If he had used qualifier "some," he'd be on firm ground.  Perspective varies.  Of course, where I live, if you're a Democrat, a few folks wonder why you're so conservative.

He's clearly talking about the Party-- in fact he says "Democratic Party." Everything he says is sadly true.

Why are you picking a fight with Obama? He's on our side, you know.

The point is he's throwing people under the bus for no reason.

Is he anti-establishment, I don't think so. Which group of democrats is he referring to?

I know people thought Dean did the same thing, but this is completely different. All this guy has is bipartisan appeal and he uses it to tar and feather dems.

This is not the kind of talk that sparks a national dialogue. Why not just adopt the entire list of Repub talking points to attack dems with?

I'd like to hear an explanation from an Obama fan.

In know that Sen. Lieberman took Sen. Obama under his wing, but I didn't think that Joementum's habit of bashing fellow democrats would have rubbed off on Sen. Obama so quickly.

Lieberman became Obama's mentor when Obama was sworn into the Senate in 2005. They stayed close at Thursday night's event, too, entering the room together and working the crowd in tandem.

Some of my friends get a stiffy (even the women) when they contemplate an Obama presidency. Not me. Not for one single fucking moment. I'd vote for him if I had no other choice, but I'd hold my nose.

It couldn't hurt to wait until you've actually read those quotes in context, no?

I'm not. Bleep him.

Hmm, well, far be it for a politician to suggest how his Party and his fellow politicians can better connect with the voting public. That's what he's doing, you know. He's not attacking me and you personally.

He's not saying don't oppose those Republican policies, he's saying be careful how you do it so you don't open yourself up to the kind of criticism Republicans have used so well against us in the past.  What we really need to be doing is comparing the way they govern with the ideals upon which this country was founded.  Then everyone will see pretty quickly who's right and who's wrong without opening ourselves to attack.

Where do they get these Obama types? I wrote a post that was very critical of Al Franken. But now, via Buzzflash, I find on Court TV's Radar site:

By John Cook   09/13/06 ---
Air America Stiffs Al Franken

Janeane Garofalo, who quit her job as co-host of the network's evening show Majority Report in July, says her paychecks had been arriving on-time, and that her departure had nothing to do with the network's finances. But she didn't have kind words for the "radio suits"--guys like interim CEO Jim Wiggett, network president Gary Krantz, and president of programming Jon Sinton--who have been running the place into the ground.

"They've been making bad decisions since the day I got there," Garofalo says. The network's staff, Garofalo says, is tireless and committed to the cause of progressive radio. "And then you have a handful of business people with no politics whatsoever. I can't fathom the decisions they make."

In maybe the majority of progressive organizations, I come upon these insane "suits." Nader's Raiders had the in their canvasing operation. Many current progressive operations have them. Well, I've run some things like that myself, and I found no need to be some kind of a bigshot. No need to wear any suits either. I flee from these idiots whenever I encounter them. Nothing they ever do ever has the slightest effectiveness. Obama is one of these strange folks, by all appearances. These people could mess up a damn wet dream.

Nothing they do will ever have any effectiveness. they are as helpful as rats on a wedding cake.

..."suspicious of all military action."

Military action may be right.  It may be wrong.

But we should always question it.  It means killing people.

If he's trying to position himself, he just did.  Right out of any national office.  He can stay the hell in Washington and his home state, but don't bother coming to North Carolina because we don't need some beltway bureaucrat selling talking points that are polished and shined by the right-wing nutbags.

Look for Obama to become the next Fox News Democrat.

anti-military, bah!

believe the "real" fight is against the so-called Middle Road Republicans (e.g., McCain, Giuliani, Whitman) who are also arguing this exact kind of message, but from the other side.  Which would make anyone with a pulse above 30 bpm the enemy of consensus. Those folks seem to think that the key to winning is to stand up and say that the party has been taken over by people who push to extremes--pass out Ambien instead of campaign lit and you win.

So, there could be a real rising chorus from both sides to passionately claim the non-passionate non-extreme.  It's ridiculous.  

I mean... to be blunt, here:  people are freakin' dying.  Lots of people.  If at any time Americans had an obligation to get angry, that time would be right now (four years ago, actually).

