If Obama wins, it's 4-8 more years of triangulation & emboldening of the Right

I recently picked up Obama's book "The Audacity of Hope". I have not finished it yet, but he makes no attempt to explain what he means by 'the audacity of hope'. The first chapter, Republicans and Democrats, reads like a screed straight from the New Republic summarizing all the platitudes that pundits have been making about polarization in the last few years. He praises Reagan effusively, not only Reagan's optimism but also his authoritarianism and traditionalism, before sheepishly stating 'I admit, I am a Democrat.'

This continues in the next few chapters. He tries to act like an impartial observer who can see both sides, yet he always comes down on the liberal side at the end. Obama seems like a liberal who doesn't know he's a liberal or tries to pretend that he is not in order to make himself seem more reasonable.

I don't see how this message can possibly hold up. If he wins, he'll have to make decisions that either piss off the other side, and thus betray his image as a moderate who wants to bring both sides together, or really triangulate to the center, and thus betray the liberals who supported him and their real concerns and differences with the right and the center over policy. Either way there will be a betrayal and a disillusionment.

We've seen this game all played before. In 1992, a young new governor from Hope was elected President, who tried to transcend the liberal and conservative labels. Obama suggests, in "The Audacity of Hope", that Bill Clinton had gotten it correctly, with the exception that his draft dodging and sex scandals made him seem like a 60s extremist. So basically, Obama would go back and do what Bill Clinton did again without the draft dodging and the sex scandals.

But the problem with triangulation of the Clinton years wasn't just the scandals. Clinton actually did try to move to the center in policy - it wasn't just rhetoric. It was the betrayal felt by progressives that demobilized and demoralized progressives and left the energized right-wing as the only strong activist movement standing. And that demoralization of the Democratic base left the Republicans in a stronger position than ever. If Obama does the same thing, expect the same dynamics to play out.

If Obama on the other hand governs as a liberal, then there will be another betrayal. A lot of people who read The Audacity of Hope and listened to his message about considering both sides will be angry that he has taken consistently liberal sides on all the issues. Or, they will simply stop believing that he can really bring both sides together and remember the issues that keep them apart.

Like Bill Clinton, Obama is an unbalanced ship and whichever way it falls, it will not be pretty.

•  As opposed to...

  Hillary, a charter member of the Triangulation Society.  Or perhaps...Ralph Nader (scary chord)?  Perhaps Lyndon LaRouche offers a clear alternative?

  by mayan on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 10:56:03 AM PDT

  •  Exactly.

    by SpamNunn on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 10:57:31 AM PDT

  •  Hillary is a massive liberal

    whose husband triangulated, but at least was honest about it. Obama's like skier whose left ski is going left and right ski is going right. He's going to have to go one way or he'll end up a big wreck, and whichever way he going is going to piss off a lot of people.

    by Beet on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 10:59:43 AM PDT

    •  Obama doesn't ski, he surfs

      try getting past the dedication page of his book.  There may be a pop quiz later for you.

      by MadAsHellMaddie on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 11:02:39 AM PDT

      •  where does he explain what he means by

        the audacity of hope?

        by Beet on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 11:03:18 AM PDT

        •  Where Do You Explain

          ...what a better alternative would be?

          by vesuvius on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 11:23:38 AM PDT

          •  The best is out of the race, and now we have the

            old lessor of evils that we always seem to have.

            by ichibon on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 12:04:30 PM PDT

            •  Someone who only leases evils...

              ... is better than someone who's actually bought them.

              lessor of evils

              by pat208 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 01:37:54 PM PDT

        •  read the fricken book for Godsake

          then if you still can't comprehend it, go to the book store get yourself some Cliff Notes and Audacity of Hope for Dummies.  That should do it.

          by MadAsHellMaddie on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 03:46:54 PM PDT

        •  Dreams From my Father, that's where!

