say "But" and find a way to help her critique the situation. What I find that Rush and Bill have a tenancy to do is stop at the words it is most fitting for them to make their statement about something. Example - He didn't keep his promise to stay in the senate BUT I remember a debate Clinton had with her rival for the senate & was asked if she was going to run. She indicated she was in the race for senate not to be president. So it is the same but the words stopped at Obama. He was opposed to the war, as I would have been. But once he was in a position as US Senator, he had to make a decision about funding to make sure the lives were protected AFTER they were already there BUT Clinton was for the war to begin with and then also voted for the funding. Again, the same words but stopped at Obama.
  I think all candidates including Obama should be looked at not at the end of the sentence BUT what should be attached at those sentences concerning the rest of the facts concerning the candidates.
  Journalist, as well as the rest of us, should be thinking about where the words stop.

  by InMyLifeIowa on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 05:47:21 PM PDT

•  (sniffle) Well, this hurts me feelings (sniffle)

  

  "I didn't hear these kinds of attacks from Senator Clinton when she was ahead.  Now that she's not, we hear them.  Any time you speak out powerfully for change, the forces of status quo attack - this is what happens."

  by Al Rodgers on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 05:59:51 PM PDT

  •  Are you saying

    that Barack will use John Edwards as a secret weapon to take on DC?  I'm not sure I understand your point.

    by mikepridmore on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 06:02:43 PM PDT

    •  concerned Pols for change

      

      by Al Rodgers on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 06:06:21 PM PDT

      •  O I see.

        You have to attack Hillary because you can't really answer my fair question about Obama.  Classless.

        by mikepridmore on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 06:23:27 PM PDT

        •  well, they're in a bad mood today.

          their candidate smacked their hands and told them to go stand in the corner.

          by campskunk on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 06:27:49 PM PDT

        •  Business loves Hillary? I can live with that.

          Last I checked, we live in a capitalist country, and not even Kucinich in Edwards sauce with Gravel topping would change that.  Maybe they love Clinton because they know she's smart enough to run this country without fucking it up--she'll get the progressive reforms she promises, without a political train wreck and without messing with things just for the sake of doing it.  They know she's more interested in the well-being of poor people than the discomfort of the super-rich.  Me too.

          by Rich in PA on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 06:29:09 PM PDT

        •  You said it

          BWAHAHAHHAHAHAHA!!!

          "Business Loves Hillary" = an attack.  

          Thank you, thank you very much.

          No further questions, your honor.

          by Al Rodgers on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 06:33:38 PM PDT

          •  I didn't say it was a smart attack.

            I asked about Obama and you answered by discussing Hillary.  Knowing your recent history, I knew you meant that as an attack, however silly that attack might have been.

            by mikepridmore on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 06:37:50 PM PDT

•  We Just Need New Leadership...

  Mike:  Your question deserves a little more time than I have now but it's a good question and a fair one.  I appreciate the fact that you are a Hillary supporter who tries to be fair.  In the end, pretty damm soon, we are going to need to be together.  Some bloggers have cut pretty deep lately and are not doing Hillary any favors.  The response to a diary I posted on Kos and MyDD about a week ago really hurt although the most vile comments were removed and were hateful by any standard toward a group of American citizens.  Hillary Clinton would have been shocked at some of the things said by a wierd group of bloggers who CLAIM they support her.  I don't want to get mad anymore but I do want to get even so I decided to do more traveling to a Feb. 5 state (Meet Me in St. Louis!)and spend less time getting mad at the incendiary bloggers.

  Washington really does need new leadership.  Pelosi & Reid are not what the doctor ordered. Clinton has the capacity to make a fresh start.  Obama IS a fresh start.

  I think generational politics matters.  I don't think that "fresh start" and "new leadership" and "turn the page" is just idle political rhetoric.  I know a lot of people disagree, flame away -- burn baby burn.  The funny thing is that Hillary talks a LOT abour her ability to work with Republicans, good for her.  

  I think President Obama would put an end to some of the most divisive issues of the past.  President Obama would seal our victory on core principles like choice, social security, universal health care, etc.  His lifetime experience -- like Hillary -- is one of solid devotion to the core principles of the Democratic party.  Washington, at this juncture, needs a new approach over experience.  In the end it is about getting things done not endlessly fighting old battles.  President Obama would declare victory on the battles that matter and move on, we need that.  

  by howardpark on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 06:35:18 PM PDT

  •  Thanks Howard.

    That seems short on specifics, but you did say you were pressed for time.  Perhaps more details later?  And again, thanks for answering.

    by mikepridmore on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 06:40:34 PM PDT

•  oh good grief

  ANY DEM will be pilloried by the GOP- why would Hillary or John be any better? Every item you cited can be used against Hillary and Edwards- even more so with  the war vote. Give the man credit- he is TRYING to be a uniter and TRYING to be something other than a partisan winner. I personally see nothing wrong with trying to be a better, more unifying candidate.

  by ldaniels on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 06:47:35 PM PDT

  •  Ahem.