Mostly, I find it crazy that when American soldiers are sitting ducks in what has been proven to be a war based on lies--which has subsequently tipped the Middle East into a pointless and endless bloodbath--that a junior senator from Illinois should stand up and tell the country to just settle down.  There's a patronizing attitude in Obama's speeches,lately, that I just don't get.  In his autobiography, he seemed to make the point that the key to good organizing was listening to others--but the more he speaks as a Senator, the more he sounds like the stern father quieting the flock.  

I just wish he would get a clue because he's obviously talented. You can't stand up, turn to the most active and most engaged members of the party and say, "Oh, settle down."  If temperment is a value you want to promote, there has simply got to be a better way to do it.  

Who knows what this guy is up to.  I saw him on Blitzer yesterday, and when Wolf asked him if he had plans to run for President he just smiled and said there was alot on his plate.   It made me wonder if he doesn't have a plan already to be a VP pick for HRC.  That would be my guess at this stage--a guess without much value, but a guess.

Gee, if the Anointed One says so, then I suppose Rummy was right: Democrats who oppose Bush are morally confused, Islamo-fascist loving, Nazi appeasers. Barack "Joementum" Obama is no progressive and no Democrat.

Lieberman was criticizing Democrats' policies, while Obama is simply criticizing how we communicate our policies. This is constructive criticism, not Lieberman saying that Democrats are helping terrorists.

Maybe what he is saying is that the Democrats won't be able to win until they are true to themselves and their ideals and not just reacting to what the Repugs are doing.

It is and has been my position that the Democrats spend all of their time reacting to the issues that have been framed by the Repugs.

Instead, they need to quit worrying about what the polls are saying (since we all know they can be manipulated) and instead pick a position and stand by it.

http://dontbealemming.com/2006/08/15/the -dems-arent-blameless.aspx

Posted by the Lemming Herder at Don't Be A Lemming!

is what I'd call Sen. Obama's perspective (with all due credit to C. Wright Mills).

Sen. Obama seems to think he can split the difference between the Thugs' insane stereotypes of liberals and rightwing platitudes.

He can't.  It's like the Pope thinking himself broad-minded, because he thinks only some non-Catholic religions are inherently evil.

To me, the key point of this is that he is repeating a rather constant message that we hear from the leadership of the Democratic Party.

That is, they don't want to hear what the party members think.  In fact the party members are supposed to sit down and shut up.  They want our money to finance their campaigns.  They want us to show up at campaign headquarters and stuff envelopes or man the phones or stand at intersections holding a sign.  And we are supposed to meakly vote for whomever the Democratic leadership has chosen as our candidate on election day.  

But that's it.  We aren't supposed to think.  We are supposed to propose policy, nor think or comment on the policy that the leadership of the party has chosen.  We really aren't even supposed to have a say in who the Democratic candidates are, as the party leadership seems to now abhor primary campaigns and seems to work at all costs to make sure their chosen candidates don't face that particular hurdle.

Its clear from this that Obama has no respect at all for what the people of this country think.  He's obviously joined the mindset that believes they get to be the deciders and the rest of us are just supposed to obey.

And everyone wonders why I instantly groaned and the notion that this guy might run for Pres or VP.  Yuck!

Now I know why he and Joe Lieberman became such fast friends.  I guess he's only telling us this because he cares.
America's Least Wanted

Matt, Obama does not call Dems "reactionary." He calls the Democratic Party the party of "reaction." There's a big difference.

Secondly, Obama is an incredibly thoughtful and eloquent man, and to make a sweeping judgment of him based on the few sentences provided above is in no way fair, or intellectually honest.

Thirdly, Obama is one of the most responsive Senators we've got (I'm an IL resident, and proud to have him and Durbin as my senators). I'd suggest reaching out to Obama explaining your concerns and offering him a platform on MyDD to respond. He takes criticism very seriously because  UNLIKE Lieberman (I'm looking at you LionelEHutz), he takes seriously his job as a representative with constituents whose concerns matter to him. Please write to him.

Finally, this post is little more than an ad hominem attack on Obama. Let's reserve that for the Repugnicans.

Or at least she brought up the idea to him.

So did snort guffaw Biden!

-C.

there are a lot of people that, thanks to Republican frames and a lack of articulate focus will be eating this up.