          It's part of a sermon that inspired him as an adult.  Read the book.

          by other72384 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 06:02:03 PM PDT

      •  Also, I don't think

        some people who read the feel-good generalities of his book are going to be "disillusioned'" if he moves to end the war, eliminate tax breaks for corporations that outsource jobs, expand health care etc. Right-wingers will be gnashing thier teeth but most Americans will be right with him. And remember, if we elect a larger majority and a more progressive majority (Donna Edwards!) to congress, then we will go in t hat direction. Clinton didn't have that luxury.

        by anastasia p on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 11:05:00 AM PDT

    •  Your "politics = ski go one way vs. ski go other"

      stuff is evidence that maybe you ought to reread the book. Move your lips this time if it helps.

      by insects8mybrain on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 11:03:43 AM PDT

      •  Does anyone remember...

        the classic Charles Adams cartoon...the one that shows a ski track that approaches a tree...one track goes to the left, one to the right and then join up again.  Works for me!

        by mayan on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 11:06:27 AM PDT

        •  Please give it a try.

          by homogenius on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 11:51:31 AM PDT

          •  Kind statement, homogenius

            by mayan on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 12:11:12 PM PDT

    •  How about...

      the last 40 years have been dominated by the Politics of Cynicism...dictated by Atwater/Rove...a politics that depends upon dividing the country into armed camps with wedge issues and then trying to scrape up the gleanings for a plurality that will get the candidate elected.  It's a politics based on fear and hate and one that Clinton handled masterfully.

      Obama's vision is different and is based on our having core interests that are much more significant and similar than our "divisions." There is room for all states, parties, creeds, age groups, religions, ethnicities.  Worked for Roosevelt...worked in a different way for Reagan (although he nauseated me).  I choose to cast my lot with this paradigm shift.  Others may feel perfectly content to wallow in our loathing and fear of one another.  Mark Penn and Hillary seem to have no such problem with that.

      by mayan on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 11:04:27 AM PDT

      •  If Obama is the candidate of unity

        why can't he unite the Democratic party?

        by Beet on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 11:10:08 AM PDT

        •  I suspect it's because he has someone

          running against him at this point who is a skilled, well-financed, tenacious politician.

          And because the world ain't nearly as simple as you seem to imagine.

          Seriously: do they offer courses in logic at your high school? Maybe you should take one.

          by insects8mybrain on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 11:13:46 AM PDT

          •  Made me laugh, as Obama's message is based

            on a simple world, and not a very realistic one ether.

            And because the world ain't nearly as simple as you seem to imagine.

            by ichibon on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 12:09:26 PM PDT

        •  I hereby annoint you "CONCERN TROLL"

          Get thee behind me!

          by polecat on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 11:14:54 AM PDT

        •  Last I looked...

          this is primary season and Hillary hasn't, for whatever reason, dropped out.  It seems to me that Obama's demographics from Virginia, Maryland, Wisconsin, etc. blow whatever the hell argument you are attempting to put down outta the water.  But, cheers, dude...continue your good fight for whatever the mystery candidate you are supporting.  Or not.

          by mayan on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 11:15:07 AM PDT

          •  It doesn't strike me as an argument...

            ... about why Obama isn't electable. I think, at this point, that he's managed to win over enough voters who had previously been skeptical that we can say he is. Instead, it's an argument about why as President, he's likely to leave one side or the other of the people who support him disappointed.

            Personally, I think that FDR and Reagan, the two Presidents (on different ideological poles) that he seems to want to emulate, succeeded by taking clear-cut positions. Obama's charisma will be less effective if employed in the cause of centrism.

            by jmcl89 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 01:11:10 PM PDT

        •  the same might be asked about Hillary

          It isn't Hillary who has united Democrats to win 10 in a row.

          by Alan Charles on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 11:22:25 AM PDT

          •  11 in a row... nt

            by polecat on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 11:44:14 AM PDT

    •  In that case...

      I'm surprised to learn that Hillary Clinton's positions have suddenly become "liberal".  I'm not sure I can join you in this new anti-flag burning, pro-media censorship, pro-warmongering, pro-xFTA "liberal" movement.

      by cdsmith on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 11:05:04 AM PDT

    •  Hillary Is NOT a Massive Liberal

      Which explains a lot about her mystifying votes in the Senate. Iraq? Kyl-Lieberman? If she were a true liberal, she'd have chosen different stategies for her presidential campaign, among them mobilizing the grassroots instead of her DLC buddies with fat wallets and shit for brains.