    As I clearly said in the diary, this is not an attack.  It is a question.  And talking about John or Hillary instead of answering the question tells me you don't have an answer.  No details about how he will achieve that, not even a recognition of his record as an indicator of what he will do.

    by mikepridmore on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 06:54:48 PM PDT

    •  The Turning Point for me was...

      during the You-Tube debate when Hillary & Obama clashed in the question about talking to enemies like Castro, Chavez, the Iran unshaved dude who is not really seen as the leader INSIDE Iran, Kim Jong Il Jr., etc.  Obama seemed really committed to a new diplomacy based on engagement, discussion and real diplomacy.  Clinton just retreated into the Washington conventional wisdom about preconditions before discussion & negotiations.  That wes my -- specific -- turning point.  I decided, then, to support Obama all out.  He showed me that he is for real change.

      by howardpark on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 07:03:56 PM PDT

      •  Thanks for the example.

        I didn't see it the way you do, but at least you gave an example.

        by mikepridmore on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 07:22:33 PM PDT

•  Great question

  I've been thinking about this a lot with all the candidates, since I haven't chosen one yet. Since the top 3 are all pretty damn close on the issues I care about (and a few i don't), I've turned to looking at who I think can get something done once they get there.

  Any Dem in the White House is going to be vilified by a fractured and pissed off Repub party. Doesn't matter who we put there, it's gonna happen.

  So, do I choose a candidate who knows their way around the political machine that already exists or do I choose a candidate who tries to inspire true change within that machine? Don't know yet.

  My question is that I'm not entirely convinced that Obama or Edwards or anyone can translate inspiration in the public into inspiration in DC. That's not a slam on any specific candidate - just an observation. For example, we had a lot of public inspiration during the last Congressional elections and what happened once they got there? Not much. I love tingles and inspiration as much as the next gal, but show me how that translates into legislation that promotes progressive values.

  I guess I've answered your question by asking a few of my own... bad habit of mine:)

  by themis on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 07:05:45 PM PDT

•  The feel I get from Obama is that

  he likes to do things in increments.  The kind of politics we've seen in the past 7 years with GWB where you get a majority and ram things through the legislature quite frankly pisses a lot of people off.  That kind of leadership is very effective in the short term, but it creates a huge backlash in the long run.

  Take ethics reform...there's been a lot of rhetoric flying around lately about "it's OK as long as they eat standing up."  That's fine, and it's a relatively true criticism, but let's be realistic - have you ever tried to eat Steak Tartare standing up?  So let's take the biggest chunk - the most expensive meals, the free private jets, the no-limit fundraisers, etc. - and throw those out the window first.

  After a year or two, we can turn around and say, "Eh...you're doing OK without the sit-down dinners and planes, let's take away the bar food, too."

  It becomes much easier to take off chunk after chunk until you have nothing left.

  The same can be true, I think, of his health care plan.  People criticize him for not having a mandate.  I get the reason why people think mandates are important, and eventually I think we'll have one.  But you and I know that any health care plan that includes a 100% mandate is going to be savaged by the Republicans, no matter how small their minority.

  And nobody, not even Obama, has said how they're going to pay for this yet.  Ending the war in Iraq will go a long way, but let's be realistic - you're not going to come up with the money for a UHC system simply by ending the war.  And, if we want a balanced budget, that money has to come from somewhere else...or we raise taxes.

  So Obama's incremental approach comes in handy here, too.  He advocates lowering the cost of healthcare - negotiating with the drug companies and health plan providers - but just in case, the Federal government will be providing healthcare, too, and at a lower cost.  They don't necessarily have to make a profit.  They just have to break even.

  If we bring the cost of health care down, at least so it's in line with inflation, then in a year or two we can say, "Hey, we've got the cost under control - let's implement a full UHC/single payer health system."

  You pointed out something in your diary that I think is dead on.  Obama tends to take divisive issues and reframe them so that they don't sound quite so offensive.  OK, so we won't limit campaign contributions...but everybody will be able to see who gave to you.  Is that OK?  Good...they're public record now, so let the people decide what's good and bad.

  He did the same thing at the Federal level.  You want to know why everybody knew Hsu was a Clinton bundler?  Obama's ethics reform.  It was the same thing.  We won't prevent you from bundling, but everybody's going to know who the bundlers are bundling for, how much they're giving, and who they work for.

  Again on the so-called "Google for Government" bill.  Don't want to limit earmarks?  OK, that's fine.  But we're going to make all government spending transparent - put it online so everybody and their dog can see it.