It's a savvy move on his part, but just another part that shows his much he's become part of the establishment.

-C.

Matt Stoller and . . . who?  Is there a list?  I don't want to get out of line and use a pronoun clearly reserved for others.

Please. Are you seriously suggesting that you can divine the content of his entire book from the few sentences posted here?

I think that on some level he does have a point. There are some on the left who look askance and get angry at any mention of religion whatsoever. These are the people who whine about the Pledge of Allegiance, the Soledad Cross, and "In God We Trust" on the money. These folks get angry when any Democrat makes any slight mention of faith.

I think that the point he is making, though, is that Democrats are perceived as being hostile to the military/intelligence communities and religion by too many people in too many parts of the country. I don't see what is so offensive to his comments.

Obama is making a point. I think that the party does need to change the negative percpetions that many Americans in the interior, south, plains, and rocky mountain west have of it.

Quite a few Democrats are skittish about just about any military action; certainly the Party is perceived as being anti-military in some circles...talk to those in the military if you don't believe it.  And watch the discussion when any aspect of "faith" comes up:  more than a few vocal  Democrats are the anti-religious mirror images of the Dobsons et al.

Ideally, I don't believe in either stance.  Pragmatically, I think they're both stupid.  In the Kerry campaign, the group I worked with in SoCal had some people who were genuinely surprised that Catholics, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Methodists, etc. were active Democrats and pro-Kerry.  The fact that it was a surprise is a problem.

I've said it before. I'll say it again. Obama is Democrat who tries to score political points with Republicans by attacking his own party -- A Zellocrat.

... he's right. Whether you agree with him on the specific points he makes, he's right that the Dems have become defensive, prejudiced, single-issue folks.  That's why a number of us (probably a pretty big number) have dropped out and moved back to the left.  

I say this even though I'm not a fan of Barack who seems to be a buttkisser. If his fellow Dems once again react negatively to some pretty apt criticism  -- coming from within the Party where indeed this discussion should have been started years ago -- then they're going to look pretty weak and/or bent on self-destruction.

Some people are definitely very skittish about the way our military has been used, and the roles its been asked to perform.

Some people don't think its right to invade another country and to kill its people and topple its government.  Especially since the underlying reason is usually to help some corporation make more money.  

Some people would think we waste way too much of our national treasure on a military that doesn't really do much that truly "protects" American citizens.  After all, we really don't face any world power that can do us harm, and some people might guess that other nations like Russia and China might spend less on their military if the US wasn't a threat to them.  

And some people would argue that terrorism mainly isn't a military problem at all.  Its an intelligence and police problem that might occaisionally need special forces to help clear out a problem somewhere.  But B-2 bombers and aircraft carriers and armored divisions with Abhrams tanks don't do much to protect against terrorism.

Some people think the $10 billion to provide universal education, or the sums I think I've heard in the range of $30 billion to $50 billion to fight hunger or lack of water world wide might do more to "protect" Americans than the $500 billion we spend on the military or the $80 billion we spend on just the Iraq war.  Spending the money on tasks like these might just do more to keep people from becoming our enemies ... which might be more effective than asking our military to do the impossible and stop them.

Of course, the key question is, is there room for anyone who feels this way inside the Democratic Party.  The answer I seem to hear often, and that Obama is echoing, is that there is ... as long as we don't say what we believe, nor expect candidates who support our views.  As long as we stay quiet, and work to support candidates who take positions we don't agree with and vote for candidates who take positions we don't agree with, then we are welcome to be a part of the Democratic Party.

But if we try to express what we believe, or try to get Democratic candidates that would advance our beliefs, then we get this sort of BS that Obama is spouting.

Senator Obama, stop complaining about your supporters, and start doing what we want!  What do you think we pay you for?  When did you become such an elitist?

P.S.  I can say "we", because I am from Illinois, and I cast my first ballot ever for Obama

He's right. We suck at messaging and usually all we can say is that we don't like what those guys are doing or that those guys are wrong. Both are true, but we have got to be able to say what we think, what we want, and who we are, not just react. Look at the Washington Post today, how many f*ing slogan, hollow and inane and recycled are we going to trot out?