      Than you for reminding me that I need to make another donation to Senator Obama.

      by Empower Ink on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 11:09:50 AM PDT

      •  You dont get it

        She compromises on some issues and she's out in the open about that, but she doesn't compromise the core of her beliefs, which are thematically progressive and liberal.

        Obama votes more liberal than her, true, but his message is straight from the center. That's why I said he's like an unbalanced ship, and if he falls either way it's going to be ugly.

        by Beet on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 11:12:09 AM PDT

        •  She compromises on her beliefs and that

          makes her a massive liberal?  No.  That makes her a pandering politician with blood on her hands.

          by landrew on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 11:15:06 AM PDT

        •  What exactly ARE her core beliefs?

          Kinda hard to tell with all of that triangulatin' going on.

          by polecat on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 11:15:36 AM PDT

        •  Hillary is a globalist warmonger

          She's DLC 'till the end. I can't believe how her supporters try to paint her as a progressive, in spite of a million dead people in Iraq. It is shameful. Beet, you're supporting immoral wars.

          

          by GW Chimpzilla on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 11:30:03 AM PDT

          •  Is Obama going to run on ending the war?

            I've seen him take credit for opposing getting in, but I haven't heard him say much about getting out.

            by jmcl89 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 01:29:49 PM PDT

        •  I Do Get It Very Well, Thank You Very Much

          Of all the candidates, Obama has been the most consistent in voting for his core progessive principles. This trait has been noticeably detailed in most of the newspaper endorsements he has received.

          I'm from IL. He is my senator, and I do know quite a bit about his IL & US Senate legislative record.

          And, furthermore, I have made more than a dozen transatlantic crossings in a ship during some of the worst storms which gives me a geat deal of understanding about unbalanced ships. Obama is not an unbalanced ship. Far from it. You chose a lousy metaphor, imho

          by Empower Ink on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 11:30:47 AM PDT

    •  She's a massive liberal????

      Who just happened to vote to give GWB authority to illegally invade Iraq?  Who, after making that mistake, voted for Lieberman's "Get Ready to Fabricate a Reason to Invade Ira" bill?  Not to mention the bankruptcy bill?

      If that's a massive liberal, we are in deep shit.

      by landrew on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 11:10:08 AM PDT

      •  Oops, "Iran"

        I apologize to Ira.

        by landrew on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 11:12:09 AM PDT

      •  see my above comment

        by Beet on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 11:12:38 AM PDT

        •  I did....

          now you go see my response.

          by landrew on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 11:16:17 AM PDT

    •  The spectrum is nuts

      There is not, and has never been, a simple line where people can be assigned numbers of 1 to 10 on a "liberal" to "conservative" scale. The closest we ever had to that was when there were communists on one side and nazis on the other - but then if you were sane you didn't want to be on the scale at all. Well there are still a few nazis on the right (or damn close) and still a few communists on the left (or damn close). But being with either group - or half-way in between - is being totally crazy.

      In Spain in the 30s, when it was the communists against the fascists, there was a third force - the anarcho-syndicalists. And there's a third force emerging now, which we might call libertarian-socialists. Hillary with her mandates is not one. Barack, with his respect for freedom and responsibility, coupled with his recognition that the government's got real work to do, represents the emerging way.

      It's not a "triangulation." It's not even on the communist-fascist spectrum from left to right.

      by wytcld on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 11:31:36 AM PDT

  •  The ultimate low-bar

    He's better than Hillary!

    Maybe he is, but that doesn't tell us much. I'm not convinced that he's going to run as a bold progressive. In fact, I'm reasonable sure that as the GOP tries to depict him as an america-hating peacenik, he'll run firmly to the center.

    Obama has shown us a lot--poise, intelligence, even humor. What he hasn't shown us is a willingness to boldly espouse progressivism.

    by david mizner on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 11:28:07 AM PDT

    •  He can 'run' however he wants

      Dubya 'ran' as a 'compassionate conservative'.

      The question is, how's he going to govern?

      I've checked his record. I'm a progressive. I'm not at all worried.

      by ChurchofBruce on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 01:37:33 PM PDT

•  You convinced me! I've voting for Ron Paul!