  Incidentally, I wrote a post back on January 3rd about some of these legislative accomplishments and talked about several bills in the Illinois Legislature and US Senate.  You can find that here.

  Something must be working...he worked with Tom Coburn to pass the Google for Government bill and with Richard Lugar to pass the Ethics Reform bill.  As a freshman senator.  In my personal opinion, this approach works if you have somebody that knows how to work it.

  by DemocraticOz on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 07:14:05 PM PDT

  •  Don't know if you meant to

    but your post goes a long way to answering the question I raised in my post above. Thanks.

    by themis on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 07:25:09 PM PDT

    •  Thanks.

      I'm an Obama supporter...but not a rabid one.  See the kind of discourse we civilized people can have? :-)

      I don't get fanatical support...like, look at all these college kids supporting Ron Paul?  WTF?  The man wants to abolish like every federal agency in the country!  But he's "cool" and "antiestablishment."

      I sometimes wish we could have a totally blind primary.  Candidates publish their plans and ideas...and we have no idea who they are.  We pick based upon positions and platforms, and the candidates are all revealed at the convention.  Taa Daa!

      I picked my personal support for Obama for the very reasons I talked about above.  We can whipsaw the country back and forth between right and left, but it takes a toll after while.  Do things in increments, and before you know it, you have everything you wanted - and the Republicans never even knew it happened.

      by DemocraticOz on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 07:30:22 PM PDT

      •  I guess my problem is

        that I actually support all of them. I'm amazed at the quality slate of candidates we have this season. I honestly will be proud to vote for any one of them in the General.

        I honestly like the concept of incremental change as a much-needed process after the audacity of the current administration. And with good people in place, I think any of the candidates can accomplish this. They just don't talk about it, which is understandable given that process usually bores the hell out of most people. Doesn't help this process wonk much, though...

        by themis on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 07:42:13 PM PDT

        •  I know what you mean.

          I spent many an hour on campaign websites digging through the documentation.  The line that the top 3 are 98% the same really is quite true.

          So if you can't vote on policy (unless your main issue is among the 2% where they differ) what do you vote on?

          I have an advantage - I live in Iowa.  I went to no less than 7 campaign rallies before I made my decision.

          Hillary was in her "I'm smart, but boring" stage at that time.  Edwards lit a fire in my gut, I'll admit.  I'd love to see him with a boot on the back of GWB's head, pushing his face into the mud going, "We're taking our country back, asshole!"

          Seeing the reaction of people to Obama after studying his voting record is what really did it for me.  Even if he falls off the face of the Earth tomorrow, I'll always remember how different I felt at that campaign rally. I'll admit, I felt (and still feel) an emotional connection.  Knowing his past record and his future plans just made the choice easy for me.

          But I can understand, if you're a pure process wonk, how rhetoric doesn't hold much water.  It's a tough choice...with only a 2% margin for decision.

          by DemocraticOz on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 07:48:40 PM PDT

          •  That's the kicker

            but it's opposite of what I'm used to as a life-long Dem. Not a bad problem to have, really.

            I've never been a pure process wonk - this primary has kind of forced me into that mode in order to make a decision. Rhetoric usually works with me as long as the candidate has the policy papers to back them up. Pure rhetoric? Not so much (too many years as a persuasion researcher). But as you pointed out, the 2% difference in policy really isn't helping me.

            Things might be different once the candidates start focusing on Ohio (my first Presidential election here) and I can hear them in person. It beats slogging through practically identical policy papers all weekend:)

            by themis on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 07:57:15 PM PDT

  •  Ah. Details.

    Thanks for the answer.  The most thorough one yet.  But I'm still not convinced that he will get very far with the recalcitrant Republicans in DC.  I think they will be dishonest and thus prevent him from achieving meaningful incremental change.  And you have to admit he hasn't talked much about how incremental his changes in DC would be.

    by mikepridmore on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 07:29:21 PM PDT

    •  The first rule

      of "incremental change club" is that you don't talk about "incremental change club."

      (sorry - couldn't resist)

      by themis on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 07:34:44 PM PDT

      •  heh.

        by mikepridmore on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 07:40:14 PM PDT

      •  I LOL'd.

        I couldn't help it.  :-)

        by DemocraticOz on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 07:41:49 PM PDT

        •  You're welcome:)

          With all the spork-fighting that's been going on around here lately, I thought a laugh would do us all good

          by themis on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 07:50:25 PM PDT

    •  You're right.

      I do wish he was slightly more specific on some points, but for me personally there's enough of an outline there for his future plans, plus his past voting record, for me to feel comfortable supporting him.

      I think a lot of people discount his talk of a "movement," and I think that's a mistake.

      I don't think it's a bad place to be in.  Imagine having a supermajority (over 60%) of the American public that you've persuaded that your plans are a good idea.