"Among the party's campaign slogans this year: "Culture of Corruption," "Culture of Cronyism," "Do-Nothing Congress," "Rubber-Stamp Congress," "Together, We Can Do Better," "Together, America Can Do Better" and, most recently, "Six for '06.""
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con tent/article/2006/09/14/AR2006091401575. html

We can say its just the press framing us poorly all we want but if we are just running around reacting we don't have much to offer.

  Obama has been a bitter, bitter disappointment.

  It's one thing to chide Democrats -- we do it here all the time. It's quite another to use Republican frames to demean our party.

  The former strengthens our party. The latter weakens it.

  We've tried the Obama Doctrine for the last twelve years. It's been nothing but a disaster.

  Obama's been Beltwayfied. What a colossal waste.

I guess Obama isn't the second coming everybody hoped for.

Not.

I think he is talking about his fellow democratic senators.  In that case I can't say I disagree.  If he's talking about me, he can suck my..well, nevermind.

What a guy! And what a bunch of yokels on this thread. Yeah, you 'folks' defending him are yokels still living in the pre-ReThug dreamworld. Barack Obama is emblematic of the problem with the political class in this country. He's only concerned with one thing: Barack Obama. His class of politician all work for the same people. The rich enablers of the bankrupt Republican agenda known as the 'SuperRich'; progressives in the early 1900s called them the 'Upper Tenth'. Vocabulary changes; the reality does not. The rich discovered back then that it was easier to buy the politicians and then get them to give you the public's money than is was to sweat it out of the working poor. Sound familiar? The key point is that what Obama the Mama says is not true. Democrats do know what they want: An end to the Iraq debacle...which he voted for... A decent health-care system... The opportunity to get ahead...and not with bogus tax-cut scams... The opportunity for their children to get the best education in the world...something which is rapidly becoming impossible due to The Idiot's cutting of Pell grants...Dems allowed that to happen...gotta keep yer powder dry ya know. But you see these Democrats I am talking about... They are citizens; not Senators. Citizens don't park their armored limos in handicapped spaces...Citizens don't have free healthcare...citizens don't get to convert their campaign funds into a nice pile of cash for personal use when they leave office... Obama does. Obama is the worst sort of scum: A Republican in Democrat clothing. I have no interest in what he thinks or what he has to say. He can STFU! and go back to jerking Losermann off anytime now. He will not be missed becuase he has done nothing but be the window dressing dummy for 'folks' who want to show they ain't racists. I don't care about what color the man is; I care that he is as useful to the people of this nation and lips on a chicken. Which is not at all.

but I find it curious that Obama doesn't emulate the effective tactics of republicans who try to act independent in the northeast. Northeastern republicans generally do more than other repubs to attack the right wing, but then they will qualify that by including an attack on democrats too. It's like with Katrina and some repubs. "Yeah Bush was bad . All levels of government failed." Obama, who I disagree with on this war related opinion, could have at least have said "just as republicans overreact in jumping to war on almost every disagreement, maybe we should not be quick to oppose."

NOw I would not agree with it, but it would not sound as idiotic as the statement he made. And why doesn't the idiot at least explain clearly what instances he is referring to? He needs to back it up whenever he attacks his own party with solid evidence and care. But all he does is make a dumbass Liebermanish comment.

I get the whole point of objectivity. Look at my diaries. I have disagreed with the base here on blind public school support, but I do it without demonizing them as a group or even their thought process as a whole. I have attacked Blanco and Nagin without making it seem like it is a democratic only problem or something endemic to being a democrat.

You can be objective and criticize your party without weakening them. Too bad Obama is too stupid to know how to do that.

He does not deserve my respect. He is an intellectual midget judging by his public statements in the last couple of years. He is a panderer.

Obama is positioning himself as a new kind of new Democrat, hip to bipartisanship, not beholden to the Party leaders or rhetoric, someone who can appeal to all sorts of voters, someone who can think out of the special interest box.  Someone who could be elected president.

Barrack Obama=Bill Clinton=Joe Lieberman

personal ambition over promotion of Democratic Party principles and interests.

I don't necessarily agree with him, but I guess he could say what he wants.

BUT WHY DOES HE HAVE TO BRING THIS STUFF UP WITH AN ELECTION COMING UP?

He's just giving ammo to the GOP.