  At least he's pure. That's what's important: purity.

  by insects8mybrain on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 10:56:46 AM PDT

  •  And he bakes cookies in a hollow tree!

    by The Gryffin on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 10:57:26 AM PDT

    •  That's Kucinich (nt)

      by maxomai on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 10:58:13 AM PDT

      •  I thought that was Keebler.

        by mayan on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 10:59:25 AM PDT

        •  That's right. I get those two mixed up.

          Must be the "Ernie Keebler Revolution" bumper stickers I keep seeing. Beyond that, Ron Paul doesn't bake with chocolate chips. Only White Macadamia.

          by The Gryffin on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 11:03:11 AM PDT

  •  no ron is a crypto racist

    nothing pure about the grizzled charlatan

    by wuod kwatch on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 11:00:29 AM PDT

    •  At least the Ron Paul

      crazies are intellectually honest about our overseas Empire and its relation to subverting democracy all around the world.

      by Kab ibn al Ashraf on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 11:02:34 AM PDT

  •  he's a jedi fighting sith!

    http://www.dailypaul.com/...

    by VelvetElvis on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 11:01:28 AM PDT

  •  so we have no choice now?

    that is a brilliant argument. about as brilliant as those who were arguing for Hillary last fall because she was inevitable.

    by Beet on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 11:02:48 AM PDT

    •  Dutch Rhubarb

      Looks great, tastes even better.  

      Ingredients:
      1 c. sugar
      2 tbsp. cornstarch
      1 c. water
      3 egg yolks, beaten
      1 tbsp. butter
      1/4 tsp. salt
      1/2 tsp. vanilla
      1/2 tsp. lemon flavor
      2 c. diced rhubarb
      1 unbaked 9 inch pie shell

      Cooking Directions:
      In saucepan cook sugar, cornstarch, water, and salt over medium heat until thickened, stirring constantly. Stir small amount into beaten egg yolks, then gradually add the rest of the eggs. Add flavorings and diced rhubarb. Pour into pie shell and bake at 375 degrees for 55 minutes, or until filling is set.

      Beat the 3 whites until soft peaks add 1/3 cup sugar, 1 teaspoon vanilla, and 1/4 teaspoon cream of tartar. Spread on top of pie; brown in oven. Cool.

      by Sharon Wraight on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 12:08:33 PM PDT

•  Well, gee.

  Given that criteria, I don't blame you if you don't vote for him.

  by nolalily on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 10:57:21 AM PDT

•  I've read the book as well

  and I respectfully disagree. His whole thesis is "these things that everyone says will piss off either moderates or liberals? I think that's a false choice." And then he goes on to explain ideas rooted in liberal philosophy in a way that appeals to a broad majority of the electorate.

  It seems to be working pretty well for him thus far.

  by Jaiwithani on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 10:57:52 AM PDT

  •  The proof is in the pudding

    and the pudding has been pretty damn tasty thus far!

    by someotherguy86 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 11:23:22 AM PDT

•  you're right

  we should all follow your lead.
  Will you run for President so we can vote for you, the most perfect being there is?

  by steelman on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 10:57:57 AM PDT

  •  I nominate the diarist to leave the island first.

    All those in favor say "aye."

    by polecat on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 11:16:43 AM PDT

•  You're gonna get a lot of love for this diary.

  You're preaching to the choir here, don't you know?

  by BoringDem on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 10:58:56 AM PDT

•  So you're saying elect a Clinton to avoid

  triangulation?

  by PrometheusSpeaks on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 11:00:19 AM PDT

  •  you guys are just like the French generals

    in the 1930s. Always fighting the last war, even with the Stukas bearing down on you.

    by Beet on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 11:05:06 AM PDT

    •  WTF?

      by mayan on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 11:07:08 AM PDT

    •  Which one are you fighting, hoss?

      by insects8mybrain on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 11:09:47 AM PDT

    •  Are you sure you know what TRIANGULATION is?

      It's the art of finding a position (through the use of polling and study groups) that is not quite offensive to a majority of those polled.