      Now couple that with Kos' front page post today about electing Democrats, but electing "Good" democrats in addition to throwing out the Republicans.

      With a true majority of the country behind you, it becomes much easier to go into these down ticket contests and say things like, "Look...the majority of you want Universal Healthcare...but Republican Senator XYZ voted 'no'. Are you going to let him get away with that?  Here's Democrat ABC, and he supports what you support. Vote for him instead."

      If you can frame the issue broadly enough, you can get the majority of the American public to back almost any idea.  (Look no further than Iraq, sadly.)  So I think the broad framing has less to do with "he doesn't have any ideas" and more to do with "let's get the majority of the public to agree with the idea before they agree with the process.

      I think this method really takes the wind out of the Republicans' proverbial sails.  And it can prove useful in other races as well.

      by DemocraticOz on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 07:38:59 PM PDT

      •  I just don't get the same

        vibes from Obama's record.  Bush also claimed similar bipartisan success in 2000.  I find Obama's record more impressive than Bush's, but still not as inspiring for me as it seems to be for you.  

        Interestingly, Kennedy, widely heralded as a change agent, had an advantage over Barack: the appeal of being a war hero. And it didn't hurt that he had a personal fortune.  And even then he barely won.  

        The main thing is I don't see Hillary as the status quo.  I see the Republicans as the status quo and I think any Dem who comes after Bush will be able to do more than Bill Clinton did because W has trashed the Republican brand.  I want someone with experience to clean up the mess right.  And that is the main reason I support her, warts and all.

        by mikepridmore on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 07:49:09 PM PDT

        •  That's perfectly legitimate.

          I can't fault you for that.

          Personally, I'd rather not have to deal with the warts at all...but that's why I made the decision I did.

          I think the reason that so many people frame Hillary as "the status quo" is because she's been so insistent on the past on making her case by running partially on the previous Clinton White House record.  She doesn't need to frame it that way.  If you completely erase the name "Clinton" from her resume, she has some great ideas and some impressive working history of her own.

          You would not believe how many times I heard Hillary supporters here in Iowa frame their support for her as a "Two for One" deal.  That's not to say that I don't think he'd be a great adviser and confidant...but that's not really what Democratic voters are looking for.  Hence, the battle of "change" over "experience."

          But we don't need to go back to Bill's policies of NAFTA and Don't Ask Don't Tell.  America is leaning left right now and we need to take every advantage.  

          I truly believe that Hillary is much more progressive than Bill was/is.  If she can frame her campaign as "My ideas, my direction for the country" rather than "let's all gather round and gaze at how good we had it" I think she'll be much more successful...and maybe lower those negative perceptions of her a bit.

          by DemocraticOz on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 08:02:46 PM PDT

•  So, it appears that you

  and Hillary both equate a stand-up cocktail party or mixer (with canapes), the same as a pricey seven-course sit-down dinner, one-on-one with a lobbyist picking up the tab? (Obama's lobby reform)

  Edwards legislation passed the Senate, "...but not the House", Hillary was quick to point out. (Edwards' patient's bill-of-rights) There's that marginalizing belittling tactic yet again.

  This, from one who, the last few days, likes to cite the manner in which she too, reaches across the aisle to bring people together, when in fact, her legislation did not fair better than theirs, despite the fact that Senator Clinton has a few big guns in the House. Rep. Rangel to name but one...Hillary is well-connected.

  I haven't seen leadership from Hillary, Mike. And so far it seems, you haven't been able to make your case for her with me. You're already convinced of course. No more is it likely I'll make my case with you.

  One small thing tho. Yes, 'likability', among other things, does matter if forming a coalition of the American people in order to change DC is the goal.

  fair enough?

  by Sybil Liberty on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 07:28:37 PM PDT

  •  Actually it wasn't

    Hillary who pointed that out about standing up but moderator Charlie Gibson.  And I seem to remember in watching New Hampshire stump speeches that she listed several successful pieces of legislation she was a part of that directly affected New Hampshire.  And she was the one who brought up the economy at the debate and we later found out the economy was the top issue for NH voters.  So I think she is going the right direction and is "likable enough."

    We obviously disagree, but I really enjoy seeing your name on the list of commenters any time.

    by mikepridmore on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 07:38:08 PM PDT

    •  my mistake then,

      you and charlie equate...and hillary's friends have made it their mantra

      by Sybil Liberty on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 07:53:15 PM PDT

      •  Glad we're clear on that. :)

        by mikepridmore on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 08:00:51 PM PDT

        •  transparently so

          .

          by Sybil Liberty on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 08:46:04 PM PDT

          •  Actually, I was just trying to

            lighten the mood.  I don't know what you meant by the mantra business.

            by mikepridmore on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 09:37:15 PM PDT