It's sad

And a funny position for him to stake out

The more power Dems reacquire, the more we'll see solid, good things coming out of our govt

The list of what can be done and is widely agreed upon and would be done if Dems had power is quite long at this point

There's no real reason for him to take this position unless he feels he can't run and win in the future except with something more like an independent bid

And that's sad

The Senate recently passed another $63 million for more of Bush's wars with unanimous consent.

The vote was 98-0.

I don't see any confusion - all hat, no cattle.

Who let him write a book?

Barack Obama continues his brave war on the army of straw men making up the Democratic party - and he seems to be losing!

He wrote that he felt "ashamed" that he misrepresented the views of a pro-lifer.  I'd like him to feel a little goddamn shame for misrepresenting my views and those of every Democrat I know.  Who the hell does he think he is?

Obama hasn't been that progressive since he entered office. With this comment about how the lefty democrats are bad, he reminds me of Lieberman.

A year or so ago, US PIRG had an environmental award cermony that Obama attended. He gave a speech where he basically informed us that he wasn't going to be voting with the environmental community all the time.

A day or two later, he nearly voted FOR Bush's Clear Skies Act in the Senate EPW committee. Clear Skies would have completly gutted the Clean Air Act, and was one of the worst pieces of legislation to come out of the White House. Obama never committed to voting against it and led us to believe, up to the last moment, that he was a swing. So he's not used to taking stands on issues, I'm not suprised he thinks those who do are "reactive."

I really hate to be rude,  but FUCK Obama (sometimes rude is called for)and all these silly ass Democrats that think they can ingraciate themselves with "Moderate" voters by bashing thier own party. Fuck 'em all. Just like Hillary, it will be a cold day in hell when one of these creeps gets my vote.

No. I'm not suggesting I can divine Obama's meaning from the scant few sentences quoted above. THAT'S THE POINT. That's precisely why I'm calling you out (and Stoller, for that matter).

The knee-jerk condemnation Obama got on this page based on just a few sentances quoted in an article from a demonstrably right-wing paper (that might just be cherry picking quotes to pull out of context) tells me Obama might have struck a nerve with some folks.

Why is Obama NOT deserving of the benefit of the doubt?

Bill Clinton took a terrible and utterly un-progressive plan by Newt Gingrich to "reform" welfare, tweaked it slightly and made it the centerpiece of his his second term (not to mention his presidential legacy). Clinton is NOT a progressive, and yet Stoller makes a post fawning over his optimism and wonkiness. Why the double standard?

Wow, we are pretty quick to lynch our own out here, aren't we?  So what if he didn't say "some Democrats"?  Is anyone really so dense to think that he actually means each and every individual Democrat?

God, you're so quick to point out the absence of the qualifier "some" but you're completely oblivious to the qualifier "appear".  He's about talking about our party image, and our general failure to communicate a coherent idealogy outside of our many disagreements with the Republican agenda.  Does anyone here really think we don't have a problem with our image, or that this problem can best be fixed by simply pretending it doesn't exist?  Even if you don't think it's the same problem Obama identifies, why can't you just chill out and listen to what he says rather than using hyperbole to stir up an angry mob?

"There is a real timidity and weakness in terms of Democrats being willing to stand up to this error of American foreign policy" -Russ Feingold
http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/ 2005/10/10/feingold/index.html?pn=2

Ouch, Feingold just said that each and every registered Democrat is timid and weak and unwilling to take a stand on the war.  

C'mon, Matt.  Be reasonable.  Just because you disagree with Obama's message, or even think it's harmful/counterproductive, you can't possibly think the last paragraph of your post is a fair representation of what he said.  Saying that we "appear" to be suspecious of all military action is quivalent to him calling us all anti-military.  Saying that we've sacraficed "the moral language" isn't the same thing as calling us amoral.  And hell, just because he said "Democrats" instead of "some Democrats" doesn't mean he's talking about each of us as individuals, just as that it an unfair assumption with the Feingold quote up above.

It has been amazing to see how many people from all sides all see Barack Obama as something special, just because he's...Barack Obama.

What does this guy actually DO? He's a great talker, everyone projects on him all sorts o' progressive "hope" but as far as I can tell, he's nothing more than yet another lightweight politico who enjoys some cover because of his bio but is nothing more than a lightweight who believes his own hype.....and copies talking points from Lieberman.