      Usually the results come out 4-5 days after the critical issue has peaked in the media.  There are NO indications that the Obama campaign or that Obama himself operates that way.  On the other hand, there is EVERY indication that Clinton does.

      by polecat on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 11:10:12 AM PDT

      •  and disarming your enemy

        by stealing their issues.  Bill disempowered Republicans by making welfare reform his own issue, for example. He also disempowered a lot of poor people, but fuck them, they aren't running for anything.

        by VelvetElvis on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 11:21:05 AM PDT

    •  well, first of all....

      I don't know exactly whom the diarist refers to when the phrase "you guys" is used.  

      Always mistrust usages like "those people", "you guys", "some bots", etc....

      Secondly, it seems to me that the diarist is the one whose campaign manual is stuck in the past.  If he disapproved WJC's '90s triangulation, is it because Beet would prefer a more polarized politics?  I believe Obama, for example, would beat theocrat Huckabee 60-40, but if we ran a more fiercely "left" candidate, Huckabee could actually win, and, alas, even St. John McLobbyist would probably landslide us.  

      Lots of Americans are worried and economically hurting, but this is not yet a Second Great Depression.  As for myself, I subscribe, as did Henry Wallace, to a progressive capitalism of the sort represented by the social-democratic consensus in many European countries.  

      No, among the "French generals" of the moment are both the Clintonites (if not HRC herself) and the dead-end Rovians, stuck on the fear-mongering of the Nixon-Reagan-Bush Era.  If the only choice in Nov. were HRC or a Rove-Spawn candidate, I would vote for HRC as many times as I could get away with <g>.  But I believe the electoral battlefields of the coming phase will be about reclaiming the center for progressive tendencies, and rebuilding the commons.  If the GOP can purge itself of the dreck of its last generation or two, they might again become a respectable center-right counterweight to us (think Angela Merkel, or Ike).  If the theocrat wing takes possession, OTOH, either there will be a third party that takes the GOP's place over the next ten years, or we will see if there is an American Ayatollah who can try to reclaim the center for the 17th century, as effectively as our Obama is now reclaiming it for progress.  Now there could be one heck of a cosmic struggle!

      by penncove on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 11:34:34 AM PDT

•  I guess that's why

  the Republicans are portraying Obama as "the most liberal Democratic candidate since George McGovern."

  When somebody gets it from both sides, they must be doing something right.

  by John R on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 11:01:42 AM PDT

•  You don't get it

  Unlike Clinton in 1992, who ran on welfare reform and being corporate friendly, Obama's platform is wholly progressive. But whereas Clinton proposed a centrist platform to appeal to moderates, Obama is finally a Democratic candidate who can correctly express the true  progressive vision as representing universal American values, which is why he has such broad appeal.

  by Zackpunk on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 11:01:45 AM PDT

•  Bill Clinton campaigned like FDR...

  ... and governed like Ike.  His campaign rhetoric never matched his governance.

  But one significant difference between his case and Obama's is that Clinton never won a majority of the popular vote.

  Barack Obama has a chance to win a significant majority of the popular vote, and to win an Electoral College blowout.

  Starting from that position of strength, Obama won't be forced to make the sort of compromises of principle that Bill Clinton made.

  by tbetz on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 11:01:57 AM PDT

  •  I'm Not Sure Bill Ever Had a Principle

    that he wasn't willing to compromise.

    by Empower Ink on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 11:14:59 AM PDT

•  the alternative?

  I can vote for HRC and spend the next 4 to 8 years retching into the toilet.

  by terryhutchinson on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 11:03:17 AM PDT

  •  LOL!

    Air sickness bags work well too.

    by mayan on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 11:25:30 AM PDT

•  Triangulation & Bill Clinton & Hillary Clinton

  Link:

  Triangulation was emulated during the 2000 presidential election in the Bush campaign's use of the term "compassionate conservative". Unlike Bill Clinton, the Bush Administration's actual policies didn't reflect their rhetoric. The subsequent Bush campaign returned to the 1980's tradition of focusing on appealing to more partisan voters using so-called wedge issues.

  Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton has been referred to as "Mrs. Triangulation"[1] for her call for dramatic increases in the military budget[2] and for receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars in contributions from corporate lobbyists.

  by Eloy on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 11:04:03 AM PDT

•  What a bizarre, historically ignorant argument...

  by Addison on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 11:05:13 AM PDT

  •  At least it had stuff like verbs and commas

    in it. Plus paragraphs. And thus it was superior to most MyDD product.

    by insects8mybrain on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 11:06:58 AM PDT

    •  and it didn't include 9/11

      by steelman on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 11:07:39 AM PDT

•  maybe he is

  actually trying to move the definition of liberal where it belongs. Unlike the Cinton's who spun neo-liberalism centrist. Kucinich is closest to my standing liberally but as a well known purist Obama is moving the center back, with his skill at coalitions and his positive message.  Howard Dean was more conservative then I was but he too sought to restore the balance back to the we the people part.

  by shaharazade on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 11:05:41 AM PDT

•  why don't you try reading the whole book before

  you give a review.  

  by in2mixin on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 11:09:21 AM PDT

  •  seriously!

    by geejay on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 11:23:03 AM PDT

•  With increasing frequency since the 1980s

  our politics has become more about punishing,  tarring, or scoring points against the opposition than doing something necessary or positive for people.  The Medicare prescription drug bill and Iraq are two of the biggest and most obvious examples.  Hillary voting for Iraq as a political positioning strategy, and then refusing to acknowledge it is symptomatic.

  I don't think anyone who supports Obama has illusions that with him in office it's all going to end on January 20, 2009, but the first step in ending it has to be acknowledgement that it's a huge problem.  His support so far indicates that millions of others feel the same way.

  by Pangloss on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 11:09:52 AM PDT

  •  Nicely put. n/t

    by Mother of Zeus on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 11:19:47 AM PDT

  •  yep...nicely stated, indeed

    Obama's campaign = Massive paradigm shift.  Very welcome in these dire times.

    by mayan on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 11:27:14 AM PDT

•  Usually a person tries to

  finish a book before reviewing it.

  by mr crabby on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 11:10:23 AM PDT

•  Among Obama's many skills is his ability

  to parse problems/questions/arguments out loud so that listeners can hear the triangulation and nonsense.

  I think we'll be well served by that. He got my vote in our caucas, and he's got it in November, because of it.

  by zic on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 11:11:34 AM PDT

•  This might be of interest

  even though it came from the dreaded TNR.  Cass Sunstein is known to have a something of worth to say every now and then.  Even though he appears in print in the dreaded TNR.

  http://www.tnr.com/...

  by Mother of Zeus on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 11:15:25 AM PDT

•  Gheeze, I sure wish

  you had told me this before I voted...:)

  by nupstateny on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 11:16:07 AM PDT

•  change your title from obama to clinton

  and your diary is spot on....

  by mcthatch on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 11:16:26 AM PDT

•  Judging by this diary

  I hardly think you could do better.

  Obama is a Progressive candidate. That's not, as the wingnuts would have you think, a new word for liberal. Liberals are folks like Wilson and LBJ and JFK: the noblesse oblige of the liberal elites versus the "devil take the hindmost" attitude of conservative elites.
  Progressive ideals are about empowerment of the people through knowledgeable participation in democracy - the tenents laid out in the Declaration of Independence. While many of the policies may be similar to those of liberalism, progressivism lacks the condescending mannerisms of political elites throwing bones to the masses; rather it encourages the masses to take politcal power - their birthright - into their own hands. Hence, the 50 State strategy.

  If I posted here more often, I would say that your diary smells of concern troll.

  by Cartoon Messiah on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 11:16:31 AM PDT

•  How did Hillary's effort in 1993 turn out?

  We've seen what happens when you try to ram your plan down the other side's throat when you don't have the margins, or the popular support.

  What happened in 1993?  The GOP marshalled a defense, rebelled against Hillary's plan, got the will of the people on their side, and won back Congress in '94.  And Clinton never saw another bill written the way he wanted.

  The same thing happened to the GOP.  They lost Congress in 2006 because they acted unilaterally, and the people got sick of it.

  The bottom line is, you can rail against triangulation and cooperation all you want, but I'm convinced that Hillary's combatic attitude will cost the Dems congress in 2010.

  Hillary will do too much, too fast, faster than the American people will allow, and she won't be able to keep the people on her side.
  Not only will Obama win with bigger margins, more support and more coattails in Congress, but he will keep that support over the years.

  by Norm in Chicago on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 11:17:34 AM PDT

•  Bill & Hillary are the King and Queen of...

  ...Triangulation.  Their perfected practice of it from roughly 1995, all the way through HRC's Senate career and presidential campaign is the only reason we all even know of the word triangulation!

  Your diary is quite possibly the most idiotic thing I've read all week.

  by stevedubya on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 11:18:54 AM PDT

•  Ive noticed a trend here now

  with the Hillary camp. Seems we have the Right wing tactic of accusing your opponent of everything you are. You know, like when right wingers call liberals fascist or big spenders. Now we have Obama as the triangulator. Yesterday I notice some Huff posters calling Obama a fake democrat and a corporate man who was catering to big business. Then just now on CNN
  Hillary claims Obama flier on NAFTA as typical Karl Rove like tactics.

  Notice something here? Looks to me like she's decided scortched earth is in the making. Now Im starting to wonder if these posters on Huff post and now this may be a coordinated effort of that whole "accuse them of what we are guilty of" type of smear.

  by KingGeorgetheTurd on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 11:38:16 AM PDT

  •  THANK YOU!!!!

    I've been saying this for a while...and it is amazing how effective it is...Makes me sick...You have to be REEEEEAAAALLLLYYY out of touch with reality to say that Obama is the "Triangulator" and Clinton is the answer...its far too humorous to even bother responding to.

    by NoCryingInPoltics on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 11:50:32 AM PDT

•  HAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHH..... ok... HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  ..... HAHHHAHAHAHAHHAAHHAHAAHAHHAA.... ok ok really sorry.

  I just read the headline again saying that we need to vote for hillary in order to AVOID triangulation in the white house.... Hillary???  HAHHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAA AH AHAHAH AHA AHHA AHAHAH AHA HAHA .... sorry..... OMG... damn that is so funny, I can't help it.

  I can't even comment on what you wrote, it will just make me laugh some more.

  by snkscore on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 11:42:19 AM PDT

•  Whoa, Dude.

  You really hit a nerve with this one.

  Never take a whack at a hive of Obamajackets--they will swarm and take you down.

  by homogenius on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 11:57:46 AM PDT

•  Aw C'mon

  The essence of triangulation is adopting Republican positions in order to avoid the accusation that one is too passionate a Democrat.  Eg. Bill Clinton and welfare reform.  Or Hillary Clinton and the resolution which authorized the Iraq war.

  It's not possible, for instance, to "triangulate" any legislation which federalizes health care (there is no Republican version of this), or any executive order for a withdrawl of all US forces from Iraq (ditto).

  Obama is running on both.  Now for the million dollar question.  Do you think he has some stealth plan to later coopt Republican issues which he hasn't admitted to yet?  Or is he trying to coopt Republican and indie VOTERS so they'll support liberal policies?

  The last is triangulation's polar opposite.  So which do you think it is?

  by ClaudiusTheGod on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 12:02:20 PM PDT

•  Not "if" but "when."

  And I'm gonna disagree with you on triangulation, but it's a moot point anyway, since Obama's our nominee in all but name.

  Math; it's pretty neat.

  by RoscoeOfAlabama on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 12:08:48 PM PDT

•  Sorry, Beet.

  I'm calling bullshit. How can you possibly believe Hillary is less of a triangulator than Obama? Have you paid attention to the campaign? At all?

  by LightningMan on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 12:29:20 PM PDT

•  He has other problems too

  The same problems Clinton has, but I think they may hammer him harder.

  His health care package is DOA.

  His plan for getting out if Iraq is DOA too.

  These are not good things to miss starting out.

  by MouseOfSuburbia on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 12:30:58 PM PDT

•  toast

  1. Insert bread into toaster

  2. Press lever down

  3. Wait for bread to pop back up

  4. Top with butter, cream cheese or jelly

  5. Enjoy

  by chrisfreel on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 12:32:41 PM PDT